• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Circle Fully Turned: Fanny Hill Banned

Jack by the hedge said:
Nova Land said:
... if a book has been removed from a library's collection
Click to expand...


That does not appear to be what happened.
Click to expand...


Oh, it most certainly is what happened in Cookeville. I was there!

Granted, it's different from what happened in New Zealand. But as The Atheist pointed out, a difference which makes no difference is no difference.

In Cookeville books were removed from the collection. In New Zealand a book was removed from the reading list. What possible significant difference could there be between those two things? If you start down that slippery slope, before you know it someone will be claiming there's some significant difference between taking a book off a required reading list and banning it.
 
Beerina said:
In the middle east, such as Egypt, the government censored incoming news feeds. Their rationale was that "the People could not handle the information unvarnished, and the government needed to protect them."


This is exactly what seems to be going on now. That exact same reason. To justify censorship.
Click to expand...
What censorship?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
 
Nova Land said:
Oh, it most certainly is what happened in Cookeville. I was there!

Granted, it's different from what happened in New Zealand. But as The Atheist pointed out, a difference which makes no difference is no difference.

In Cookeville books were removed from the collection. In New Zealand a book was removed from the reading list. What possible significant difference could there be between those two things? If you start down that slippery slope, before you know it someone will be claiming there's some significant difference between taking a book off a required reading list and banning it.
Click to expand...

You appear to be describing two different things.

In one case a library removed a number of (so far as one knows entirely uncontroversial) books from its shelves for the sole reason that nobody read them. We might prefer no library ever did that but at least they had staff check that nothing of particular significance was being thrown away.

In the other case a controversial book was claimed to have been taken off a students' required reading list for one particular course, but now it seems it was never on that list in the first place.

Aside from the words 'book' and 'removed' these cases seem to have almost nothing whatever in common.
 
Does this apply to other areas?

Like, if I one day decide to have the regular fries with my Big Montana, will the Arby's cashier wonder why I've banned curly fries?
 
Cleon said:
Does this apply to other areas?

Like, if I one day decide to have the regular fries with my Big Montana, will the Arby's cashier wonder why I've banned curly fries?
Click to expand...

You need a more plausible hypothetical. Those curly fries are like angels compared to everything else on that menu.
 
Heh, perhaps The Atheist didn't read all the way to the end of the article:

She continued: "It is important not to exaggerate claims that students are stifling free speech on campus. We hope we have struck a balance between encouraging discussion of difficult issues without making life difficult for students who might feel coerced by academics."​
 
theprestige said:
Heh, perhaps The Atheist didn't read all the way to the end of the article:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should apply for the MDC? You seem to think you can read minds and you appear to have a similar success rate to people who have challenged for it.

theprestige said:
"It is important not to exaggerate claims that students are stifling free speech on campus. "
Click to expand...

You could make a nice strawman out of that - you know you want to.

(Nobody said that, or anything like it, which point seems to have escaped you.)
 
The Atheist said:
Just a note that the London University in the article is London, England.
Click to expand...


Thank you for helping make my point.

London (a city) is different from New Zealand (an imaginary island). But the important point is that a book was recently banned from a reading list.

Yes, being banned in London is different than being banned in New Zealand, but regardless of where the book is banned it's still banned and always has been banned. So the location makes no difference to the fact it was banned.

And a difference which makes no difference is no difference. Therefore being banned in London is the same as being banned in New Zealand, and it's fine to use the two interchangeably.

If it's okay in the thread title and OP to equate being removed from a reading list with being banned, why on earth would anyone disagree with equating London with New Zealand?
 
The Atheist said:
Perhaps you should apply for the MDC? You seem to think you can read minds and you appear to have a similar success rate to people who have challenged for it.



You could make a nice strawman out of that - you know you want to.

(Nobody said that, or anything like it, which point seems to have escaped you.)
Click to expand...
Dude, you exaggerated a single professor's voluntary and amicable curriculum adjustment into an outright banning. You compared to the heights of state censorship from hundreds of years ago. Are you saying you took that line *after* reading the professor's admonishment?

I was being charitable in suggesting you maybe had overlooked it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom