Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You expect the library police to come swarming out of unmarked vans?So if she did, why are there no charges for destruction of public property?
Theres some decent people on both sides. Pence, for example, would never have stooped to this, nor McConnell - not that I'd vote for them. I dont get that nasty vibe from Biden either.Those days no longer exist in American politics, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican.
No it isn't. Burning actually destroys the book and its contents. Suppressing misinformation (not sure why you put that in quotes. Perhaps you mean something else?) simply removes it from being available in a specific venue. The misinformation is still available to you if you wish to consume it through some other avenue. You can't unburn a book. (I know what your likely rebuttal will be. Don't bother. It's not the point.)Whether a book is burned or suppressed for "misinformation," the result is the same.
No sweatPerhaps the drug analogy wasn't a good one.
...best I could come up with late in the evening lol.
LOL!! That seemed.....specific.But my general point was that a person who wishes to put restrictions on other people (but are self aware in doing so) aren't inherently any better, with regards how it impacts others, than people who want to blindly do it -- that is, if there's no good reason for doing it in the first place.
Perhaps this one is better:
If Joe Smith says "I don't want you to be allowed to have whiskey, but I guess beer is okay, but I at least I'm self aware enough to admit that I'm not an pro-alcohol absolutist"
And Dan Jones says "I don't want you to have whiskey, but we still want to see ourselves as the party of alcohol rights absolutism because we're okay with beer, and I see zero irony in this"
It doesn't matter that Dan Jones's statement is more ridiculous and ironic, the end result is me not being allowed to get any Crown Royal this weekend.
So, you're unaware of this?No it isn't. Burning actually destroys the book and its contents. Suppressing misinformation (not sure why you put that in quotes. Perhaps you mean something else?) simply removes it from being available in a specific venue. The misinformation is still available to you if you wish to consume it through some other avenue. You can't unburn a book. (I know what your likely rebuttal will be. Don't bother. It's not the point.)
“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”Whether a book is burned or suppressed for "misinformation," the result is the same.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”
― Heinrich Heine
American politics really is kids playing dress up. What baffles me is when the locals say “yep! That’s our guy/gal!”One Missouri GOP candidate has incorporated book burning into her campaign. Valentina Gomez, who is running for secretary of state, posted a video of herself burning public library books with a flamethrower.
A library catalog label can be seen attached to at least one of the burning books.
Last year, you may recall that candidate for governor Bill Eigel used a flamethrower on empty boxes to demonstrate his position on woke books and the liberal agenda. Metaphorically speaking.
I'm not castigating or giving a pass to anyone, and I sure as heck ain't gonna support any attempt to censor or suppress anyone. I just think the idea of burning books is dangerous, even beyond the censorship part of it."All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
- George Orwell
Not surprisingly, a Republican gets castigated for putting a torch to some books, but a Democrats working to censor or suppress them seem to get a pass.
And? Were any laws or edicts passed stating Amazon could not sell such books? Did the government demand Amazon turn over it's physical inventory so the books could be destroyed? NO. They ASKED them to curtail their promotion and sale of books containing misinformation because it was a detriment to public health.So, you're unaware of this?
Biden aides pressed Amazon on ‘vaccine misinformation,’ reducing ‘visibility’ of COVID-related books
Senior Biden administration aides summoned Amazon officials to the White House during the height of the pandemic to discuss “propaganda and misinformation” in books for sale on the retail giant’s website that questioned the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.www.washingtontimes.com
In other words, Democrats who want to suppress information get a pass.And? Were any laws or edicts passed stating Amazon could not sell such books? Did the government demand Amazon turn over it's physical inventory so the books could be destroyed? NO. They ASKED them to curtail their promotion and sale of books containing misinformation because it was a detriment to public health.
If those are the words you want to use that's your prerogative. That's not what is happening though. These things are not the same no matter how much you want to convince yourself and others they are.In other words, Democrats who want to suppress information get a pass.
The most significant thing is the suppression of information, whether it's done by behind-the-scene meddling, or a commission as some seem to have wanted just a few years ago, or by tossing a book on a bonfire.I'm not castigating or giving a pass to anyone, and I sure as heck ain't gonna support any attempt to censor or suppress anyone. I just think the idea of burning books is dangerous, even beyond the censorship part of it.
Like what the UK Green Alliance has claimed Rowan Atkinson has made in pointing out the drawbacks of EV?It's all really telling though that conservatives get all bent out of shape when anyone talks about curbing or limiting mis and dis -information.
Oh no, people using free speech to comment on someone else's free speech!Like what the UK Green Alliance has claimed Rowan Atkinson has made in pointing out the drawbacks of EV?
Yeah, but it's very hard to suppress an idea, no matter how many books containing that idea you burn. It just seems to me that those who burn books so often don't stop there.The most significant thing is the suppression of information, whether it's done by behind-the-scene meddling, or a commission as some seem to have wanted just a few years ago, or by tossing a book on a bonfire.
I take it then that you support the suppression of information as long as it's done by a particular party.Oh no, people using free speech to comment on someone else's free speech!
OK, let's try to get back to the topic:
library books, removal and burning of.
The suppression of information never stops with the information itself. Disappearing people is the ultimate memory hole and happened all to often in the 20th Century. People like Solzhenitsyn have been among the lucky ones. To condemn one party and ignore or justify similar things by another is to focus on one tiger while another slips up behind you.Yeah, but it's very hard to suppress an idea, no matter how many books containing that idea you burn. It just seems to me that those who burn books so often don't stop there.
-- A2SG, and Heinrich seems to agree...
I haven't condemned or ignored anyone.The suppression of information never stops with the information itself. Disappearing people is the ultimate memory hole and happened all to often in the 20th Century. People like Solzhenitsyn have been among the lucky ones. To condemn one party and ignore or justify similar things by another is to focus on one tiger while another slips up behind you.
I'm not even sure there's a point in posting.I haven't condemned or ignored anyone.
You sure you responded to the post you intended to?
-- A2SG, seem to be missing something here....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?