Burning Books/Banning Books

I believe that banning books is ridiculous. The curiousity gets to us and we eventually end up reading it. Burning books is even worse. Don't you have to buy the book first, so you have something to burn?

^ Good point. You give the author money by buying their work but then destroy it? That's kind of crazy.

I'm still confused on how stupid people can seriouslly be. Burning books? This became a big issue when? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around why people would burn of a copy of a book that is being published and reprinted about everyday! I mean...just why? Why would people be SO stupid?

Siriano;:

I'm still confused on how stupid people can seriouslly be. Burning books? This became a big issue when? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around why people would burn of a copy of a book that is being published and reprinted about everyday! I mean...just why? Why would people be SO stupid?

Burning things is fun...
... and destructive.
It's a way of showing your ... opinion regarding a book or the ideas expressed in the said book. I personally have nothing against it if you buy the book first.

sueno?:

Siriano;:

I'm still confused on how stupid people can seriouslly be. Burning books? This became a big issue when? I'm just trying to wrap my mind around why people would burn of a copy of a book that is being published and reprinted about everyday! I mean...just why? Why would people be SO stupid?

Burning things is fun...
... and destructive.
It's a way of showing your ... opinion regarding a book or the ideas expressed in the said book. I personally have nothing against it if you buy the book first.

Yeah, burning things is fun. :tehe: But burning something like that out of protest is kind of stupid, unless they burned a bunch of them in public, I don't think it would really do anything.

I'll state it simply- No matter how horrible the book is, you don't burn it.

It's like taking a knife to a painting, horrible and unnecessary.

Would you burn the mona lisa
or better yet would you ban it so that no-one can see?

If not then the same should be done with books.
No matter what topic they bring a different point of view to the table
It's good to have an open mind but if you get banned for it
then freedom of speach as so stated in the constitution
is not being upheld

gotztogoparty:

Would you burn the mona lisa
or better yet would you ban it so that no-one can see?

If not then the same should be done with books.
No matter what topic they bring a different point of view to the table
It's good to have an open mind but if you get banned for it
then freedom of speach as so stated in the constitution
is not being upheld

It depends on what aesthetic values system I'd have.
If according to my idea of beauty, Mona Lisa was terribly ugly, I would burn it.
After I'd buy it surely.
Not that I have the money to buy it.

Would you want something like the terrorist cookbook to be out there and teach millions and millions of kids how to make bombs and blew up the world? I don't. The truth is that there still are dangerous ideas out there.

Though yes, I would love to be able to read the complete works of Sappho for example, but eehh lets say that the fact that just few of her poems remain gives them a certain charm.

I happen to like books. But hey, if you happen to suffer from rampant pyromania then go right ahead as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

Pretty much all that ever does is make that particular book famous. They have complete shows on books that the churches didn't approve of. Seriously. If you don't approve of a book the last thing you should do is draw major attention to it. Even if you completely abolish a book, someone has read it, and that someone will leak what it was about and...well, it's stupid. Besides, book burning was never actually necisarry, and usually only done by churches. And in almost every case, the event they were trying to stop by burning the book was either merely posponed or accelerated. It always has the opposite of the desired effect on people. Humans love what they 'can't' have.

no one:

gotztogoparty:

Would you want something like the terrorist cookbook to be out there and teach millions and millions of kids how to make bombs and blew up the world? I don't. The truth is that there still are dangerous ideas out there.

Though yes, I would love to be able to read the complete works of Sappho for example, but eehh lets say that the fact that just few of her poems remain gives them a certain charm.

um, good luck with that. 'Dangerous ideas' can not be put to sleep. Freedom of speech does not exist everywhere, and the attempts of the government to stop the spreading of your 'Dangerous Ideas' are rediculous. If the person's made a book on it, you can bet other people know it. And besides, who writes a book detailing mass terrorism and puts their name on it as the author??? I'd really, really like to congradulate this person on their brave stupidity.

I think that burning books is rather stupid even to think of. Every book has a point, no matter how stupid or irrelevant it sounded, it still has something to say. Do you think that 'Fight Club' should be forbiden. It teaches you how to make a nitroglicerine (second page). Before you even see what it's about you know how to make a bomb (and unstable bomb for matter of fact) but still, it's a book with great story. Should they burn 'A child called it", it teaches mothers how to torture their children.

Burning books is not fun, it's wrong. Every book has a story that needs to be read and understood. And if someone wants to make a bomb, the one wont read 'Fight Club', it'll find a recipe on the internet. At least that's easy.

LaughingToLeave:

I think that burning books is rather stupid even to think of. Every book has a point, no matter how stupid or irrelevant it sounded, it still has something to say. Do you think that 'Fight Club' should be forbiden. It teaches you how to make a nitroglicerine (second page). Before you even see what it's about you know how to make a bomb (and unstable bomb for matter of fact) but still, it's a book with great story. Should they burn 'A child called it", it teaches mothers how to torture their children.

Burning books is not fun, it's wrong. Every book has a story that needs to be read and understood. And if someone wants to make a bomb, the one wont read 'Fight Club', it'll find a recipe on the internet. At least that's easy.

Burning books isn't necessarily meant to keep a book's story from being heard, its an act of expression against a book's message. The people burning books have just as many rights to free expression as the authors of the books.

LaughingToLeave:

I think that burning books is rather stupid even to think of. Every book has a point, no matter how stupid or irrelevant it sounded, it still has something to say. Do you think that 'Fight Club' should be forbiden. It teaches you how to make a nitroglicerine (second page). Before you even see what it's about you know how to make a bomb (and unstable bomb for matter of fact) but still, it's a book with great story. Should they burn 'A child called it", it teaches mothers how to torture their children.

Burning books is not fun, it's wrong. Every book has a story that needs to be read and understood. And if someone wants to make a bomb, the one wont read 'Fight Club', it'll find a recipe on the internet. At least that's easy.

Why should people have absolute freedom of speech?

I don't think that burning books is that bad, but banning them is. The author obviously wrote the book for a reason...just because some people disagree with the message doesn't mean that others do or have to.

Banning books is ridiculous in my opinion, the kids are going to find about it somehow. Plus books are meant to convert kids into a way or thinking, it just open's their mind and consider life in a broader perspective, in a more diplomatic way because they have this insight.

I don't want a close minded generation. Plus reading is sometimes all a kids got. It takes someone away from the harsh reality of the world into a place where no one can harm them.

a-shot-to-remember:

I don't think that burning books is that bad, but banning them is. The author obviously wrote the book for a reason...just because some people disagree with the message doesn't mean that others do or have to.

Yes, that is true. Why should people have to suffer because of one person's measly disapproval of a book.

Books are open to interpretation too, not every word is meant to be taken literally. Books are an indulgence, not a The Religious Bible.

I think that burning books is stupid.
I mean, some people will then decide to read it, just to rebel.
When I heard about how controvercial The Catcher in the Rye was back in the day, I decided I just had to read it and I loved it.

Freddie Mercury.:

When I heard about how controvercial The Catcher in the Rye was back in the day, I decided I just had to read it and I loved it.

Isn't it ironic that when we hear about some book getting banned it seems more appealing to read. Great way to get a book to be read, like Dan Brown. :D

sunshines:

Freddie Mercury.:

When I heard about how controvercial The Catcher in the Rye was back in the day, I decided I just had to read it and I loved it.

Isn't it ironic that when we hear about some book getting banned it seems more appealing to read. Great way to get a book to be read, like Dan Brown. :D

Yeah, the DaVinci code was a very contovercial book, even before it was made into a movie, and it was a piece of literary brilliance. I loved it.
Actually, most of the books I've read since I started high school have been books that have been slightly controvercial for one reason or another.
I think the feeling of rebellion and whatnot is what really draws me into reading them