• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some Top 10 Lists...

Good God, this borders on scary.

The 9th most popular movie amongst conservative college students is "Zulu". So young conservatives really enjoy a movie where thousands of africans get gunned down? Seems about right.
 
Stellafane said:
And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?
Click to expand...

There was an article in the New Republic not too long ago about these conservative dating sites. The author claims that the women on the sites tend to be true social conservatives (a lot of "no sex before marriage" types), while the men are more libertarian. The sites are mainly popular in blue states -- it's not like you need a lot of help to find conservatives in Alabama.

Dog Boots said:
What are they trying to do!? Why on Earth should that not be people's of business? Do they fear that if a good conservative should get a democratic better half, then he or she will convert? Are they that insecure?
Click to expand...

It's an ad for a dating site, what's the big deal? It's not some ideological plot to stop conservatives from "converting." It's a business that's making money by matching people up with what they're looking for.

I'm neither a conservative nor a member of any dating site, but I can understand the purpose. I don't much care about the political views of women I date, but many people do. And imagine being halfway through a date that seems to be going well, when your date discovers that you voted for or support _______, and is appalled and wants nothing further to do with you.
 
Stellafane said:
I think it's the imperative "Stop dating liberals!" (which could be interpreted as a command) that's the most disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Most advertising contains imperatives:

"Sign up today!"
"Lose weight now!"
"Just do it!"
"Do the Dew!"
 
Dunstan said:
Most advertising contains imperatives:

"Sign up today!"
"Lose weight now!"
"Just do it!"
"Do the Dew!"
Click to expand...

True -- but when the site doing it also features Novak and Coulter, and also lists Origin of Species as a dangerous book, it's frankly scary.
 
I'll argue against Mein Kampf being on the list of 'dangerous' books. I don't believe the book was widely read or very influetial in Hitler's rise to power. I always thought most of the copies were printed *after* Hitler was in charge and even then, most of the population didn't take it too seriously. I do believe it was dangerous *not* to read the book and had more people read it, maybe Hitler wouldn't have gotten so far.

I'm also disturbed that Darwin's books are on any thinking person's list of 'dangerous' books. Back in my college days, I considered myself to be conservative, which meant I was in favor of lower taxes and smaller government. These days, you can't be a conservative without condemning science, which means you have to deny things like evolution and promote whacko ideal like (un)Intelligent Design.

In any case, I disagree with the idea that books can be 'dangerous'. A couple of those books contain many ideas that are wrong and have lead to much of the human misery of the 20th century, but I can't blame the books for that. The real problem is getting large amounts of the population to go along with these horrible ideas and getting them to commit mass atrocities. Aside from #2 and #3, none of those books were written with the intent to justify mass atrocities. Marx and Engels would not have been very pleased with themselves if they knew what their ideas would lead to, but Hitler and Mao got exactly what they wanted when they wrote their books.
 
I gained a better insight into their choice of "most harmful" books after reading some of their other lists. I noticed that the great majority of their "ten best universities" and "ten best colleges" were Christian schools. Their "ten most dangerous professors included a number of extremist boogie men (and women) who are no doubt meant to be taken by readers as typical of "liberal" educators when It's actually like portraying Jim Jones and David Koresh as typical Christians. But the list of Ann Coulters favorite books to curl up with left me no doubt as to the bias of this site.

Steven
 
Meffy said:
I dare not look. What position is the Necronomicon on it?

... ON THE LIST, that is.
Click to expand...

#5. It's right under #4 How To Declare That Widows Enjoy Their Husband's Tragic Deaths and right above #6 Jesus Hates You Because You Don't Agree With Me. #1 was A Few Things I Pulled Out Of My Bum And Represented As Facts.

Steven
 
bjb said:
Marx and Engels would not have been very pleased with themselves if they knew what their ideas would lead to.
Click to expand...

"I am not a Marxist!" Karl Marx

Steven

He did say that, right? That's not apocryphal is it?
 
politas said:
Interesting that the most recent book on that list was penned in 1835. Talk about a conservative viewpoint!
Click to expand...

George Orwell's "Animal Farm", which was written as an anti-communist allegory, recieved honorable mention but not "1984", a warning against an all-controlling totalitarian government. Talk about a conservative viewpoint, indeed!
 
It's funny that they list their harmful books, some of which have indeed been misused to inflict harm on mankind, yet listed as the #1 book college students should read is probably the single book that has been misused to inflict the MOST harm on mankind of any document. What's with that?

I mean, I don't want any book burning going on, and I certainly don't think books can be harmful, so I'm going to assume it is misuse of books to cause harm that is the problem.

How is it that it's okay for The Bible to be misused for 2000 years to cause untold misery around the globe, yet the Kinsey Report (which quite frankly I've never heard of) gets shafted into number 4 slot as a bad bad book?

What will be in their Top 10 University Courses? Stoneing 101?

-Andrew

EDT. How on earth do you spell "stoneing" "stoning?" "stonning?" erm...
 
These are the same people who believe "guns don't kill people, people do," correct? So wouldn't it follow that "there are no dangerous books, only dangerous minds"?

As an aside: I have no doubt that if Gore were president, Coulter would be a CT'er and Dylan Avery would be making a very comfortable living off Republican contributions.
 
gumboot said:
How is it that it's okay for The Bible to be misused for 2000 years to cause untold misery around the globe, yet the Kinsey Report (which quite frankly I've never heard of) gets shafted into number 4 slot as a bad bad book?
Click to expand...
Which is why I wrote earlier:
Anacoluthon64 said:
Moreover, it is difficult to see how a book can, short of being ingested or used as a cudgel, be considered literally harmful. The ideas a book espouses can only be harmful to a particular ideology and then only if that ideology is hard to defend to begin with. That is not to say that such books as make up the list in question can't be roped in as a motivator in pursuit of some agenda, goal or ideal. But note that such efforts almost without fail boil down to exploiting ignorance by pretending to inform - i.e. the book, rather than reasoned enquiry, is the source of applicable wisdom. In this view, there is one particular book conspicuously absent from the list.

In fact, it should occupy first place.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Kinsey Report(s), at least some self-appointed protectors of public morality have taken the stance that Kinsey "fathered" ( :D ), via his supposed Darwinist viewpoint, the sexual revolution in the US. Therefore, evolution promotes sin and iniquity and is contra the One TrueTM god.

It hasn't occurred to the proponents of these ideas that there's an unaccounted-for time gap of almost 90 years between the publication of Darwin's ideas - which, one presumes, just lay dormant, festering in and corrupting the minds of nearly four generations - and Kinsey's observations; nor that Kinsey, merely reporting his observations, didn't make "amorality" happen.

BTW, it's "stoning."

'Luthon64
 
Dunstan said:
And imagine being halfway through a date that seems to be going well, when your date discovers that you voted for or support _______, and is appalled and wants nothing further to do with you.
Click to expand...

There's a "Democrat Match", too. (Or something like that. I forget the exact name.)

Personally, I think that anybody who makes politics a deal-breaker is a tool.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
There's a "Democrat Match", too. (Or something like that. I forget the exact name.)

Personally, I think that anybody who makes politics a deal-breaker is a tool.
Click to expand...

I think that politics make a much better deal-breaker than physical appearance (or even sex, for that matter).

Not quite as much of a deal-breaker as religion can be, though.

What do you think is a valid deal-breaker, if not what someone thinks about how social power should be used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom