Who here is for banning and burning books?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

That made me chuckle...and it's not even 6 a.m.
Good shot, man.

a reply to: DAVID64

'Loaded question.' Two of them have a combined head start of ~3500 years

Which has killed the most people in the last 100 years? You can answer honestly because I'm not about banning guns.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Funny that you talk about freedom and people being offended at how they use that freedom, when you are talking about how you are offended at how people use their freedom.

People have the right to "burn books". It's free speech. That does not mean they have the right to burn my "books", just as it is their right to choose not to exercise the 2nd amendment and that choice has no effect on whether or not I choose to.

I really see very little difference between yourself and those that speak out against firearms, except you are on opposites sides of a childish debate. They equate firearm owners to crazed killers and you equate them to book burners.

In the end, a discussion still has to take place and the reasonable adults have to try to work this out while listening to the petulant whiners from both sides, such as yourself.

So while I may not be a book burner, I support the right of people to do what they want as long as it doesn't encroach on my rights and I expect the same in return.

If you want the same, perhaps you should learn about the concept of freedom and how you are doing nothing to help perpetuate it's existence.

We're living Fahrenheit 451 right now. Just it's against guns instead of books...for now.

a reply to: introvert

Burn all the books you want, as long as they're yours.

originally posted by: Starhooker
a reply to: introvert

Burn all the books you want, as long as they're yours.

Exactly. That's freedom.

Apparently many, including the OP, do not understand the concept of freedom.

The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people.

I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

originally posted by: JugHead
The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people.

I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

Sadly, that's the same sort of mindset we see from the anti-2nd crowd.

You and others do not do me or any 2nd amendment advocate any favors by using similar faulty logic.

a reply to: DBCowboy

not even the #tiest books !
Unless of course a second ice age !

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JugHead
The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people.

I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

Sadly, that's the same sort of mindset we see from the anti-2nd crowd.

You and others do not do me or any 2nd amendment advocate any favors by using similar faulty logic.

Sadly, it's your mindset that sees everyone else as opposed to your mindset in your mind only that makes it hard to discuss this kind of thing. You will always see yourself as faultless and everyone else full of fault. That's where the real fault lies.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK, when I said nobody here burns books I forgot that I'd blocked out the existence of The Sparkly Vampire Saga and its bastard progeny Fifty Shades of $hite (as a member of the BDSM community I find it hilarious in all the wrong ways).

I'd happily use these as toilet paper or firelighters and I have, in the past used Yellow Pages' as firelighters so I guess I am a book burner...

a reply to: introvert

I think he's talking about certain books that contain ideas, morals, or anything a certain group doesn't agree with. Not random books but gathering up all of a certain book with certain ideas in order to wipe the contents and ideas off the face of the earth. To make an idea extinct because it was offensive or didn't march to the correct drum. Just think if the library of alexandria hadnt been burned down by those, um, peaceful, loving and progressive gentleman. I've burned books. It's delightful. But not because I didn't jive with the contents. It was a fishing book. I then chucked it at one of my older brothers, still flaming, who proceeded to kick my ass because he loved that book. Well, bro, dont throw rocks at my hamster. We have since made up

a reply to: JugHead

This makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

a reply to: Bone75

Seconded with gusto.

No book should be burned, no information lost. Only by proper study of that which we find repugnant, can the undoing of its advocates be assured. Knowledge is a more potent weapon than any firearm, blade or bomb, even the nuclear strata of weaponry.

Information, knowledge... these things place power in the hands of all who possess them. There are no books that should not be owned, but there are many books which should not be enjoyed. I do not enjoy reading the history of the Nazi party for example, because it turns my stomach to know the measure of their degeneracy. But it is necessary to know these things, so that fascists in this period can be better identified by their word and deed, allowing me to have a better grasp of where the players are, what their numbers are like, what capabilities they have, what resources they possess. This information will, no doubt become useful at some stage.

I do not enjoy reading about the acts of psychopaths, because the devastation they leave in their wake, by way of serial murder, or the more recent tendency toward mass casualty incidents, is heartbreaking to bear even the remote witness to, that comes of reading about it after the fact. But it is absolutely necessary to have access to this information, so that on the off chance that someone in my life might turn on the world all of a sudden, I can have a better chance of seeing the signs and acting to protect those I hold dear.

I do not enjoy the thought of nuclear warfare, but I learn all I can about it. I dislike the idea of using firearms to do what ought to be done with a sword, but I learn all I can about firearms too. I dislike the necessity for violence, but I accept that there sometimes is one, and so I learn about combat, from close quarters, unarmed, to guerilla actions and global scale warfare.

I dislike our system of applying value to people, and so I have learned over the years, as much as I can about it, about the methods it uses to legitimise itself in the eyes of its victims, and swear that should the chance arise, I will seek to dismantle it and replace it, an oath I could not swear unless I had the information necessary to realise it was evil, leave alone the data necessary to replace it.

There are no tomes which ought to be burned, but many, many which must not be enjoyed, because to enjoy their content is to prove beyond doubt that one has no humanity in their heart at all.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I guess I misinterpreted Introverts reply. I just say it like I see it.

The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people. I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

That was my post, and introvert posted something about it being wrong to say that, so...

originally posted by: JugHead
The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people.

I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

Using a jam-o-matic to defend your library brings one's sanity into question.
A good pump-action shot-gun should be sufficient and more reliable.

a reply to: skunkape23

Who said I used bullets? lol

a reply to: skunkape23

Why let em get that close?

originally posted by: JugHead

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JugHead
The only kind of people who would want to burn books are insane people.

I have a huge library that I'd defend with an M16 if it came to it.

Sadly, that's the same sort of mindset we see from the anti-2nd crowd.

You and others do not do me or any 2nd amendment advocate any favors by using similar faulty logic.

Sadly, it's your mindset that sees everyone else as opposed to your mindset in your mind only that makes it hard to discuss this kind of thing. You will always see yourself as faultless and everyone else full of fault. That's where the real fault lies.

You realize that your argument is nothing more than "I know you are but what am I", correct?

More logical fallacies.

We cannot come to any sort of understanding when you start the conversation from a position of ignorance.

a reply to: Starhooker

I think he's talking about certain books that contain ideas, morals, or anything a certain group doesn't agree with. Not random books but gathering up all of a certain book with certain ideas in order to wipe the contents and ideas off the face of the earth.

If true, then the OP is based on a false equivalence. What you describe is not happening here.