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.
Harry Potter's fine. Just take out all the witchcraft and devilry.
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.
Harry Potter's fine. Just take out all the witchcraft and devilry.
In which case it becomes a tragic story about childhood mental disease.
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.
So it's only a slippery slope when he outright states that starting on a a bad road is bad because it leads somewhere bad instead of just implying it?
Also, I never said "slippery slope" this time, I just showed his argument could be applied to absolutely anything.
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.
Harry Potter's fine. Just take out all the witchcraft and devilry.
In which case it becomes a tragic story about childhood mental disease.
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.
So it's only a slippery slope when he outright states that starting on a a bad road is bad because it leads somewhere bad instead of just implying it?
Also, I never said "slippery slope" this time, I just showed his argument could be applied to absolutely anything.
No it's a slippery slope when he states that this is starting down a bad road that leads to X. X is missing so while something "leading down a bad road" isn't a compelling argument in and of itself, it isn't a slippery slope by any measure. It's Han Solo saying "I've got a bad feeling about this".
And while you are correct that the argument "I have a bad feeling about this" or "I think this is going down a bad road" can be literally applied to anything, you did misattribute this as below:
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.
Its not a slippery slope when it actually has happened.
Fine, it's the Weimar fallacy. Happy now?
You're going to have to explain this one.
The Weimer Fallacy deals with inflation and deflation, its not really a logical fallacy.
Saying that something that could be described in vaguely similar terms to the description of something that preceded something bad means that the former event will necessarily lead to something bad. It's a variant of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
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.
So it's only a slippery slope when he outright states that starting on a a bad road is bad because it leads somewhere bad instead of just implying it?
Also, I never said "slippery slope" this time, I just showed his argument could be applied to absolutely anything.
No it's a slippery slope when he states that this is starting down a bad road that leads to X. X is missing so while something "leading down a bad road" isn't a compelling argument in and of itself, it isn't a slippery slope by any measure. It's Han Solo saying "I've got a bad feeling about this".
And while you are correct that the argument "I have a bad feeling about this" or "I think this is going down a bad road" can be literally applied to anything, you did misattribute this as below:
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.
I used it after he said I was using it, while I was referring to my original edit.
Of course, you're right in noting that it wasn't even substantive enough to make up a slippery slope.
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
I'm not sure I understand that question, although I should probably have waited for you to notice the probable typo.
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
I'm not sure I understand that question, although I should probably have waited for you to notice the probable typo.
You essentially saying that I should show a little censorship leads to a lot of censorship. I would think this is like when ID proponents ask biologists to show that micro evolutions leads to macro evolution.
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
I'm not sure I understand that question, although I should probably have waited for you to notice the probable typo.
You essentially saying that I should show a little censorship leads to a lot of censorship. I would think this is like when ID proponents ask biologists to show that micro evolutions leads to macro evolution.
I thought micro-evolution was microorganism evolution.
Anyway, I'm asking you to demonstrate that snowball throwing leads to rock throwing.
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
I'm not sure I understand that question, although I should probably have waited for you to notice the probable typo.
You essentially saying that I should show a little censorship leads to a lot of censorship. I would think this is like when ID proponents ask biologists to show that micro evolutions leads to macro evolution.
I thought micro-evolution was microorganism evolution.
Anyway, I'm asking you to demonstrate that snowball throwing leads to rock throwing.
But thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying rolling a snowball down a hill leads to a much larger snowball at the end.
The difference is you're acting like hard core and minor censorship are two different animals when the only difference is severity.
Can we go and change anything work of literature if someone is offended?
What is the difference between removing a book if its offensive? After all kids could still go buy it.
When the change harms the message the author is sending.
Who gets to make this call?
And why can't we using your logic just remove the book from the school library. After all its not like the government is censoring it and the kid could always just go buy it himself.
Ultimately you're just making the same argument like half the people who try to remove To Kill A Mockingbird use every year.
I'm getting someone in here and hoping they shut this down. I thought that the Huck Finn story would lead to some interesting discussion, but really, it's led to people misusing logical fallacies, misusing "slippery slope" and not understanding what a word means when the definition is right there for them to read.
There's nothing more to discuss here. SHUT THIS SHIT DOWN, SON.
ChillyWilly on
PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Can we go and change anything work of literature if someone is offended?
What is the difference between removing a book if its offensive? After all kids could still go buy it.
So if I write a book and the local library doesn't stock up on it, that's censorship?
If a school decides to do an adaptation of Shakespeare where they remove entire scenes and make drastic changes to the story, is that censorship? Because it happens all the time.
I'm pretty sure that there are schools out there that put on censored versions of Grease, and Rocky Horror.
Again, this is already happening.
As for where the line gets drawn, that's the type of slippery slope argument that you can make for any argument ever. i.e., "We shouldn't allow lawmakers to ban businesses from discriminating against black people, because what happens if lawmakers decide to ban businesses from discriminating against people with AK-47s strapped to their back?"
Everything is judged on a case by case basis.
Your slippery slope is that if we don't expose black kids who are tired of hearing the n-word with even more cases of the n-word, then maybe we'll stop teaching all history in general. That's a slippery slope.
There are two forms of concerned parents.
The first group says, "My child has never been exposed to X before, and I don't want them to be exposed to X in the future. The fact that they might be exposed to X concerns me."
The second group says, "My child is exposed to X too damned often, and it's starting to take it's toll on her. The last thing she needs is for the other kids to have an excuse to expose her to X even more."
The only similarity is that both parents are concerned, and both parents don't want X. However, the rationale for both is completely different. And the reasons why the first group is wrong does not necessarily apply to the second. To the first group, you can say, "It doesn't matter what you think. It's important that your child is exposed to X so that your child can learn about it. And besides, your child is going to be exposed to X eventually, so you might as well let it happened."
None of those statements work when addressing the second group.
One poster pointed out that his/her class was really racist. Someone else replies, "Well, that's not a problem with the book, that's a problem with the class." Fair enough. But unless you have a solution on how to fix the class, your response isn't going to be very helpful.
The problem is that you're trying to sum up the people protesting Huck Finn as simply "people are offended," without looking at their specific reason for being offended, as if all examples of people being offended is morally equal.
For instance, sexual harassment, hate crimes, and death threats can be boiled down to "someone was made uncomfortable or offended." That doesn't mean we sweep these things under the rug, or say, "If we outlaw sexual harassment, then pretty soon, we'll start burning books."
In my school district, Huck Finn would likely be unchanged. And I am totally okay with that. But I also acknowledge that there are other districts with different situations.
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.
Huh?
That's a huge jump there.
How in the world do you go from "creating an alternate edition" to "then it becomes law"?
Hey look, they changed the original work to avoid offending audiences. Even though I seriously doubt that a single person who actually wanted to see this movie complained, but whatever.
So how long can we expect until Congress passes a law saying that you can't buy any edition of "Snakes on a Plane" with the word "motherfucking" in it?
How long until we start burning all R-Rated editions?
We can establish a clear line between this specific case and the hypothetical examples being presented. So somewhere in between those two examples. i.e., the reason people protest Huck Finn is not the same as the reason people protest Harry Potter.
Yes, they might both be protesting. But that's an action, not the reason for the action
Can we go and change anything work of literature if someone is offended?
Schools modify Shakespeare all the time, even when people aren't offended. Sometimes you just don't have enough actors, or you don't think the audience will get a certain joke, or the play is too long.
So why would changing literature for the sake of people be offended suddenly be bad?
What is the difference between removing a book if its offensive? After all kids could still go buy it.
Again, this question presumes that libraries are obligated to stock up every book in existence. They aren't. They are only obligated to stock up some of the books in existence. So there will always be a choice on which books to stock, and which books not to stock.
We can establish a clear line between this specific case and the hypothetical examples being presented. So somewhere in between those two examples. i.e., the reason people protest Huck Finn is not the same as the reason people protest Harry Potter.
So whats the difference between this racist word and the usage of any other. Should all copies of the n-word everywhere be removed?
Schools modify Shakespeare all the time, even when people aren't offended. Sometimes you just don't have enough actors, or you don't think the audience will get a certain joke, or the play is too long.
Schools modify shakespeare so its easier to understand, not more PC.
Again, this question presumes that libraries are obligated to stock up every book in existence. They aren't. They are only obligated to stock up some of the books in existence. So there will always be a choice on which books to stock, and which books not to stock.
Its doesn't at all. All it asks is whats the difference between censoring books so they're less offensive and removing the book from the library?
We can establish a clear line between this specific case and the hypothetical examples being presented. So somewhere in between those two examples. i.e., the reason people protest Huck Finn is not the same as the reason people protest Harry Potter.
So whats the difference between this racist word and the usage of any other. Should all copies of the n-word everywhere be removed?
The difference is the audience. Some people are already well aware of the fact that lots of white people like to use the n-word. They don't need to have it beaten over their head, nor do they need for their classmates to have further encouragement in using it.
Other people might be less aware of the fact that white people like to use the n-word, and they might be mature enough not to use it themselves. So those kids are probably fine.
Schools modify shakespeare so its easier to understand, not more PC.
So it's okay to modify classic literature, as long as the original text isn't offensive?
That's some backwards logic you have there. It's like saying, "It's okay to fire an employee, as long as he isn't racist."
Its doesn't at all. All it asks is whats the difference between censoring books so they're less offensive and removing the book from the library?
What's the difference between replacing HFCS with sugar and removing pizza from the school cafeteria?
I can see that you're trying to get to a point here, but you're not quite there. Libraries will stock up on the original Huck Finn for the same reason they stock up on every other book in the library. And if they don't, well, they don't.
So it's okay to modify classic literature, as long as the original text isn't offensive?
Its ok to modify literature for the purpose of making it understood. Like I said.
The difference is the audience. Some people are already well aware of the fact that lots of white people like to use the n-word. They don't need to have it beaten over their head, nor do they need for their classmates to have further encouragement in using it.
You really think Huck Fin is going to effect that either fucking way?
And you didn't actually answer the question. How is censoring passages or words different than censoring the library?
We aren't having another thread on political correctness until the forum passes a written exam proving that it knows the definition of the word "censorship"
Posts
Harry Potter's fine. Just take out all the witchcraft and devilry.
In which case it becomes a tragic story about childhood mental disease.
Or thinly veiled pedophilia.
So it's only a slippery slope when he outright states that starting on a a bad road is bad because it leads somewhere bad instead of just implying it?
Also, I never said "slippery slope" this time, I just showed his argument could be applied to absolutely anything.
Yer a Wizzard 'Airy!
Fine, it's the Weimar fallacy. Happy now?
You're going to have to explain this one.
The Weimer Fallacy deals with inflation and deflation, its not really a logical fallacy.
No it's a slippery slope when he states that this is starting down a bad road that leads to X. X is missing so while something "leading down a bad road" isn't a compelling argument in and of itself, it isn't a slippery slope by any measure. It's Han Solo saying "I've got a bad feeling about this".
And while you are correct that the argument "I have a bad feeling about this" or "I think this is going down a bad road" can be literally applied to anything, you did misattribute this as below:
Saying that something that could be described in vaguely similar terms to the description of something that preceded something bad means that the former event will necessarily lead to something bad. It's a variant of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I used it after he said I was using it, while I was referring to my original edit.
Of course, you're right in noting that it wasn't even substantive enough to make up a slippery slope.
Lets look at it like this:
"We did X and really bad thing Y happened as a result"
"We are now thinking about doing Z, which is very similar to X, and Y is a possible result".
When we're discussing politics and sociology that is an acceptable logic process.
But you're still not showing that there is even a justification for editing classical literature to make it less offensive. And please show us where you draw the line.
I never said it was needed. That's a job for the schools ordering the edition. I'm just saying that changes that don't have any apparent effect on the artist's expression are negligible in harm.
Can you show that it's a probable result in this context?
So you're arguing its ok. But not thats its needed.
You're asking me to show you that how censorship occurs?
I'm not sure I understand that question, although I should probably have waited for you to notice the probable typo.
You essentially saying that I should show a little censorship leads to a lot of censorship. I would think this is like when ID proponents ask biologists to show that micro evolutions leads to macro evolution.
I thought micro-evolution was microorganism evolution.
Anyway, I'm asking you to demonstrate that snowball throwing leads to rock throwing.
But thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying rolling a snowball down a hill leads to a much larger snowball at the end.
The difference is you're acting like hard core and minor censorship are two different animals when the only difference is severity.
Can we go and change anything work of literature if someone is offended?
What is the difference between removing a book if its offensive? After all kids could still go buy it.
When the change harms the message the author is sending.
Who gets to make this call?
And why can't we using your logic just remove the book from the school library. After all its not like the government is censoring it and the kid could always just go buy it himself.
Ultimately you're just making the same argument like half the people who try to remove To Kill A Mockingbird use every year.
I'm getting someone in here and hoping they shut this down. I thought that the Huck Finn story would lead to some interesting discussion, but really, it's led to people misusing logical fallacies, misusing "slippery slope" and not understanding what a word means when the definition is right there for them to read.
There's nothing more to discuss here. SHUT THIS SHIT DOWN, SON.
So if I write a book and the local library doesn't stock up on it, that's censorship?
If a school decides to do an adaptation of Shakespeare where they remove entire scenes and make drastic changes to the story, is that censorship? Because it happens all the time.
I'm pretty sure that there are schools out there that put on censored versions of Grease, and Rocky Horror.
Again, this is already happening.
As for where the line gets drawn, that's the type of slippery slope argument that you can make for any argument ever. i.e., "We shouldn't allow lawmakers to ban businesses from discriminating against black people, because what happens if lawmakers decide to ban businesses from discriminating against people with AK-47s strapped to their back?"
Everything is judged on a case by case basis.
Your slippery slope is that if we don't expose black kids who are tired of hearing the n-word with even more cases of the n-word, then maybe we'll stop teaching all history in general. That's a slippery slope.
There are two forms of concerned parents.
The first group says, "My child has never been exposed to X before, and I don't want them to be exposed to X in the future. The fact that they might be exposed to X concerns me."
The second group says, "My child is exposed to X too damned often, and it's starting to take it's toll on her. The last thing she needs is for the other kids to have an excuse to expose her to X even more."
The only similarity is that both parents are concerned, and both parents don't want X. However, the rationale for both is completely different. And the reasons why the first group is wrong does not necessarily apply to the second. To the first group, you can say, "It doesn't matter what you think. It's important that your child is exposed to X so that your child can learn about it. And besides, your child is going to be exposed to X eventually, so you might as well let it happened."
None of those statements work when addressing the second group.
One poster pointed out that his/her class was really racist. Someone else replies, "Well, that's not a problem with the book, that's a problem with the class." Fair enough. But unless you have a solution on how to fix the class, your response isn't going to be very helpful.
The problem is that you're trying to sum up the people protesting Huck Finn as simply "people are offended," without looking at their specific reason for being offended, as if all examples of people being offended is morally equal.
For instance, sexual harassment, hate crimes, and death threats can be boiled down to "someone was made uncomfortable or offended." That doesn't mean we sweep these things under the rug, or say, "If we outlaw sexual harassment, then pretty soon, we'll start burning books."
In my school district, Huck Finn would likely be unchanged. And I am totally okay with that. But I also acknowledge that there are other districts with different situations.
Huh?
That's a huge jump there.
How in the world do you go from "creating an alternate edition" to "then it becomes law"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4t6zNZ-b0A
Hey look, they changed the original work to avoid offending audiences. Even though I seriously doubt that a single person who actually wanted to see this movie complained, but whatever.
So how long can we expect until Congress passes a law saying that you can't buy any edition of "Snakes on a Plane" with the word "motherfucking" in it?
How long until we start burning all R-Rated editions?
This of course isn't what I said.
Where does the line get drawn?
We can establish a clear line between this specific case and the hypothetical examples being presented. So somewhere in between those two examples. i.e., the reason people protest Huck Finn is not the same as the reason people protest Harry Potter.
Yes, they might both be protesting. But that's an action, not the reason for the action
Can we go and change anything work of literature if someone is offended?
Schools modify Shakespeare all the time, even when people aren't offended. Sometimes you just don't have enough actors, or you don't think the audience will get a certain joke, or the play is too long.
So why would changing literature for the sake of people be offended suddenly be bad?
What is the difference between removing a book if its offensive? After all kids could still go buy it.
Again, this question presumes that libraries are obligated to stock up every book in existence. They aren't. They are only obligated to stock up some of the books in existence. So there will always be a choice on which books to stock, and which books not to stock.
So whats the difference between this racist word and the usage of any other. Should all copies of the n-word everywhere be removed?
Schools modify shakespeare so its easier to understand, not more PC.
Its doesn't at all. All it asks is whats the difference between censoring books so they're less offensive and removing the book from the library?
The difference is the audience. Some people are already well aware of the fact that lots of white people like to use the n-word. They don't need to have it beaten over their head, nor do they need for their classmates to have further encouragement in using it.
Other people might be less aware of the fact that white people like to use the n-word, and they might be mature enough not to use it themselves. So those kids are probably fine.
So it's okay to modify classic literature, as long as the original text isn't offensive?
That's some backwards logic you have there. It's like saying, "It's okay to fire an employee, as long as he isn't racist."
What's the difference between replacing HFCS with sugar and removing pizza from the school cafeteria?
I can see that you're trying to get to a point here, but you're not quite there. Libraries will stock up on the original Huck Finn for the same reason they stock up on every other book in the library. And if they don't, well, they don't.
Its ok to modify literature for the purpose of making it understood. Like I said.
You really think Huck Fin is going to effect that either fucking way?
And you didn't actually answer the question. How is censoring passages or words different than censoring the library?