brain...exploding...from...irony...

If you are saying that my outlook is that of the Nazis and Soviets (which is what I think you are saying) then you have misunderstood.My point was that I think the only thing a parent should do (and although not possible I think it remains the ideal) is to develop their child's critical faculties so they can attempt to evaluate their parent's beliefs or the ideals of the government, or any idea at all, with thoughtfulness and balance.I don't think this would have been viewed as helpful in a repressive regime like Soviet Russian, as I don't think it would be viewed as helpful by the father of that little girl at the start of this discussion.

I agree that Farenheit 451 is about not burning books. That was my point when I talked about the importance of irony or multiple meanings in a text. People like Vern believe that if something is represented in a text it is being condoned. This is patently absurd, but I further offered and explanation of this seemingly odd behaviour: the suggestion that people like him think like this because of their relationship to scripture. Any thoughts on this?I also agree with your assessment of Vern's proclivities when it comes bibliographic pyrotechnics. I'd be interested if you could outline where it is we differ on either of these issues.As for the parent's responsibility to moulding their children, my point was that if a parent has any faith in the validity of their own beliefs, then they should not impose beliefs on their children, but instead teach them to evaluate evidence and weigh up arguments. If their parent's beliefs do indeed hold any water (holy or otherwise), then their children will probably find themselves sharing them; and if they do it will be because they have thought about it for themselves, and not because they have been imposed from on high.If the children end up chosing a different set of beliefs, then at least the parent's can console themselves with the idea that they have given their child the tools to make an informed choice.Does that make sense?

I've never heard of Kinsey. None of those people have radio shows, at least not in my market. Huffington is famous because she runs a blog where all points of view are expressed. Carville? I haven't heard hide nor hair of him since the Clinton days.It's 100% ridiculous to assert some kind of liberal parity in terms of commentator bias and untruthfulness, especially with the entire broadcast news media currently devoted to unquestioningly repeating Republican metanarratives.

quote:

---

I was never talking about just liars, and don't particularly care to, as I don't happen to think that mere liars are the worst of 'em.

---

So it's bad when they lie, but it's even worse when they tell the truth? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

quote:

---

I don't believe I ever said there were as many one the left as there are on the right,

---

No, but that was your clear implication. It makes no sense for you to have replied in the way you did, saying that there are "plenty" of such liars, crooks, and villians on both sides, if all you wanted to say was that "any" exist on the left.

quote:

---

not even sure I ever said they were "equivalent." IIRC, I said there were plenty on both sides.

---

But there aren't, according to my estimation.I asked you to show that I'm wrong, and you were unable to.Look, I was talking about Rush Limbaugh. I criticized him, specifically, as being a terrible liar. You then said that there are "plenty" of people like him on the other side of the fence.I challenged you to show that this was true, and you didn't.My estimation is that there are far, far, far more more of these sorts of people on the right who play fast and loose with the truth, and that they are very popular and well-known and influential with conservative groups in the US.It is also my estimation that there are only a handful of such people in the media who support liberal causes by using lies and ditortions as do Limbaugh, Coulter, and O'Reilly and others, and they do not garner anywhere near the same support from liberal groups in the US and are not anywhere near as known and are therefore far less influential.If your current point is merely that "demagoguery exists on both sides of the aisle", then we have no argument.I will point out that your previous reply attempted to put my criticism of Limbaugh into some kind of broader context, and that context, I took to mean, was that there was "plenty" of that kind of behavior going on on the liberal side, so I shouldn't single Limbaugh out.Well, "plenty" and "any" are not equivalent words.

quote:

---

I was simply trying to make the point that demogoguery is not the exclusive domain of any political party.

---

I never said it wasn't. I was simply challenging your clear implication that it was equal from both sides of the aisle, and that one could easily find "Liberal Rush Limbaughs".Sorry, but you really can't.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

Sorry, had to make a trip and didn't have time to respond. This is a big question to answer. I should start by making clear that my claim was not phrased as well as it could have been. I was addressing censorship as a whole, which is seen in the sentence directly preceding the "liberals have books they want outlawed". A better phrase would have been "liberals have communication they want to censor". This is not to back away from the claim, as there are liberals looking to oulaw books, just to note that examples are greater as we shift away from just books and just outlawing.There are several different topics which could be addressed, and I'm not sure how to do this without making an overly long post, or leaving the rather limited scope your OP sets up. Communication is not just books, and may include purely textual, to purely auditory, to purely visual. Your OP is about a book. Clearly banning (outlawing) is not the same as burning (social protest) which is not the same as censoring (nongovt'l orgs limiting language through production/access) which is not the same as limiting certain communication within educational facilities or programs at such facilities (restrictions for minors and education of minors). Your OP is about educational restrictions.Let me start at its broadest (communication censored), and move to the most narrow (your OP example of limiting educational access by children to certain books).I think skepticfaith had a very accurate depiction of how censorship is handled as a whole. Sex and violence are "givens" for censorship of all kinds, at both the gov't and public levels. This is because one will find liberals side by side with conservatives on those issues, as of course they have continued with some of the same underlying beliefs regarding both.The difference comes in when we move away to other subjects. Conservatives will be upset by other issues, which most liberals are not. Hence they come off as being the ones that are censorship happy, because liberals tend not to view their own actions (including those ones in concert with conservatives) as censorship, but just being reasonable and validly acting to protect the public.One can see liberals in action with various laws and other restrictions on sexual speech pretty much all the time. That is one of their biggest bad guys. Feminists in particular have pushed anti-sexual speech agendas, but it is not limited to them by any means. As a consequence graphic sexuality is severely limited, and some forms (involving SM, scatological, bestiality, and minors) are outright forbidden. Liberals, along with their conservative counterparts, usually dismiss complaints about such restrictions by appealing to protection of society as well as describing such content as not communication, including books. That's quite the convenience.If we want to look at brain blowing irony, we have Sen Clinton worried about children being able to go out and find hidden codes which will allow them to access more sexually graphic themes, because sex is not healthy for kids... in video games devoted to running around stealing and murdering. Hello?Or how about recent moves in Sweden to accept feminist concepts regarding sexual content, despite the absolute absence of any sort of evidence for their claims except of course blatant counterevidence? Here you can see that the majority of youths, and a great number being left (green) desire bans on sexual graphic material. In this article you can read about the history of sexual content in Sweden, with liberals having passed legislation to restrict access by politicians and military to sexually graphic material, and even booting a member from a party because he had been involved in such.In the brain blowing irony category, that move by sweden to restrict the ability of politicians and military to access sexually graphic material is based on the concept that it is harmful to women... yet it denies them access to such material which only involves males as well as material made by women, while allowing them to access any amount of material which actually does involve violence to women and may even promote it, as long as the "naughty bits" aren't showing. The quote by one of the women leading that campaign (in the second article above) is laughably related to the hick you had in your article. Oh she isn't for banning everything that is pornographic, just apparently what she deems as pornographic.You might even peruse Tipper and Al Gore's efforts to protect kids which resulted in labelling records (focused more heavily on sex), as well as read Tipper's book which even included suggestions for censoring clothing and religious experimentation/variation in children.I could go on about this for pages, but I'm going to narrow the focus...If you want cases of limiting access to books within children's educational programs then you will often find liberals attempting, and sometimes succeeding, in removing material with overtly religious themes, racist themes, antigay themes, or even promilitary themes. Recent movements to disallow recruiters from handing out pamphets could certainly be viewed in that same light, and is solely from a liberal stance. While religion is supposed to not be "taught" in public schools that really is censorship, and by law. And even though I support that I don't see the problem with school's owning Bibles or allowing for students to read such as part of class assignments.But once again, we can return to the standards of violence and sex. Even patently nonviolent nonsexual books like In the Night Kitchen have been attacked because of nudity. Ones with actual violent or sexual themes generally stand less of a chance. It is doubtful that the likes of Jack Ketchum, Ed Lee, or even more classical writers such as DeSade are going to make it onto school library shelves, or into reading curriculum. You won't have hicks asking to have them removed, because liberal librarians and teachers would have already knocked them out to begin with.Let me end by proposing a scenario. Let's say Bradbury writes a sequal to F451 (F2000, temp where human bodies are cremated), and it became just as famous within a year or two. The idea of this story is nearly identical, only now the firemen are responsible for burning the human "books" as well. The character is or befriends a "book" and must help the community survive.You would agree, I assume, that the hick in your example would be just as silly, and ultimately ironic, for demanding the book be removed if it contained the same items of bibles being burned and using the name of god in vain, blah blah blah.Yet it turns out that in this case one of the books, real or a "person book", the character encounters is De Sade's "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man", or "Eugene de Franval", or even better "Philosophy in the Bedroom". If you have not read them, I can assure you that they have a textual narrative, including a plot and moral/political message. Indeed some of it is quite biting humor. The only thing is that they include some incredibly graphic depictions of sexual activity.It would be easy to choose other authors such as Anais Nin, Henry Miller, or maybe even certain writings of Bukowski. But lets cut to the chase and go with a heavy hitter that has really bad connotations with his name alone.Bradbury's new novel F2000, has a character reciting sections of one of these classics from DeSade. Is it appropriate for a school to allow kids to read this as part of an assignment?If not, what is the difference between what you would say for F2000 and what the hick says about F451? How would it be less ironic? If you would feel it is appropriate for school, would you grant me that there would be liberals out there raising an objection to it? If not, why not, especially given direct feminist critique of DeSade?Edited by holmes, : new titleEdited by holmes, : typo

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I think it's rare for me to disagree with you, but I do in this case... Perhaps it is a misunderstanding of what you mean by "impose". If you meant they should not scream and shout it at their kids and punish them for any deviation then I guess I might agree. But I took you to mean actual instruction with a measure of holding their kids to practice a set of beliefs, and expectation that the kids should practice those beliefs. If that is the case then I disagree.If you have faith in the belief system you practice then it only seems logical that one would instruct one's children in that system from the very beginning so that they don't have to waste time reinventing the wheel. I mean if one followed that advice there would be no real progression of that belief system.To my mind it would be better to teach children what one believes and help them practice that behavior to give them practice within that system. I do agree that they should be given the ability to evaluate evidence and weigh up arguments, and an ability to experience other systems so as to evaluate the old and new systems. But I don't see why experience of other systems and aggressively flouting the parent's system should be allowed from the beginning in some open ended process, where parents have to have faith that the kids will one day realize the value of their own beliefs.It sort of reminds me of martial arts. If a grandmaster has a child, it would make little sense for that master to NOT raise the child practicing within that system, and holding it to the discipline necessary to be proficient in that way of life. It would seem almost absurd to show it little, and not enforce the demands of that practice, letting it shuffle about here and there in life and hope that it will one day reconstruct the martial art system the grandmaster had founded.It is only by having a base one has trained in, coupled with an ability to evaluate evidence and weigh arguments, that one is prepared to move into life and grow that base, and then teach one's own children who will then add on to that, etc etc...Otherwise it will simply be other people who are more aggressive, teaching your kid their system, and their not necessarily understanding the roots of much less the finer points of, your own system. And unfortunately really crappy systems may be the more fun systems or easier to practice as a child.Just some thoughts from my perspective.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I see that I did misread what you posted. I still disagree with what you posted, but I don't want to get into an argument about the proper duty of parents vis a vis the training of children; I wanted to argue against what I thought that you said. Sorry about that.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

No worries, bat chap,I don't want to get into that argument either. I haven't ever had any children, and so who am I to comment on the finer points of child-rearing? To be honest I was thinking my position as I was writing it, and so won't be aghast if it doesn't stand up to a degree of scrutiny.This is completely off-topic, but talking of dystopias (well, we were talking about farenheit 451 a bit at one point) I just got back from a showing of Children of Men and I was really impressed. If the premise tickles you at all, and you are at all like me, you will be rather impressed by it.Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

Cheers holmes,Always good to hear from you. I suspect that we aren't disagreeing very much here, and that I've just not made myself sufficiently clear. Perhaps there is an issue of substance here though; you'll soon see.When I used the word "impose" I was thinking of emotional blackmail, primarily - though verbal abuse, the threat of physical abuse and actual physical harm would definitely be be other techniques for imposing beliefs on children. I've seen people be heavily pressured to adopt a faith by their parents, and I've seen people be treated with aloofness by their parents for adopting a faith. In both instances I felt something sad was happening.I hadn't thought about the "re-inventing the wheel" aspect. On reflection though, I don't think its necessarily a problem.After all, you can't realistically hide your beliefs from your children. They are going to get a fairly developed idea of your philosophy just by being around you. Ideally though, I think you wouldn't be dogmatic about the things you believe, to the extent that you would expose them to as many other ideas as you can comfortably manage. Swamp the little critters in stuff.You'd just act naturally and love your kids, and give them the tools for argument, and probably have some unavoidable influence on them but never judge them if they disagreed with you - just challenge their ideas to see if they'd thought about it.I hear your worry about the siren song of others who might nab your children's souls if you are too busy being open-minded. I can only really offer a personal perspective here. My mother and father did a thorough job of instilling a sense of skepticism in me from a very early age. They did such a good job in fact that for as long as I can remember I have always found those who try to pressure me and not argue me into their beliefs to be flagged up by my early warning systems. Perhaps I haven't been submitted to the same degree of pressure as others though, it's true.But I think a child armed with a rational approach to argument is going to be a lot less likely to go and believe something really wacky than a child schooled into believing things are a certain way just because.Naieve? Probably. Like I just said to Chiroptera, I've never raised even one child so I haven't lived at the sharp-end of child-rearing. I probably have a pretty unrealistic idea of how these things work.

{bold mine}Wouldn't it be easier to just read the book?!

This reminds me of a quote; I'm pretty sure it was Jerry Falwell commenting that he had not actually read/seen the book/movie he was protesting (I believe it was The Last Temptation of Christ): "You don't have to smell a sewer to know that it stinks." Heh.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

I'm sure we're not far away from each other, but I think there is a key difference. But some systems of belief are strict and demand characteristics such a loyalty much more strongly than others. I may not like such systems, and feel sort of sad for anyone stuck in those systems, but that does not make it less valid. I don't think of it as unfair for kids growing up in them in some objective sense, as there is no teleological demand for anyone. I don't think your attitude is wrong, and in an idealistic way (to my mind) would largely be the way to handle things. Only I think there can and perhaps should be more to instructing one's kids than a "rubbing off" technique of having them see you and what you do. I think it's fair game to instruct them and perhaps enforce enough discipline so they gain experience practicing your lifestyle.As it is you would have to do that anyway. I mean its not like parents can just hope their kid learns to use the toilet or dress according to cultural expectations, by watching you. Even healthy eating habits, are sort of enforced practices and not follow by example.And to be truthful the mind can get set into paradigms or ways of thinking from an early age. There are concepts I DO NOT want my kids exposed to until they are able to integrate them from a vantagepoint of more critical thinking, and a separate worldview.The reason I want this is because I have met people from foreign nations who grew up outside of monotheistic doctrine, wholly unexposed, and they treat life in a different way, a way I believe is healthier and more natural. Concepts such as original sin, or guilt about the human body and its functions, or even good and evil, are corrosive and corruptive to the minds of children. It is easy to pick up and hard to lose, and clouds ways of thinking about all topics, even if one does not believe in the underlying religious mythology.I would want them to be exposed to as many ideas as possible, at some point. But from early on it may be important to impose discipline of some sort, and that can include ostracism or criticism to pull them emotionally back into practicing a more acceptable (similar) belief system to my own. That's kind of how learning works.And more to the point, I have seen parents who were critical thinkers and used a hands off approach (indeed said things very similar to what you said) have their kids converted to Xian fundamentalism. Rationality and logic will NOT prevent a person from dropping them in specific areas of their life in order to adopt a faith. The appeal they will receive from their converters is emotional. Countering it with sober factual analysis is NOT going to be persuasive.I have found those instances more saddening, than watching a parent (even monotheistic parents) dominating their own children. That makes sense. Losing a child to others that are willing to offer discipline and emotional reinforcement of an alien belief system does not.So I guess I'd say from my own experience... be careful.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I've read what you have to say, and I think you are probably right.