Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Most of us can remember many of the books on the assigned reading list in middle and high school — from Charles Dickens’ “Great Expectations” to Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment.” Today, however, required reading for students apparently includes “Tweak: Growing up on Methamphetamines,” a book that features a scene depicting a homosexual orgy and “Norwegian Wood,” a book that features a sex scene between a 31-year-old woman and a 13-year old girl."
There was a time I wouldn't have believed this type of reading material was available in a public school library, let alone recommended or even required for not only high schoolers but middle schoolers as well. But, that was before my 10 year old dd entered middle school in 5th grade in a new district. Then, I saw the type of books being recommended and/or required by her teachers and I started doing some research and discovered books in the school library that contained the type of material described in this story. I doubt that many parents realize what is being pushed on their children in the guise of "literature" in our local bookstores, public libraries and even in our schools. Many of these books come packaged in cute little pink covers. And for those that say even the classics or the Bible have references to sex and profanity, I have read both types of books and there is a glaring difference. One may have references; the other graphic depictions with little or no moral consequences.
Of course not, but without reading these books, it's really hard to judge the content and context... and in case we've all forgotten, "Lolita" by Vladimir Nabokov is widely considered a classic, despite the depiction of an affair between a schoolgirl & an older man. Doesn't make it right, but a piece of fiction literature is hardly a commercial endorsement for behavior - although some people don't realize that, hence the uproar over Harry Potter's "endorsement" of the black arts.
Good point about Lolita, but the reader knew that Humbert Humbert was one screwed up guy and he destroyed a little girl's life, as well as his own. There was no glorification of wrongdoing, though the moral tone was subtle, not didactic.
Also I think we need to make a distinction between pedophilia and sexual attraction to an underage minor. These are two different things. Attraction to a sexually undeveloped child is pedophilia, while attraction to a sexually mature male or female who happens to be under the age of 18 - well, I'm not sure what to call that other than misguided perhaps, but hardly pedophilia in my mind.
Lolita is one of the greatest books ever written. I wonder if the same can be said for these books under discussion. There is usually an inverse relationship between the prurience level and the literary merit.
Last edited by chattypatty; 08-26-2011 at 06:38 PM..
So people who don't share your opinions are stupid? Wow, you are such a great role model for kids.
I know, isn't it amazing that LIBERALS do this ALL THE TIME to conservatives? And right here on CD, every single day. Conservatives are sooooooo stupid, and all because they don't share liberal opinions. Let's don't even talk about liberals being a "role model" for their children.
What the "liberals" want (and this has nothing at all to with Leftism), is for people to make their own decisions about this stuff without the government regulating personal behavior where other people's rights aren't implicated.
Which should be the same thing that any conservative would want: less government intrusion and bureacracy.
So you aren't really a conservative. You are an authoritarian.
Wrong! Disingenuous. What liberals want is for people to think the way they do, because that is, after all, the correct way.
Good point about Lolita, but the reader knew that Humbert Humbert was one screwed up guy and he destroyed a little girl's life, as well as his own. There was no glorification of wrongdoing, though the moral tone was subtle, not didactic.
Have you read these books we're currently discussing? If not, how can you say whether or not it "glorifies" such behavior? One is about a man's struggle with overcoming meth addiction, so I'm guessing it didn't glorify anything he did while under the influence.
Quote:
Also I think we need to make a distinction between pedophilia and sexual attraction to an underage minor. These are two different things. Attraction to a sexually undeveloped child is pedophilia, while attraction to a sexually mature male or female who happens to be under the age of 18 - well, I'm not sure what to call that other than misguided perhaps, but hardly pedophilia in my mind.
The girl in Lolita was supposed to be 14, and the girl in this book Maja's paranoid about was 13. So I don't see a huge difference there, aside from the fact that the latter was a gay relationship. Just sayin'.
Quote:
Lolita is one of the greatest books ever written. I wonder if the same can be said for these books under discussion. There is usually an inverse relationship between the prurience level and the literary merit.
Until one of us actually reads them (which I'm planning to do), we can't make that call - right? So what are we even arguing about?
Wrong! Disingenuous. What liberals want is for people to think the way they do, because that is, after all, the correct way.
Pot, meet kettle. Last time I checked, it was conservatives who want to legislate morality, the gay marriage debate being the strongest example... they (you) don't like homosexuality, and thus they believe it should be illegal for them to marry. The liberal side of that debate simply says "everyone should have the right to get married, if they want and to whom they want (of legal age)." We aren't asking you to support gay marriage, just to stop worrying about & legally restricting those who do.
What offends me is your hostility to intellectualism in general. To the degree I am successful, a large part is due to understanding the balance between the analog and the digital, the Dionysian and the Appolonian.
Let me put it in a pop culture context. Understanding the stuff you consider "fluffy" is the main reason I can pull Jedi mind tricks on people and get paid for it. Because I have a broad cultural education, I know how to push the subconcious buttons to influence people without them even knowing they are being influenced. It that isn't a useful skill, what is?
I have significant education in BOTH areas. I've worn both hats. I have a strong science background rounded out with a strong liberal arts background. So I do understand your arguments, but I also see them as coming from only the side you understand and seem comfortable with.
I also can see that there's probably no way I can get you to understand why Chaucer is still relevant and important today.
Trivialize it all you like. If it didn't have value, it wouldn't still be studied. As Santayana said...oh forget it. You probably didn't read him either.
You seriously undervalue the importance of wisdom.
\
Straw man argument. I never said a thing about how it couldn't exist.
Once again, you missed the point. Slowed. What advancements could have been made if society hadn't changed during the Rennaisance and Enlightment to create the environment that permitted and promoted innovation? How can you not understand that the changes in philosophy lead to changes in politics and society which in turn made the Industrial Revolution possible?
Here's some recommended reading for you: The Day the Universe Changed, by James Burke. Burke can explain the connection you seem to think does not exist much more eloquently than I can.
Egad. You really just don't get that there is far more to writing than PENMANSHIP. Thanks for proving my point for me.
You could be doing better, but you seem keen on not seeing how.
Everyone who is not a pedophile doesn't like pedophiles. The problem is that, like you, the OP reduces the whole work to just this sordid scene with no understanding of how it might be worked into the plot, or what meaning it was meant to convey, etc. This is what happens when people think too literally and too empirically, this is what happens when people don't think literature has value beyond it's trivial, literal meaning.
I never made that assertion. I asserted it was true of the OP only. Perhaps if you read more philosophy you'd be better at arguing without making straw man assertions.
Damn right I do, and I'd pat anyone else on the back for reading them too, because they are important.
I have a background in biochemistry, computer science, English literature and law. I use both sides of my brain. You don't seem to think that's a good idea.
Good luck with that.
Shockingly, I am familiar with the above, not that you bothered to ask. You just assumed. That was not wise. Now do you understand my point about wisdom vs. intelligence? Not everything is just about data. What a sad way to view the Universe.
Not authority, appreciation.
and why is that?..because you read a bunch of centuries old books?...that makes you wise?
Wiser than someone who doesn't. How can you not understand that it's not an either/or choice? How can you not understand that you are arguing in favor of willful ignorance?
Again, better than someone who DIDN'T read it.
Sorry that you continue to make logically fallacious arguments by assuming that was what I said or meant. I never said it was limited to that. Perhaps if you were more wise and not so limited in your thinking, you wouldn't make such mistakes.
The constraints are of your invention, not mine.
Your responses in this thread indicate otherwise.
See? This is what I mean. You have no grasp of how a book like the Art of War can be applied beyond it's literal title. Once again, you've proven me right.
What the ballistics of large indeterministic fish have to do with this is not something I quite understand.
Someone that uses both sides of their brian is always going to be relatively smarter than someone that does not.
At no point during this discussion did I devalue the importance of scientists, engineers, etc. Again, that's your assertion, not mine. I simply understand the value of writers, thinkers and artists, whereas you don't.
No, I would argue that such a ratio is not quantifiable. But again, I'm having an argument with someone who views the world that way...
Fortunately (or not) the real world has no relation to your extreme hypothetical. If we were all living on such hypothetical islands, you would have a point, and we would not be a civilization nor be terribly distinguishable from animals.
I really do feel sorry for you, if the above describes the scope and breadth of your life. You are missing out, tragically.
seriously, listen to yourself...
"I am smart and that is that".....you act like your view of "wisdom" and "intellectualism" are laws of physics or something..your take on those things as if its some kind of universal cosmic law....."but, but, I read a bunch of books!!!"....
"philosophy" and "wisdom"...are very subjective...anyone can apply philosophical meaning to anything...the fact that you feel as if you are on a higher plane simply because you have just one, limited, narrow view on what "wisdom" and "philosophy" is quite telling...you are just a human, a mortal...on a tiny planet, in an average galaxy, in a universe you can't even begin to comprehend...."but, but I read a bunch of books"...really?...
Joe Francis convinced teenage girls to take their clothes off and became a millonare in the process.....is it because of his "cultural education"?..did he read more "books" then you?....is his "Jedi mind powers" greater then yours?....or is it because people are just gullible and stupid sometimes?...I mean you seem to think that your great knowledge of "wisdom" and your ability to influence the subconscious mind to get paid as some kind of testament to your "intellect"...well, Joe Francis "influence" made him millions....should I consider him some kind of "great thinker"?...Jeez, well at least Joe Francis don't walk around like he is some kind of genius...respect him for that....
and ever heard of the Nigerian Email Scams?..."just wire some money into this account and you can get millons"...LOL...yeah, only those with weak minds can be influenced, I wouldn't pat myself on the back as if its some kind of brilliance...I mean politicians make a living out of it...don't consider any geniuses among them....do you?
of course you have multiple degrees, of course you are super-rich...of course...notice how I've gone this entire exchange without mentioning anything about my occupation, educational background, financial standing..anything..I don't need to mentions those things as for 1, its unverifiable over the internet so why mention it?...and 2.those who not only do mention it, but mention it multiple times seem to either have a weak argument so they must keep repeating the same stuff or are just outright lying...or a combination of both...I don't need to tell total strangers online about how smart and successful I am....in fact such things make me uncomfortable...especially during these hard economic times...you told me earlier that your "liberal art" degree took you further then your technical one...so your degree in English favored you greater then the ones in biochemistry and computer science?.....really?....OK...if you say so...you're super smart and super successful...I got it...
and you are just moving around in circles..
You:"you are not as wise as me if you don't read those book"
Me:"I don't have to read those books to find wisdom, wisdom can be found anywhere"
you: "I never said you couldn't find wisdom outside those books"...
what?....again what?....you kept whining that "I am so wise for reading those books and you can't be as wise as me because you haven't read any of them"....and when I said "well ,yeah you can gain wisdom, you don't need to be limited to those books"..."I never said that"....seriously?....that is your whole freaking argument.....and then you proceed to keep repeating it....that "I am wiser for reading those books"...you just told me that wisdom can come from things beyond that...and yet you keep repeating that you are wiser then those who haven't read them...well if wisdom can come from things beyond books then why can't someone be as wise as you from not reading them if wisdom can still be gain without them?..are you paying attention to what you are saying?...
just chasing your tail in a circle not realizing it thinking you are proving a point....its quite odd for a "whole brain thinker"...
and religion has been around for just about forever.....in-fact most "wisdom" is derived from religions...are you going to give credit to religion?....are you going to credit human advancement with religion?...that we wouldn't be so advanced without it?......and that religion is just as important as the things you value?....I mean, to you, "since its been around for a long time then it must be important"....well religion has been around forever...if you do, I will gladly give you credit for it..
I guess I can use the Adventures of Tin Tin as a guide during the Apocalypse sense I don't have to take it "literal"...honestly, that made me chuckle a little....I mean I ask you "how can a book on warfare be helpful during social collapse"? and then you say "you don't have to take it literal"...lol...really?....(this is following a pattern I have seen countless times before)..and then you went on to say what fish has to do with it?...I don't know, food supply since you sure the hell won't be able to go into a store and buy it anymore.....what do you think I meant by survival?...you do know what survival is right?...the fact that you mentioned the fish and couldn't take it a little further is odd for someone who claims to be a "whole brain thinker", you....no, not going there...
its just your view, and your view alone...what if someone read those same books and came up with an entire different interpretation and meaning?...one competently different then your own?...because that is what "philosophy" is...its subjective.....is their wisdom any less then yours?...someone might find it very wise to take 12 wives...the next person may think it only wise to take 6...you see how relative and subjective it is?..you have to, you're "wise"......look, I am not saying wisdom can't be found in those books, but you feel as if someone who hasn't read those books can't be as wise as someone who has read those books...that if "someone never read the materials I have can't be as wise as me"...for such a "deep thinker" you can see the flaw in that right?
you have just one view among countless others...why do you feel so strongly that you have the right one?..your arguments are near identical to that of a religious fanatic.....just substitute a few words...."but, but the bible said so and I know its right for people have been reading it for a long time and the book has been around for a long time"..."you just don't want to go to heaven, I feel sorry for you, you are missing out"..really, that is what you sound like at this point....keep a level head OK.......really.. your "philosophy" and "wisdom" isn't something that is stitched into reality....sorry...what you value may be complete junk to someone else...I am well aware that many people don't value what I value...I don't get bent out of shape and say "you just don't want to be smart like me"...self-esteem issues or something?
and thanks for the book recommendation...and I will check it out, out of curiosity...but like I said, Ancient Civilizations did fine without it...I mean did some deep philosophical awakening had to take place before the Sumerians created the first cities?...I mean why would the ancients find it meaningful to plot the stars, track time ,keep records,and agriculture?...could it be that Man has a innate desire for knowledge and would natural seek it out without some abstract philosophical mumble jumble meaning for it?...and during the age of enlightenment, many of the pioneers had steep, heavy, and deep religious belief..did you think it was just a bunch of atheists pushing philosophies and advancements? ...many of them made off handed comments like "inside the mind of God"....or "being one with God"...(wait, I am thinking about Alchemy)...anyways, it could be argued that they were trying to get closer to God...are you going to credit religion for such advancements also?...if so, I will gladly give you credit for it..
I never said I didn't value wisdom, culture and philosophy...that it can be found beyond mere books...but lets face it...the only reason we can sit around and dwell on abstract things is because past builders and creators using cold hard facts progressed us to this point..a point where we don't have to track and hunt down our food every-night....I mean if you had to track down and kill your food tonight, the last thing you would be worried about is "philosophy"....if you had to protect yourself from predators every waking minute the last thing you would be doing is creating "art".....and if winter was around the corner, "writing" wouldn't even be something on your mind...
look, Like I said earlier, I love Anime...I am a film fanatic...and played more video games then you can imagine...but if it wasn't for all the technical knowledge before it..I wouldn't have any of those things...science, math and others knowledge like it can exist without all these subjective abstract concepts...math is the same everywhere....math is apart of reality....philosophy is limited only to human minds and becomes radically different for each person....again, wisdom comes in many forms...in-fact it has limitless forms ....the fact that you feel you are super-wise for reading books because you personally deem them "important" and no one else can be just as wise without reading them, you literately said you consider yourself "wiser" then those who didn't read them and are "ignorant" is such an unwarranted form of self-flattering, its becoming nauseating to listen to it...."I read a book, you didn't, therefore I am wiser then you"....Jesus, really?..."but the book is really old"....LOL...really?....
and as far as my "extreme" and "strawman" arguments...I have never, ever, ever accused someone of making a straw-man and ending with just that.....I was always able to find a counter point..if you feel as if all you can say is "strawman"...then I will give it to you...you can have that one....you are right....point goes to you...
look, I am sorry, I to would be offended and upset if someone questioned my intelligence but this whole thing started because you said that those who objected to this book must want to remain ignorant and undereducated and I said how can you be ignorant for not wanting to read such a book?..and then you said, .......so on and so on.....ok fine...if you think the book may contain deep wisdom and value or whatever....fine...if you think that those who don't want to be bothered with the graphic nature of it are "homophobes"...ok, fine...you can have that...
Pot, meet kettle. Last time I checked, it was conservatives who want to legislate morality, the gay marriage debate being the strongest example... they (you) don't like homosexuality, and thus they believe it should be illegal for them to marry. The liberal side of that debate simply says "everyone should have the right to get married, if they want and to whom they want (of legal age)." We aren't asking you to support gay marriage, just to stop worrying about & legally restricting those who do.
The last time you checked must have been in the 1960's ... because for the past 30-40 years, liberals have dominated the legislative agenda on domestic issues across the board. And no issue is too small or too immaterial for it to become a national topic.
And there is an underlying reality to all of this. It's a total diversion to keep society bickering about nonsense, while important matters go totally unnoticed and unaddressed.
Additionally, what you say is simply not true. In the case of "gay marriage" we have a tiny minority demanding a legislative restructuring of what constitutes "state approved" marriage, and the associated "benefits", to address the 5% of the population. And this agenda being pushed is in the exact opposite direction of where we should be heading .... away from, not toward government mandate and control. The ideal solution is to remove government entirely from the issue of who can marry whom, and not demanding that government impose laws regulating and controlling private lives and choices. And guess what? This is exactly what government seeks ... a citizenry who demands government control over private lives and domestic issues.
One need only look at the source of funding for these populist progressive causes like gay rights .... the Ford Foundation .... the Rockefeller Foundation .... Government grants. Do any of you really believe that these "Foundations" or "Congress" really care about gay rights? Really? No ... they don't care about you AT ALL ... what they care about is steering you like a heard of sheep toward the shearing shed. And it seems too many are only too happy to comply ... so preoccupied with self interests, the activists are totally unaware of how they are actually creating the noose which will be fitted around their own necks, at the appropriate time.
Another classic example of being steered by the nose is the effort to remove "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill. What a ridiculous "cause" given so many issues we have that deserve public attention, none the least of which might be the devaluation and total destruction of that dollar by the FED which seems to be of no particular interest ... at least not on par with the far more important ( ) matter of getting that word "God" off of it. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!! Focus here!!
And the list of similar issues is endless .... another classic example is "Obama Care" ... in the midst of endless and expanding wars, massive unemployment, an economy in a nose dive, Millions losing their homes to foreclosure, and Trillions being stolen by the Banker Gangsters .... what dominates the domestic agenda for months on end? Obama Care.
But this insanity is no longer isolated to innocuous social issues championed by the left, no ... now, the populist progressive push is for HIGHER TAXES. Never in a Million years would I have ever believed that people could be manipulated to the point of DEMANDING higher taxes, yet here we are, voices of reason drown out by the chants of "Gotta Raise Taxes". Once upon a time, the majority of thinking people disliked taxes, and no one wanted them increased. Not now baby .... the Orwellian Left is now convinced that Higher Taxes=Good.
Apparently, the thinking is that raising taxes is the only solution to reducing the massive debt accumulated. The idea that the real problem is too much spending is unfathomable .... after all, there are just too many "important agendas" to fund. Unfortunately, the only thing that tax increases will actually do is further kill the economy which is already on life support .... and provide a short term increase in revenue that will also be spent on more wars, or diverted directly into the Bankers pockets. The debt won't be reduced, because it can't be. At the current rates of spending, you could tax everyone at 100% and the debt will still increase.
So forget the reasons or excuses for why tax increases are good or bad ... just look at the issue itself .... an analogy would be for a consumer to walk into Best Buy ... pick out a Television, and go to the checkout register and demand that the clerk charge MORE .... no $699 is way too low, I demand that you charge me $999. That's just how insane this demand for higher taxes is.
So, in light of this scenario we see around us, it's no wonder why there are so many people loaded with all of their "rational reasons" for why the public school system must be in the business of providing sexual education to our children, or why books of the nature being discussed here are appropriately included on required reading lists for middle and high school students. The fact is, rationality no longer exists, and has been replaced with Orwellian Double Think.
In spite of what so many deeply believe, these social agendas may appear to be advancing your best interests .... but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no value in a society embroiled in back biting .... arguing about what color to paint the walls, or what appliances should be installed in the kitchen, or what draperies to hang, when the freaking house is on fire.
And our house is on fire, and the arsonists are the ones who have you chasing these agendas.
Good point about Lolita, but the reader knew that Humbert Humbert was one screwed up guy and he destroyed a little girl's life, as well as his own. There was no glorification of wrongdoing, though the moral tone was subtle, not didactic.
Also I think we need to make a distinction between pedophilia and sexual attraction to an underage minor. These are two different things. Attraction to a sexually undeveloped child is pedophilia, while attraction to a sexually mature male or female who happens to be under the age of 18 - well, I'm not sure what to call that other than misguided perhaps, but hardly pedophilia in my mind.
Lolita is one of the greatest books ever written. I wonder if the same can be said for these books under discussion. There is usually an inverse relationship between the prurience level and the literary merit.
If you actually read the books under discussion, instead of joining in the condemnation without having read them, then you might be better able to judge their literary merit. It is, after all, people who haven't read the books asserting that there is any level of prurience.
I know, isn't it amazing that LIBERALS do this ALL THE TIME to conservatives? And right here on CD, every single day. Conservatives are sooooooo stupid, and all because they don't share liberal opinions. Let's don't even talk about liberals being a "role model" for their children.
Who said anything about political affiliation? This is about the knee-jerk reaction of some to books that they haven't read. Books that are considered modern classics, and have similar themes to older classics, but for some inexplicable reason are more objectionable.
As for your last sentence, what does that even mean?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
