Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:13 am UTC

I doubt the state of Kentucky has bought much military hardware.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Dec 06, 2013 3:35 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Jave D wrote:So you are saying that banning books that incite violence, or banning hate speech or bullying, just isn't possible without also banning good things too? Why not?

Because it isn't possible for the law to determine any universal definition of "bad" things. If the law can ban this book, then it can ban other books that are deemed "bad" by whoever happens to be in charge. Those things may not necessarily be what you or I consider to be "bad" things...

I think we can all agree that the "discipline" advocated in this book is horrible. However, there are people who believe that even a light slap on the behind does irreversible damage to a child; does that mean we ban books that talk about spanking? Who gets to decide where the line is?

I think hitting your child at all, for any reason, has the potential to make them fear and distrust you. But I'm certainly not going to say that a person who disagrees with me needs to be silenced.

When we ban ideas, we give them power. We legitimize them. We say, "We are afraid of that idea. It is a strong idea and we cannot defeat it without the use of force." An idea which is banned has more value than an idea which is not banned. We are not afraid of Michael Pearl's ideas. They are not strong ideas. They are weak and ridiculous and asinine, and we can beat them.

I'm still okay with Amazon choosing to stop selling the blasted thing, of course.

cphite wrote:It will change what, exactly? The book has barely been sold. Of the number of monsters out there who abuse their children, it's safe to say that a tiny, tiny fraction of them have even heard of this book, let alone read it.

Well, this book is not going to have any traction at all outside of far-right fundamentalist Christian audiences. But in those audiences, it is quite powerful. Of course, if the government bans it, it would only add to the far-right fundamentalist Christian persecution narrative, wherein Truth is Being Suppressed by the Evil Marxist Fascist Communist Democrats.

Jave D wrote:
cphite wrote:it isn't possible for the law to determine any universal definition of "bad" things. If the law can ban this book, then it can ban other books that are deemed "bad" by whoever happens to be in charge. Those things may not necessarily be what you or I consider to be "bad" things...

That's like saying that the law can't determine a universal definition of bad things, so if it can ban one action (i.e. murder) then it can ban other actions that are deemed bad by whoever happens to be in charge. And yet no one has a problem with murder being a crime on the basis that if one action is deemed bad why ANY action COULD be deemed bad by the law and that this is to be avoided.

But only actions can be criminalized. And civilized nations have universally agreed that "having ideas" is not the sort of action we wish to ever criminalize. You're welcome to move to a country where this is not considered a universal truth, but good luck....

Jave D wrote:This is one reason why I think there needs to be much stricter and more widely upheld laws about child abuse in the USA. We have a lot of leeway... enough that child abuse manuals get to gleefully describe how to get away with child abuse based on the "leaving a mark" technicality.

What "leaving a mark" technicality? There is no state which says you can spank as long as you don't leave a mark. Here is a list of all state laws on spanking. Spanking is considered abusive if it is "excessive" (tautology club much?) or causes "serious injury" or produces "injury more significant than light or transient marks and bruising". So yeah, you can whip the hell out of your kid as long as the skin clears up within a few days.

And I love how Colorado says, "Any investigation of child abuse shall take into account the child-rearing practices of the child's culture." Way to go, Colorado. "See, officer, my culture (which was conveniently invented in the past fifty years) says to starve children, beat them senseless with PVC pipe, and leave them outdoors without clothes if they don't perform up to spec."

Unfortunately, the hurdles necessary to actually restrict spanking in the United States are astronomical.

Jave D wrote:As for the book, even if it has only sold X copies, and of them only helped "guide" X numbers of abuse situations, I am still for banning it as long as X is greater than 1. And the ban would set a precedent that the country is no longer approving of this kind of "discipline." Sends a message, you know.

Sending a message sounds like a nice idea, but the only message sent by such a ban would be "We want to restrict parental rights and religious freedoms and raise your children for you." To the people who need to hear it, at least.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:47 pm UTC

Davidstar, please realize that the US is an outlier with free speech rights. We are more permissive than most countries, excluding banana republicish/ failure of government type countries. Even Britain has a lower bar, because it's easier to sue someone for slandar or libel. This is actually one of the big reasons people get upset about social networking companies. They're based in the US but serve international audiences. They're getting pressure to be less permissive and restrict speech if it offensive.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 06, 2013 5:59 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
Jave D wrote:As for the book, even if it has only sold X copies, and of them only helped "guide" X numbers of abuse situations, I am still for banning it as long as X is greater than 1. And the ban would set a precedent that the country is no longer approving of this kind of "discipline." Sends a message, you know.

Sending a message sounds like a nice idea, but the only message sent by such a ban would be "We want to restrict parental rights and religious freedoms and raise your children for you." To the people who need to hear it, at least.


Honestly, the whole concept of punishing one person or thing remarkably harshly to "send a message" doesn't seem to be very effective. It seems to be popular, sure, but making examples of people seems to be mostly a justification for things we actually want for other reasons(venegance, etc), not an effective punishment regimen.

And yeah, this logic can be applied to both these disciplinary practices AND the banning of the book that teaches them.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:06 pm UTC

The book is published in the US. So the context is here. And the idea is that, true or not, by giving the widest latitude to speech we gain more than we lose. You can't know if this is true until you lose it. We do have historical background that says that the first things despots do is to control speech. We also have exemplars of what can happen if these mechanisms are made available to people who don't have these freedoms.

The myth is that censorship doesn't happen in the US. It turns out not to be the case. Schools are constantly under pressure to remove books that one group or another find offensive. Publishers self censor all the time. All the major ebook publishers are censoring their inventory now. Removing all manner of self published books that have been perceived as detrimental to their brands. In doing so they have, in some cases, thrown out the baby with the bath water.

Here is a list of Challenged books from the American Library Association for 2000 to 2009.
Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000-2009 spoilered for length.

Spoiler:
1. Harry Potter (series), by J.K. Rowling
2. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
3. The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier
4. And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson/Peter Parnell
5. Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck
6. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou
7. Scary Stories (series), by Alvin Schwartz
8. His Dark Materials (series), by Philip Pullman
9. ttyl; ttfn; l8r g8r (series), by Lauren Myracle
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
11. Fallen Angels, by Walter Dean Myers
12. It’s Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris
13. Captain Underpants (series), by Dav Pilkey
14. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
15. The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison
16. Forever, by Judy Blume
17. The Color Purple, by Alice Walker
18. Go Ask Alice, by Anonymous
19. Catcher in the Rye, by J.D. Salinger
20. King and King, by Linda de Haan
21. To Kill A Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
22. Gossip Girl (series), by Cecily von Ziegesar
23. The Giver, by Lois Lowry
24. In the Night Kitchen, by Maurice Sendak
25. Killing Mr. Griffen, by Lois Duncan
26. Beloved, by Toni Morrison
27. My Brother Sam Is Dead, by James Lincoln Collier
28. Bridge To Terabithia, by Katherine Paterson
29. The Face on the Milk Carton, by Caroline B. Cooney
30. We All Fall Down, by Robert Cormier
31. What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones
32. Bless Me, Ultima, by Rudolfo Anaya
33. Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson
34. The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big, Round Things, by Carolyn Mackler
35. Angus, Thongs, and Full Frontal Snogging, by Louise Rennison
36. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
37. It’s So Amazing, by Robie Harris
38. Arming America, by Michael Bellasiles
39. Kaffir Boy, by Mark Mathabane
40. Life is Funny, by E.R. Frank
41. Whale Talk, by Chris Crutcher
42. The Fighting Ground, by Avi
43. Blubber, by Judy Blume
44. Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher
45. Crazy Lady, by Jane Leslie Conly
46. Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut
47. The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby: The First Graphic Novel by George Beard and Harold Hutchins, the creators of Captain Underpants, by Dav Pilkey
48. Rainbow Boys, by Alex Sanchez
49. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, by Ken Kesey
50. The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini
51. Daughters of Eve, by Lois Duncan
52. The Great Gilly Hopkins, by Katherine Paterson
53. You Hear Me?, by Betsy Franco
54. The Facts Speak for Themselves, by Brock Cole
55. Summer of My German Soldier, by Bette Green
56. When Dad Killed Mom, by Julius Lester
57. Blood and Chocolate, by Annette Curtis Klause
58. Fat Kid Rules the World, by K.L. Going
59. Olive’s Ocean, by Kevin Henkes
60. Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson
61. Draw Me A Star, by Eric Carle
62. The Stupids (series), by Harry Allard
63. The Terrorist, by Caroline B. Cooney
64. Mick Harte Was Here, by Barbara Park
65. The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien
66. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, by Mildred Taylor
67. A Time to Kill, by John Grisham
68. Always Running, by Luis Rodriguez
69. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury
70. Harris and Me, by Gary Paulsen
71. Junie B. Jones (series), by Barbara Park
72. Song of Solomon, by Toni Morrison
73. What’s Happening to My Body Book, by Lynda Madaras
74. The Lovely Bones, by Alice Sebold
75. Anastasia (series), by Lois Lowry
76. A Prayer for Owen Meany, by John Irving
77. Crazy: A Novel, by Benjamin Lebert
78. The Joy of Gay Sex, by Dr. Charles Silverstein
79. The Upstairs Room, by Johanna Reiss
80. A Day No Pigs Would Die, by Robert Newton Peck
81. Black Boy, by Richard Wright
82. Deal With It!, by Esther Drill
83. Detour for Emmy, by Marilyn Reynolds
84. So Far From the Bamboo Grove, by Yoko Watkins
85. Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes, by Chris Crutcher
86. Cut, by Patricia McCormick
87. Tiger Eyes, by Judy Blume
88. The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood
89. Friday Night Lights, by H.G. Bissenger
90. A Wrinkle in Time, by Madeline L’Engle
91. Julie of the Wolves, by Jean Craighead George
92. The Boy Who Lost His Face, by Louis Sachar
93. Bumps in the Night, by Harry Allard
94. Goosebumps (series), by R.L. Stine
95. Shade’s Children, by Garth Nix
96. Grendel, by John Gardner
97. The House of the Spirits, by Isabel Allende
98. I Saw Esau, by Iona Opte
99. Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret, by Judy Blume
100. America: A Novel, by E.R. Frank



edit added link

Fixed the tags. You have to nest them properly - first in, last out. Quote-spoiler-/spoiler-/quote. Not quote-spoiler-/quote-/spoiler. - ST
Last edited by SecondTalon on Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:50 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: Fixing the mess of tags.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

I would've thought The Handmaid's Tale would be higher. Maybe some Fundies think it's actually a Utopia?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:34 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:When we ban ideas, we give them power. We legitimize them. We say, "We are afraid of that idea. It is a strong idea and we cannot defeat it without the use of force." An idea which is banned has more value than an idea which is not banned. We are not afraid of Michael Pearl's ideas. They are not strong ideas. They are weak and ridiculous and asinine, and we can beat them.

I'm still okay with Amazon choosing to stop selling the blasted thing, of course.
When you say banning ideas, it sounds like rounding up all the copies of the book and burning them, while throwing anyone in jail who talks about or promotes the contents of the book. Isn't there a middle ground between doing nothing, hoping for amazon to do the right thing, and, banning these ideas? Can't we just ban the sale of the books?

If you put something on the market, trying to make a profit off of it, we have to stop and realizes what profit is, and how it fits into our social/economic system. Making a profit means you have, in some way, improved society. That is the basis of our economy. Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech. The author wants to print copies and give them away? Go ahead. The author wants to give a speech on his ideas? Fine, no problem there. No speech need be limited.

At the very least, it doesn't limit free speech any more than drug prohibition limits the pursuit of happiness. And both are justified by the same rationale: There is simply no way for this product to benefit society.

davidstarlingm wrote:Well, this book is not going to have any traction at all outside of far-right fundamentalist Christian audiences. But in those audiences, it is quite powerful. Of course, if the government bans it, it would only add to the far-right fundamentalist Christian persecution narrative, wherein Truth is Being Suppressed by the Evil Marxist Fascist Communist Democrats.
Who cares? I mean seriously, who cares what little piece of trivia these people use to justify and rationalize their irrational, preconceived delusions? They've already decided that the Truth is Being Suppressed by the Evil Marxist Fascist Communist Democrats. It isn't like anything is going to dissuade them of that idea. Should we not enact reasonable legislation* because because crazy people will continue to be crazy?

tl;dr: You don't reason with crazy.

*not saying it is reasonable legislation in this case, just in the abstract
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:37 pm UTC

You can't fix crazy by abandoning reason. Then you're both just crazy people screaming at each other.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:42 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:When we ban ideas, we give them power. We legitimize them. We say, "We are afraid of that idea. It is a strong idea and we cannot defeat it without the use of force." An idea which is banned has more value than an idea which is not banned. We are not afraid of Michael Pearl's ideas. They are not strong ideas. They are weak and ridiculous and asinine, and we can beat them.

I'm still okay with Amazon choosing to stop selling the blasted thing, of course.
When you say banning ideas, it sounds like rounding up all the copies of the book and burning them, while throwing anyone in jail who talks about or promotes the contents of the book. Isn't there a middle ground between doing nothing, hoping for amazon to do the right thing, and, banning these ideas? Can't we just ban the sale of the books?

Absolutely, and then the Pearls will start giving them away on a donation basis, with the added badge of "look how badly we're being persecuted" honor.

nitePhyyre wrote:At the very least, it doesn't limit free speech any more than drug prohibition limits the pursuit of happiness.

Not going to get very far with that line, given that I oppose drug prohibition on pragmatic grounds.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 06, 2013 6:49 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech. The author wants to print copies and give them away? Go ahead. The author wants to give a speech on his ideas? Fine, no problem there. No speech need be limited.
You do realize that this is a distinction that makes no difference?

I found this amusing quote , from the ALA site.
In his book Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, Nat Hentoff writes that “the lust to suppress can come from any direction.” He quotes Phil Kerby, a former editor of the Los Angeles Times, as saying, “Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second.”
This seems to pretty much sum it up.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby ucim » Sat Dec 07, 2013 2:41 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech.
Would this apply to Mein Kampf? To The Anarachist Cookbook? To the Bible itself? Because we'd have to all agree on which books fit into this category, and I don't think agreement will be forthcoming.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:51 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech.
Would this apply to Mein Kampf? To The Anarachist Cookbook? To the Bible itself? Because we'd have to all agree on which books fit into this category, and I don't think agreement will be forthcoming.

Jose


I've met people that would interpret most fiction as falling into this category. This isn't a view I take, but some people certainly view rather a lot of books as unlikely to improve society...and they might even be true. I don't see Twilight as likely to improve society in any way, but society would definitely be worsened by censorship.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
ucim wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech.
Would this apply to Mein Kampf? To The Anarachist Cookbook? To the Bible itself? Because we'd have to all agree on which books fit into this category, and I don't think agreement will be forthcoming.

Jose


I've met people that would interpret most fiction as falling into this category. This isn't a view I take, but some people certainly view rather a lot of books as unlikely to improve society...and they might even be true. I don't see Twilight as likely to improve society in any way, but society would definitely be worsened by censorship.

I've seen Twilight and the pop fan phenomena surrounding it used as a really excellent example of why people pursue and remain in abusive relationships.

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby johnny_7713 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:25 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech.
Would this apply to Mein Kampf? To The Anarachist Cookbook? To the Bible itself? Because we'd have to all agree on which books fit into this category, and I don't think agreement will be forthcoming.

Jose


While possession and lending are legal, sales of the Dutch translation of Mein Kampf are illegal, which has been enforced by the the State of the Netherlands acquiring the copyright. Several years ago a minister suggested the sales ban should be lifted, but a small majority in parliament was against that. The copyright to the original resides with the (Federal) State of Bavaria, although in that case Bavaria decided to publish a scientific / critical edition as the copyright will expire in 2015.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Angua » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:38 am UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:28 pm UTC


nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby nitePhyyre » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:30 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You can't fix crazy by abandoning reason. Then you're both just crazy people screaming at each other.
Oh, no. Best bet is to walk away. Or, perhaps, give them just enough rope to hang themselves, generally you don't need to give them much.

"Hey, Mr. Santorum, what do you think of Nelson Mandela?"
"He's was a great man, fighting against the injustice of apartheid. Just like I'm fighting against america's apartheid: The Affordable Care Act!"

But that isn't really relevant. We weren't talking about talking with them. We were talking about when you know a group of people hate you, and they will use anything you do as justification of their hatred, should you moderate your actions (not ban a book instead of ban it) because they will take the action you intend (banning the book) as justification for their hatred? I say no. If you can safely ignore these lunatics, you should.

davidstarlingm wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Can't we just ban the sale of the books?
Absolutely, and then the Pearls will start giving them away on a donation basis, with the added badge of "look how badly we're being persecuted" honor.
That's fine. I don't want to censor. I just don't want them rewarded with society's resources for it. Besides, apparently they already give most of them away. And we are talking about people who believe the very existence of the phrase 'happy holidays' is persecution of the worst sort. Worrying about what they are going to think is like worrying about getting a fish wet.

davidstarlingm wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:At the very least, it doesn't limit free speech any more than drug prohibition limits the pursuit of happiness.
Not going to get very far with that line, given that I oppose drug prohibition on pragmatic grounds.
We can take this up in another thread(please do!), but opposing drug prohibition on pragmatic grounds is the same thing as supporting YEC on scientific grounds.

ucim wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Saying that there is no way that this book can improve society therefore it can't be sold, doesn't limit free speech.
Would this apply to Mein Kampf? To The Anarachist Cookbook? To the Bible itself? Because we'd have to all agree on which books fit into this category, and I don't think agreement will be forthcoming.
First, no. We do not all have to agree. When do we all agree about anything society does? Never! We still do things. This would be no different.

Second, all those books are available online, so I don't see what the problem is?

Hell what I'm suggesting would likely disseminate the information further, but at least we wouldn't be rewarding the creators.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:04 am UTC

Persecution is the bread and butter for these types. Banning the book would be rewarding them.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:58 am UTC

Is being required to have a warning label attached to the book considered 'persecution'? I mean, we have warning labels on cigarettes, and that isn't a violation of free speech.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:13 am UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Persecution is the bread and butter for these types. Banning the book would be rewarding them.


I don't care if they feel rewarded.

I want the distribution of this book to be limited and that can be achieved through banning it. At the very least, people who use the book will know it has been banned and will have to jump through more hoops in the mind to rationalise why its banned and why its still the best thing for their child.

While I realise there is no way to limit digital distribution I don't think any publisher would print it and limiting hard copies is something and will make it harder to distribute.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:20 am UTC

What mental hoops? Many of them are already convinced that Satanists have siezed control of the government from Jesus, and banning this book will only be more 'proof'.

johnie104
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 6:44 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby johnie104 » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:02 am UTC

What I'm getting is that people that oppose the banning of this book do it for one of two reasons:
They believe banning the book will give credence to the ideas and will further entice people already following the book to keep using it.
Banning a book is akin to banning an idea, which is just bad and leads to a precedent that you don't want.

I actually agree a bit with both of these. In an ideal world you just wouldn't have people that would want to read such a book. But banning isn't gonna lead to that ideal.
I think a better option would be, if it can be determined that there is a link between buying this book and child abuse, that child services pay close attention to a family that has bought this book. This is similar to the IRS paying attention to people that have just bought a car way above their paygrade.
This way you allow the free propogation of ideas. You're free to buy the book, to talk about it, to consider its ideas, and to follow some of the advice in it. But, buying the book (if it is indeed proven that there is a correlation between buying the book and abusing your child, which is dubious) puts you in a group that is at risk of harming your child, so you shouldn't be surprised that the government services that try to prevent child abuse are keeping a closer eye on you.

The obvious problem with this is, is that it sets a precedent for the government to track people if they are part of a 'high-risk' group, which they could determine themselves. Proving the correlation between one action and another action is hard to do, and I'm guessing the government won't be so strict about it, if it comes to that.
But, seeing as the government already tracks a large group of people on way more dubious grounds, I don't think that child services being more selective in who they keep an eye on, is really making the situation worse.
Signature removed because of it's blinding awesomeness.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:58 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I don't care if they feel rewarded.

I want the distribution of this book to be limited and that can be achieved through banning it. At the very least, people who use the book will know it has been banned and will have to jump through more hoops in the mind to rationalise why its banned and why its still the best thing for their child.

While I realise there is no way to limit digital distribution I don't think any publisher would print it and limiting hard copies is something and will make it harder to distribute.
Who asked you? Why is your moral point of view so important? Would you believe that your wish to ban a book is not unique, and in fact is no different others who see different books in exactly the same light as you see this one, and wish to ban them as well. This last is not a statement of what might be, rather a statement of what is. Who gets to choose? You?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:07 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I don't care if they feel rewarded.

I want the distribution of this book to be limited and that can be achieved through banning it. At the very least, people who use the book will know it has been banned and will have to jump through more hoops in the mind to rationalise why its banned and why its still the best thing for their child.

While I realise there is no way to limit digital distribution I don't think any publisher would print it and limiting hard copies is something and will make it harder to distribute.
Who asked you? Why is your moral point of view so important? Would you believe that your wish to ban a book is not unique, and in fact is no different others who see different books in exactly the same light as you see this one, and wish to ban them as well. This last is not a statement of what might be, rather a statement of what is. Who gets to choose? You?


This is a public forum for the exchanging of views and opinions. I am participating. And I certainly don't need your permission to do so.

I believe inciting and encouraging others to break the law (especially violence) is in of itself an offence and should be punishable by the law. And would be an objective perspective for the banning of media. Many countries have such laws and don't fall down the slippery slope nonsense that I am sure will appear within the next few posts of this thread.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:36 am UTC

Sorry, I am not suggesting that you don't state your position, what I am asking is how your position is different than a conservative Christian who wants to censor a textbook dealing with evolution. The slippery slope argument that you don't like isn't a phantasm. It has already happened and it took time to over set it. The Catholic Church until 1966 maintained a index of books that it had banned. And books are banned every year in local libraries. The way to deal with this is to fix the perception that beating your kids is okay. Make the fool who wrote the book be seen as a fool. He has sold 800,000 books. And you can't fix that.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:36 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Sorry, I am not suggesting that you don't state your position, what I am asking is how your position is different than a conservative Christian who wants to censor a textbook dealing with evolution.



I believe inciting and encouraging others to break the law (especially violence) is in of itself an offence and should be punishable by the law.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:17 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:This is a public forum for the exchanging of views and opinions. I am participating. And I certainly don't need your permission to do so.

I believe inciting and encouraging others to break the law (especially violence) is in of itself an offence and should be punishable by the law. And would be an objective perspective for the banning of media. Many countries have such laws and don't fall down the slippery slope nonsense that I am sure will appear within the next few posts of this thread.


He is not explicitly telling others to break laws, though. His guidance for child rearing is remarkably wrong-headed, and is certainly an enabler for violence, but there is a lack of content saying to go out and break laws.

There isn't a slippery slope argument here...the book is not a manual on lawbreaking, it simply has objectionable content. Banning books based on objectionable content is very problematic, and in practice, has resulted in many overreaches.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Sorry, I am not suggesting that you don't state your position, what I am asking is how your position is different than a conservative Christian who wants to censor a textbook dealing with evolution.



I believe inciting and encouraging others to break the law (especially violence) is in of itself an offence and should be punishable by the law.
That was a non answer. It doesn't mean anything. If for instance you wrote a book suggesting that people should actively protest laws banning homosexual acts, when such acts were unlawful, and if violence happened during the course of those protests, did you not incite it? So by your logic such books would have been banned. You don't like this book, and it revolts you, you don't like that a person could beat their child because you consider in a heinous act. But it is only heinous because we have taken the position that it should be. The easy thing to forget is that your passion is matched by those who disagree with you. And if your passion can ban this book their passion can cause them to want to ban others. That is the slippery slope argument.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
He is not explicitly telling others to break laws, though. His guidance for child rearing is remarkably wrong-headed, and is certainly an enabler for violence, but there is a lack of content saying to go out and break laws.


I actually haven't read the book nor have any intention for doing so. But the impression that I get is that it does advocate or comes remarkably close to advocating child abuse.

Banning books based on objectionable content is very problematic, and in practice, has resulted in many overreaches.


Banning books which incite violence is pretty damn straight forward.

That was a non answer. It doesn't mean anything. If for instance you wrote a book suggesting that people should actively protest laws banning homosexual acts, when such acts were unlawful, and if violence happened during the course of those protests, did you not incite it? So by your logic such books would have been banned.


Of course not. Protesting is lawful. Is extremely straightforward.

And if your passion can ban this book their passion can cause them to want to ban others.


I have no issue with people wanting to ban books that promote unlawful behavior. No matter how passionate or passionate I am on the topic. My passion is irrelevant.

That is the slippery slope argument.


Use a set standard. No room for slipping. Everything is fine.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:26 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Of course not. Protesting is lawful. Is extremely straightforward.
Right.
CAIRO — Egypt's president passed a law on Sunday making it illegal to hold demonstrations without the approval of the police and banning protests in places of worship, a move rights groups condemned as a blow to political freedom.


BattleMoose wrote:I actually haven't read the book nor have any intention for doing so. But the impression that I get is that it does advocate or comes remarkably close to advocating child abuse.
I don't need to read it since I don't waste my time and effort on swill. But I will fight for the right to write swill. But your position seems to consist of, I heard it's true therefore it must be.

BattleMoose wrote:I have no issue with people wanting to ban books that promote unlawful behavior. No matter how passionate or passionate I am on the topic. My passion is irrelevant.
Evidently not. Corporal punishment isn't illegal. So a book advocating its use isn't advocating something illegal.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby ucim » Thu Dec 12, 2013 2:34 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Use a set standard. No room for slipping. Everything is fine.
We have a set standard. It's the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Everything is fine.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:14 pm UTC

Laws in the United States almost all use a standard of "significant harm" or "serious injury" which is usually interpreted as broken skin, broken bones, or long-lasting marks other than on the legs and buttocks. They don't address the "risk of" harm. The Pearl book obviously puts children at a huge risk of harm, but it doesn't actually encourage parents to break skin or break bones, so there's no specific law anyone can actually point to.

Pearl was on the BBC yesterday with a few survivors of abuse: (interview starts around 27 minute mark). He had the gall to claim that he's really only talking about light thumps on a children's hands when they grab for something, etc, and that his whole mantra "trains children to respect other people's bodies". Asshole.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:26 pm UTC

This sounds more like a job for the social outrage groups rather than legislative action. Though I would definitly support some form of awareness campaign or educational thing to tamp down this movement. Banning the idea isn't the answer, having the people reject the idea with their pocket books and voices is far more effective.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 12, 2013 5:08 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
He is not explicitly telling others to break laws, though. His guidance for child rearing is remarkably wrong-headed, and is certainly an enabler for violence, but there is a lack of content saying to go out and break laws.


I actually haven't read the book nor have any intention for doing so. But the impression that I get is that it does advocate or comes remarkably close to advocating child abuse.


I have read it. It definitely advocates practices which I find very questionable. I agree that it does contribute to child abuse. Contribute to, however, is not the same as advocating for.

Banning books based on objectionable content is very problematic, and in practice, has resulted in many overreaches.


Banning books which incite violence is pretty damn straight forward.


Not by any categorization which includes books such as this.

That was a non answer. It doesn't mean anything. If for instance you wrote a book suggesting that people should actively protest laws banning homosexual acts, when such acts were unlawful, and if violence happened during the course of those protests, did you not incite it? So by your logic such books would have been banned.


Of course not. Protesting is lawful. Is extremely straightforward.


And if a country makes protesting unlawful, what then? Is that country also in the right to ban all books including protesting(or includes protesting outside the dedicated free speech zones)? What if they merely claim that protesting is desirable, and stop short of demanding you break the law to do so?

And if your passion can ban this book their passion can cause them to want to ban others.


I have no issue with people wanting to ban books that promote unlawful behavior. No matter how passionate or passionate I am on the topic. My passion is irrelevant.


Ah, back to promote, are we? Chemistry books enable people to make drugs, and making drugs is illegal as hell. Gots to burn all them.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
He is not explicitly telling others to break laws, though. His guidance for child rearing is remarkably wrong-headed, and is certainly an enabler for violence, but there is a lack of content saying to go out and break laws.


I actually haven't read the book nor have any intention for doing so. But the impression that I get is that it does advocate or comes remarkably close to advocating child abuse.


I have read it. It definitely advocates practices which I find very questionable. I agree that it does contribute to child abuse. Contribute to, however, is not the same as advocating for.


And I know. I explicitly and very intentionally used the word advocate.

Banning books based on objectionable content is very problematic, and in practice, has resulted in many overreaches.


Banning books which incite violence is pretty damn straight forward.


Not by any categorization which includes books such as this. [/quote]

Then leave the book alone.

That was a non answer. It doesn't mean anything. If for instance you wrote a book suggesting that people should actively protest laws banning homosexual acts, when such acts were unlawful, and if violence happened during the course of those protests, did you not incite it? So by your logic such books would have been banned.


Of course not. Protesting is lawful. Is extremely straightforward.


And if a country makes protesting unlawful, what then? Is that country also in the right to ban all books including protesting(or includes protesting outside the dedicated free speech zones)? What if they merely claim that protesting is desirable, and stop short of demanding you break the law to do so?


Get a better government.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
He is not explicitly telling others to break laws, though. His guidance for child rearing is remarkably wrong-headed, and is certainly an enabler for violence, but there is a lack of content saying to go out and break laws.


I actually haven't read the book nor have any intention for doing so. But the impression that I get is that it does advocate or comes remarkably close to advocating child abuse.


I have read it. It definitely advocates practices which I find very questionable. I agree that it does contribute to child abuse. Contribute to, however, is not the same as advocating for.


And I know. I explicitly and very intentionally used the word advocate.

Banning books based on objectionable content is very problematic, and in practice, has resulted in many overreaches.


Banning books which incite violence is pretty damn straight forward.


Not by any categorization which includes books such as this.


Then leave the book alone.

That was a non answer. It doesn't mean anything. If for instance you wrote a book suggesting that people should actively protest laws banning homosexual acts, when such acts were unlawful, and if violence happened during the course of those protests, did you not incite it? So by your logic such books would have been banned.


Of course not. Protesting is lawful. Is extremely straightforward.


And if a country makes protesting unlawful, what then? Is that country also in the right to ban all books including protesting(or includes protesting outside the dedicated free speech zones)? What if they merely claim that protesting is desirable, and stop short of demanding you break the law to do so?


Get a better government.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:30 am UTC

This doesn't seem to be slippery sloppey.

End of life issues

Another form of censorship unique to Australia can be found in the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act (2005) that prohibits the use of telephone, email, fax or internet to discuss the practical aspects of assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia.[64] The penalty attached to a breach of this aspect of the Australian Criminal Code is a fine of $110,000 (individual) and $550,000 (for an organisation).


So if you posted about these subjects here in xkcd would be committing a crime?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby addams » Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:14 am UTC

This seems to have become the censorship/book and movie banning thread.

I am interested in the subject. I was allowed to vote on the subject.
I think I voted wrong. It is like getting an important question wrong on a test.

Now; I am very interested in the subject.
I don't like being wrong, anymore than anyone else does.

There were other more knowledgeable person than myself voting.
My vote did not carry-the-day. Good!!

Most other nations have limits on what is allowed and what is prohibited.
I wonder about all the freedom of the BroadCast Media.

What about things that are illegal and yet are shown on TV and in Movies?
Do TV and Movies need rules that are different from the rules for books?

I think that may be true. A book does less damage to fewer people than a movie does?
What about the making of books into movies?

The book about Christians raising up their children By-The-Book;
What kind of a movie would that book make?

(no. i did not read the book. i don't like that sort of thing.)
In many ways I do not want to censor other people's worlds,
because I do not want my world to be censored.

I am sort of a PG person. I get censored for fairly mundane stuff.
F-Bombs, away!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby Cleverbeans » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:18 pm UTC

With 800,000 copies of the book sold, and only 3 murders I'm less inclined to blame the book at this point.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Couple Found Guilty of Murder, followed parenting book

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:29 pm UTC

But it hasn't sold 800,000 copies. Only 9000 copies have been sold; the rest are given away. That is, most of the people who have this book don't necessarily use it. And this is the reported deaths, it doesn't include deaths that were covered up. It also does not include the tens of thousands of kids that were tortured as a result of this book.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bbluewi and 19 guests