You wrote:
"My argument is that the best way to help these people is not to provide material that's already available to them, but to provide better access to material that ISN'T readily available."
---
What makes you think that this isn't already happening???
Because, we live in a world of limited resources. No library is going to be able to afford every possible book, movie, magazine, CD, newspaper, document, and electronic media that has ever been in existence. Nor will they likely be able to obtain all such materials even through inter-library loans. (And even if the library can obtain information from other libraries, it will still take extensive delays.)
Because resources are limited, choices HAVE to be made.
Stuff that is available for 'free' on broadcast TV is NOT stuff we'd carry in the Library. Movies for instance that would be broadcast on TV are likely too old to be found on our shelves.
Ummm.... wait a second....
Previously, you argued that you can get stuff at the library if you're willing to
wait. Now, you're saying that, when it comes to stuff on 'free' tv, the movies will have to be 'old' and waiting until it IS shown is not acceptable? I sense a double standard here.
I don't think you understand what a straw man is,
Straw man... to attack someone's point of view by making up stuff that they never actually stated or believed in, assigning those beliefs to the other person, then attacking those false beliefs.
Like the way you said some people can't afford to pay for cable TV and/or movie tickets, when I never mentioned those as alternatives, and specifically mentioned FREE alternatives (like broadcast TV and/or radio). Or the way you suggest I want to eliminate people's access to information, when I have not done anything of the sort.
Whether 'you' believe it or not, there ARE those for whom the Library is their ONLY source of information. They can't afford TV's or the antenna to pick up broadcast stations.
If they can't afford TVs, then how exactly are they going to watch DVDs (which is one of the items I've suggested should be limited in acquisitions)? Or are they just going to use them as very shiny coasters?
Oh, and by the way, I've already pointed out that libraries can and should continue to carry newspapers, which is, guess what? A source of information.
This especially goes for Internet users, a function that you 'think' should be or can be found for free elsewhere.
There are options for SOME people to obtain internet access for free... students usually have access at school, others through work.
As for those who don't have it through school or work (and are unable or unwilling to use one of the free ISPs, or who can't use a cybercafe...) they can still use the library as their news source through their newspaper and magazine collection (which can now be enhanced if the library isn't spending money on computers and internet connections). Yeah, they'll actually have to deal with real paper. The horror.
Libraries offer service to EVERYONE, for WHATEVER they wish, as far as media goes. If a Library were to STOP offering access to ALL media, then it wouldn't be a Library anymore!!!
You know, I stopped by a branch of my local library and did some checking. My library does not offer X-rated movies. Does that mean that its not a library? My library does not offer fine art to take home. Does that mean that its not a library? Both of those are types of media. But my library is not offering access to them.
Not that I'd expect you to answer those questions... after all, with your dogmatic approach, facts like that tend to get ignored.
Your taking a sentence out of context and responding ti it, as though it was meant to stand as a lone argument is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Uhhh... no... the problem is, you're trying to use speech which is confusing and inappropriate for this discussion.
Given the fact that you seem to think the library is somehow the only way people can get content, its not a stretch to think that you think the library IS the world.
What I said was "There is no world outside the Library. The Library itself is the world outside your little town.."
Uhh... no... the library is IN the town. It provides content. People are also in the town. They can either use the library for content, or they can use other sources (either free or paid) for information or entertainment. But guess what? The library can still carry content reflecting the outside world (just not in '. And other sources can ALSO provide information about the outside world.
...denying people access to 'all' of that world is nothing less than supporting intellectual imprisonment, by poverty."
This is a fine example of the straw-man argument that I have referred to earlier. I never said people should be denied access to 'world' information. People below the poverty line should have access to all the newspapers, magazines, books, etc. they want or need.
Not all Libraries are situated close to or within reach of 'other' media sources.
TV and radio stations are likely going to provide more broadcast coverage than a librarie's service area (and also have longer hours of operation.)
Often times they grow out of the sheer need for information due to its desparate lacking, in out of the way places, not unlike my small town Library.
And often they grow because local politicians want to do some pork-barreling.
By making a 'new' set of rules as to what will be 'allowed' in any given Library, there is a high likelyhood that someone is going to be told, "I am sorry, we no longer offer those services."...
So what? If they are services that they can already get for free elsewhere, then I'm not going to have much sympathy for them.
...and then be denied access to that information.
No, they won't be. They can either A) get the information for free elsewhere, or B) obtain the same 'information' from the library, just in book/newspaper/magazine form.
Look, quite frankly, I think you are a wackjob, blowing huge bubbles of crapfilled non-sense out of your pie hole and onto this board.
Boy, the insults of a dogmatic individual who as never actually presented anything useful in this thread. Wow, I'm hurt.
You have ignored the actual facts I have presented,
That's because the only 'facts' you have presented have been irrelevant.
Saying that "the library can get any stuff, but with delays" is irrelevant. Saying that they obtain their materials based on what patrons want is irrelevant.
Of course, when you HAVE been challenged to present actual 'facts' (like, why exactly we should be 're-inventing the wheel) you tend to ignore those, or resort to straw-man attacks (if not outright insults).
I seriously doubt that you have the capacity to hear anyone's argument, other than your own.
This might actually mean something if it were coming from someone who:
A) actually bothered presenting relevant facts
B) actually made an attempt at addressing points I brought up
C) was actually capable of emitting a rational train of thought, rather than resorting to dogma
I'll leave you with, this:
YOU are WRONG, shut up, and forget about changing over a hundred years of Library Standards.
Ahhh... back to the dogma. Your old "I AM GOD THINGS ARE PERFECT THEY DON'T NEED TO CHANGE EVEN THOUGH I CAN'T BOTHER JUSTIFYING THINGS" argument.
A hundred years ago, libraries did not contain movies. They did not contain records/CDs/tapes.
Of course, if you want to use the argument about how things shouldn't be changed... slavery existed for decades; should people have said "forget about changing years of civil rights"? The religious school systems in parts of Canada existed for decades. Are you in favor of maintaining that system even though its wasteful, just because they have a long history of 'standards'?
YOUR plans, are NOT what is 'best for everyone'.
Once again... just because YOU disagree, does not mean that you are right.
I have presented a significant issue (lack of resources), and have suggested a way to handle library acquisitions in a way that helps the most people with the limited resources available.
Offering 'better' access to the stuff YOU deem to be 'more important' than other material that 'might' be found for free elsewhere, IS censorship.
Straw man... I never said we should grant access based on what
I think is
more important, only on what the alternative availability was.
If its available for free elsewhere, don't buy it. Its not censorship, its common sense.
Oh, and by the way: just to remind you, the idea of free speech does
not mean that it is up to the government to provide access to everyone's opinions, only that a person has the
right to state opinions. There is no guarantee of an audience.
The FREE access you are suggesting that could replace LIbrary service is NON-EXISTANT, for many.
Still waiting for proof of this. But given your track record, I guess the only thing I can expect are A) more irrelevant statements, B) more strawmen, and C) more insults.
