And apart from Schrodinger's utter disinterest in logic, there's also the fact that we're not discussing banning the n-word from class discussions, we're discussing bowdlerising.
Yup, People are defending putting pasties on the Venus De Milo for the children.
So you're in favor of getting rid of bathroom doors? Why is this analogy any better than mine?
The fact that something makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean that it's always a reason to do something. But it doesn't mean that it's never a reason to do something either.
If the child of holocaust survivors said that she didn't want to read Mein Kampf, would you tell her to suck it up because it was the only way for her to learn about why Hitler was a bad dude? (Hint: I'm sure she already knows that).
Yes, education is important. No one disputes this. The problem is that some children have already been educated in this subject in a traumatic way, and this lesson plan can reinforce the trauma.
You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.
Some highschools have their students read Lolita, you know.
You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.
Some highschools have their students read Lolita, you know.
And in your mind there were no consequences in Lolita? Did you ever read it?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
You can have books in HS presenting pedophilia or incest as a bad thing. You probably wouldn't have books where the main character engages in it casually and without consequence.
Some highschools have their students read Lolita, you know.
And in your mind there were no consequences in Lolita? Did you ever read it?
There were, but Nabokov also gets the reader to sympathize, and even like, a child molester.
Anyway, I have yet to see a part of the book in any way changed by the substitution rather than a few words having different letters. In other words, show me a section of Huck Finn changed more than correcting a typo would change it.
Thats not our burden of proof.
Uh, yeah, it is. This isn't a goddamn science experiment -- both sides should be able to support their claims. This isn't like saying "vaccines cause autism" or something. Both sides' arguments should be reasonably well-constructed. I mean "proof" is a silly word in a debate like this anyway.
Also, people on the other side of the debate have provided support for this numerous times.
An excellent one was provided upthread then promptly ignored by Agent.
I missed it. Can you link?
Don't want to page through for it but it was along the lines of
"killed that n
"
"killed that slave"
Yes, ignored. That's why I spent a page talking about how silly it was to apply modern misconceptions just so you can insist that there's some huge change in meaning.
You really do have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to inconvenient facts.
I should say it was ignored by anyone presenting a cogent argument.
Oh, did my calling you out damage you precious ego again? If you want people to respect you you should acquire some intellectual honesty and stop slandering those you disagree with.
agentk13 on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
And apart from Schrodinger's utter disinterest in logic, there's also the fact that we're not discussing banning the n-word from class discussions, we're discussing bowdlerising.
Yup, People are defending putting pasties on the Venus De Milo for the children.
So you're in favor of getting rid of bathroom doors? Why is this analogy any better than mine?
Because putting a speedo on French Sculptures so that a school trip to the met doesn't see marble dong is analogous to changing the actual text of a book for the children.
Your "getting rid of bathroom doors" analogy is...well... let's just say we're talking about different things.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not advocating mandatory teaching of books that have the n word in them to toughen kids up or any such nonsense. If a school or parents don't want the book taught, then don't teach it. However if you're going to include it in the curriculum, don't use a bullshit bowlderized edition.
Defacing art to make it "safe" isn't cool, holmes.
And apart from Schrodinger's utter disinterest in logic, there's also the fact that we're not discussing banning the n-word from class discussions, we're discussing bowdlerising.
Yup, People are defending putting pasties on the Venus De Milo for the children.
So you're in favor of getting rid of bathroom doors? Why is this analogy any better than mine?
Because putting a speedo on French Sculptures so that a school trip to the met doesn't see marble dong is analogous to changing the actual text of a book for the children.
Your "getting rid of bathroom doors" analogy is...well... let's just say we're talking about different things.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not advocating mandatory teaching of books that have the n word in them to toughen kids up or any such nonsense. If a school or parents don't want the book taught, then don't teach it. However if you're going to include it in the curriculum, don't use a bullshit bowlderized edition.
Defacing art to make it "safe" isn't cool, holmes.
I should say it was ignored by anyone presenting a cogent argument.
Oh, did my calling you out damage you precious ego again? If you want people to respect you you should acquire some intellectual honesty and stop slandering those you disagree with.
Libel, not slander.
But no u.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited January 2011
look
fucking behave
if i have to come back in here i'm throwing cards and shutting the thread
ok?
Irond Will on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
Don't we do this all the time and call it an "abridged" version?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
Yeah but you need to show its needed. You can't just say "some kids find this offensive" and call it a day. You actually need to show why this specific instance isn't ok, otherwise you're advocating going through classical literature and filtering out all the words people might find offensive, which is stupid.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
If the words the author wrote, that the author chose to convey his meaning, then the kind of binding or font is not changing the art itself.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
Yeah but you need to show its needed. You can't just say "some kids find this offensive" and call it a day. You actually need to show why this specific instance isn't ok, otherwise you're advocating going through classical literature and filtering out all the words people might find offensive, which is stupid.
Because those would effect the meaning expressed by the work. This change only effects the mistranslation of a modern reader reading an old text.
Now, if it's not needed nobody will buy this edition of the work. It's as simple as that.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
Yeah but you need to show its needed. You can't just say "some kids find this offensive" and call it a day. You actually need to show why this specific instance isn't ok, otherwise you're advocating going through classical literature and filtering out all the words people might find offensive, which is stupid.
Because those would effect the meaning expressed by the work. This change only effects the mistranslation of a modern reader reading an old text.
Now, if it's not needed nobody will buy this edition of the work. It's as simple as that.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about editing old works that have a bad word in it is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
Yeah but you need to show its needed. You can't just say "some kids find this offensive" and call it a day. You actually need to show why this specific instance isn't ok, otherwise you're advocating going through classical literature and filtering out all the words people might find offensive, which is stupid.
Because those would effect the meaning expressed by the work. This change only effects the mistranslation of a modern reader reading an old text.
Now, if it's not needed nobody will buy this edition of the work. It's as simple as that.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Changing the wording in a book and changing the binding have nothing to do with each other.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Assuming we're talking about changing an authors work, then changing words and changing type face arnt the same league, it aint even the same sport. Shakespere would still be shakespere even if you printed it in comic sans.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Assuming we're talking about changing an authors work, then changing words and changing type face arnt the same league, it aint even the same sport. Shakespere would still be shakespere even if you printed it in comic sans.
So, why is changing this word bad? So far, all I've seen is argument by analogy to censorship.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Assuming we're talking about changing an authors work, then changing words and changing type face arnt the same league, it aint even the same sport. Shakespere would still be shakespere even if you printed it in comic sans.
So, why is changing this word bad? So far, all I've seen is argument by analogy to censorship.
Because that's the word the author chose when he wrote the book. It's his art and it's not for us to alter it.
If you want to change it, then you might as well take twain's name off of it. It's no longer his work.
Why is taking harry potter off the bookshelves bad? Its not like there aren't other kids books they can read and if they want they can always go buy a copy themselves.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
Agent, did you ever actually show there was even an actual problem? Or that this could fix it?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
/facepalm
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Assuming we're talking about changing an authors work, then changing words and changing type face arnt the same league, it aint even the same sport. Shakespere would still be shakespere even if you printed it in comic sans.
So, why is changing this word bad? So far, all I've seen is argument by analogy to censorship.
Because that's the word the author chose when he wrote the book. It's his art and it's not for us to alter it.
If you want to change it, then you might as well take twain's name off of it. It's no longer his work.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
Then you should read about how censorship happens. Its always by incremental steps.
First its something that someone finds offensive.
Its not a slippery slope because it actuallyhappens.
But again, you still haven't shown a need for it to be removed. Without showing that this is all pointless because you're using an appeal to emotion from a few offended kids and mothers.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
Then you should read about how censorship happens. Its always by incremental steps.
First its something that someone finds offensive.
Its not a slippery slope because it actuallyhappens.
But again, you still haven't shown a need for it to be removed. Without showing that this is all pointless because you're using an appeal to emotion from a few offended kids and mothers.
Censorship has always started with someone publishing his or her edition of a book and selling it in the same marketplace as other editions? I thought it started with government officials outlawing criticism. Who knew!
First they picked their noses, then they came for the Jews!
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
Then you should read about how censorship happens. Its always by incremental steps.
First its something that someone finds offensive.
Its not a slippery slope because it actuallyhappens.
But again, you still haven't shown a need for it to be removed. Without showing that this is all pointless because you're using an appeal to emotion from a few offended kids and mothers.
Censorship has always started with someone publishing his or her edition of a book and selling it in the same marketplace as other editions? I thought it started with government officials outlawing criticism. Who knew!
Nope it starts when people accept changing literature to stop from hurting someone's feelings. Then a library or school's policy spreads, then it becomes law, then it just goes down hill.
Now please, show us that its necessary to edit Huck Fin. You keep avoiding this one.
Styrofoam Sammich on
0
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about letting gays marry is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
Saying this is going down "a bad road" isn't an example of a slippery slope.
For your reference: "Printing a bowlderized edition of Huck Finn will lead to previous editions being burned" is
an example of a slippery slope.
If I were you, I'd stop calling out "proving a negative!" or "slippery slope!", because you seem to be invoking them too often and incorrectly.
Posts
So you're in favor of getting rid of bathroom doors? Why is this analogy any better than mine?
The fact that something makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean that it's always a reason to do something. But it doesn't mean that it's never a reason to do something either.
If the child of holocaust survivors said that she didn't want to read Mein Kampf, would you tell her to suck it up because it was the only way for her to learn about why Hitler was a bad dude? (Hint: I'm sure she already knows that).
Yes, education is important. No one disputes this. The problem is that some children have already been educated in this subject in a traumatic way, and this lesson plan can reinforce the trauma.
And in your mind there were no consequences in Lolita? Did you ever read it?
There were, but Nabokov also gets the reader to sympathize, and even like, a child molester.
Yes, ignored. That's why I spent a page talking about how silly it was to apply modern misconceptions just so you can insist that there's some huge change in meaning.
You really do have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to inconvenient facts.
I should say it was ignored by anyone presenting a cogent argument.
Oh, did my calling you out damage you precious ego again? If you want people to respect you you should acquire some intellectual honesty and stop slandering those you disagree with.
Because putting a speedo on French Sculptures so that a school trip to the met doesn't see marble dong is analogous to changing the actual text of a book for the children.
Your "getting rid of bathroom doors" analogy is...well... let's just say we're talking about different things.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not advocating mandatory teaching of books that have the n word in them to toughen kids up or any such nonsense. If a school or parents don't want the book taught, then don't teach it. However if you're going to include it in the curriculum, don't use a bullshit bowlderized edition.
Defacing art to make it "safe" isn't cool, holmes.
I think you need to look up the word "deface."
Libel, not slander.
But no u.
fucking behave
if i have to come back in here i'm throwing cards and shutting the thread
ok?
If you did I missed it.
But really, all I saw was "Some people don't like this word, so we should edit Huck Fin"
Actually, all I've said is that it's not a big deal or damaging to the work and that you're just throwing a tizzy about how black kids need to suck it up.
Also, slander is for transitory mediums like this one.
It's changing a pretty important piece of american art. I don't think that should ever happen.
Which Ray Bradbury fought against as a form of censorship.
"Changing" the binding type to paperback or "changing" the font size are also "changing a pretty important piece of american art," but you don't see anyone throwing a tantrum about those cases.
Yeah but you need to show its needed. You can't just say "some kids find this offensive" and call it a day. You actually need to show why this specific instance isn't ok, otherwise you're advocating going through classical literature and filtering out all the words people might find offensive, which is stupid.
If the words the author wrote, that the author chose to convey his meaning, then the kind of binding or font is not changing the art itself.
Generally those are massive works filtered down to small ones, or more complicated stories made for younger audiences.
This is pretty common with things like Frankenstein for Dracula for younger kids, and in that case is a pretty good idea.
The first one, eh not so much.
But neither apply here.
If anything, this is Huck Fin: Radio Edit.
/facepalm
Because those would effect the meaning expressed by the work. This change only effects the mistranslation of a modern reader reading an old text.
Now, if it's not needed nobody will buy this edition of the work. It's as simple as that.
But you have to actually show there is a serious problem. Going about editing old works that have a bad word in it is a bad road and you need to show there is a reason to do so.
If you're trying to attack something for being in a category that's supposedly bad, you should make sure everything in the category is bad.
Changing the wording in a book and changing the binding have nothing to do with each other.
Assuming we're talking about changing an authors work, then changing words and changing type face arnt the same league, it aint even the same sport. Shakespere would still be shakespere even if you printed it in comic sans.
You did this earlier too.
The gay marriage will lead to bestiality thing is a slippery slope.
Saying editing books because you find them offensive will lead to worse and worse forms of the same isn't.
This is because bestiality and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.
So, why is changing this word bad? So far, all I've seen is argument by analogy to censorship.
Because that's the word the author chose when he wrote the book. It's his art and it's not for us to alter it.
If you want to change it, then you might as well take twain's name off of it. It's no longer his work.
Actually, the problem is that you have to show causality for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy. Simply saying that it's "a bad road" is a dictionary example of the slippery slope fallacy. The fact that I could change what you said to something about gay marriage by simply changing the subject shows that you failed to give any support to causality.
You're still categorically condemning paperbacks.
Then you should read about how censorship happens. Its always by incremental steps.
First its something that someone finds offensive.
Its not a slippery slope because it actuallyhappens.
But again, you still haven't shown a need for it to be removed. Without showing that this is all pointless because you're using an appeal to emotion from a few offended kids and mothers.
Stop being purposefully obtuse.
Censorship has always started with someone publishing his or her edition of a book and selling it in the same marketplace as other editions? I thought it started with government officials outlawing criticism. Who knew!
First they picked their noses, then they came for the Jews!
Changing the format of the book is not the same as changing the contents of the book. Can we stop being silly now?
Nope it starts when people accept changing literature to stop from hurting someone's feelings. Then a library or school's policy spreads, then it becomes law, then it just goes down hill.
Now please, show us that its necessary to edit Huck Fin. You keep avoiding this one.
Saying this is going down "a bad road" isn't an example of a slippery slope.
For your reference: "Printing a bowlderized edition of Huck Finn will lead to previous editions being burned" is
an example of a slippery slope.
If I were you, I'd stop calling out "proving a negative!" or "slippery slope!", because you seem to be invoking them too often and incorrectly.