• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some Top 10 Lists...

Anacoluthon64

Defollyant Iconoclast
Anacoluthon64
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,018
In particular, I would be interested in comments regarding the composition of this list and also regarding the individual judges given at the end.

See the masterlist for more such lists.

Apologies if this has been examined before and/or if it more properly belongs in a different forum, e.g. Politics.

'Luthon64
 
I would say a good commentary on the choices of that list is here.

To sum up the comment:

However, it got me to thinking; is there anything that ties all of these "harmful" books together? A single thread? And, I am sad to say, yes, absolutely. Without exception, all of these books weaken the case for either big business or religion.
Click to expand...
 
CptColumbo said:
Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mein Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Loose Change crew could tell you how it ends. :p

As for the list, I think the first three are inarguable. More than 100 million people were murdered almost under direct orders from those books.

I swing to the right on most issues and will agree on principle with the most of the remainder of that list. Anymore than that and I think this thread will be sent to the politics board.

EDIT: I looked at the top ten most anti-family TV shows and now I feel guilty. :(
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mein Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).
Click to expand...
(My emphasis.) In this regard, the title of Hitler's book lends itself well to a German joke, viz. "Mein Krampf" - "Krampf" is German for "cramp" as in "muscle cramp."

'Luthon64
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I swing to the right on most issues and will agree on principle with the most of the remainder of that list.
Click to expand...

Really? Let's take a walkthrough.

4. The Kinsey Report. So the books that founded sexology, the systematic, scientific study of human sexuality, and that can be held directly responsible for homosexuality no longer being considered a mental illness, are very harmful?

5. Democracy and Education. The book that says that instead of rote memorization of lessons, children should be taught to think for themselves. This is harmful?

6. Das Kapital. I'm not informed enough to talk of this.

7. The Feminine Mystique. The book that said that instead of being a good little obedient wife, there are other ways for women to find fulfillment than through their husbands and children and staying at home. This is harmful?

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy. The book that founded sociology, the study of human social actions, and said that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. This is harmful?

9. Beyond Good and Evil. The book that attacked the blind acceptance of Christian dogmas. This is harmful?

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The book that founded macroeconomics. This is harmful?

Let's also look at some of the honourable mentions.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. The book that said that individuals can be sovereign from the state in ethics and economy.

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. The book that basically founded our understanding of evolution and nature.

Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader. The book that forced car manufacturers to improve the safety of cars, the main reason millions of people worldwide are alive today.

How can you, in all honesty, agree that these books are harmful?! What kind of a person are you?
 
I say: Burn the books! Burn the books!

Seriously, though, it worries me deeply that such highly influential conservative morons exist and are allowed to vote. Still, if they wan't to drag the US back to the dark middle ages who am I to complain (except religious fundies vs. religious fundies cause most human conflicts and all terrorism)...
 
Anders W. Bonde said:
Seriously, though, it worries me deeply that such highly influential conservative morons exist and are allowed to vote. Still, if they wan't to drag the US back to the dark middle ages who am I to complain (except religious fundies vs. religious fundies cause most human conflicts and all terrorism)...
Click to expand...
Agreed, but one could argue that it is the presence of precisely such tensions that ultimately account for the stability of liberal democracies. Problems, however, start occurring when these tensions are amplified and artificially augmented by the ruling mob in a misplaced bid to further entrench themselves while the populace is distracted by such ruses. It's an outgrowth of the Divide-and-Conquer strategy.

Most of Sub-Saharan Africa is thus afflicted.

Regarding the list of "harmful" books, my take is very much in line with that of Kaarjuus - which is why I started this thread. Moreover, it is difficult to see how a book can, short of being ingested or used as a cudgel, be considered literally harmful. The ideas a book espouses can only be harmful to a particular ideology and then only if that ideology is hard to defend to begin with. That is not to say that such books as make up the list in question can't be roped in as a motivator in pursuit of some agenda, goal or ideal. But note that such efforts almost without fail boil down to exploiting ignorance by pretending to inform - i.e. the book, rather than reasoned enquiry, is the source of applicable wisdom. In this view, there is one particular book conspicuously absent from the list.

In fact, it should occupy first place.

'Luthon64
 
I got as far as the popup ad for Ann Coulter, and decided it must be a joke site.
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
Agreed, but one could argue that it is the presence of precisely such tensions that ultimately account for the stability of liberal democracies.
Click to expand...

So a liberal democracy without fundamental religious conservatives is unstable?
 
Kaarjuus said:
So a liberal democracy without fundamental religious conservatives is unstable?
Click to expand...
Uhm, no, such specificity is hardly what I meant to imply. Rather, liberal democracies, through tolerating and including an assortment of fringe and/or radical groups, or at least not excluding such from the outset, are far more resilient to their quirks and eccentricities. This is another reason the books in question should not be considered to be "harmful."

'Luthon64
 
Their list of Ten Books Every Student Should Read In College had me chuckling.

There's some decent suggestions there... but no.1 stuck with me.

The Bible?

I'm sorry, but have any of the people voting actually genuinely read the ENTIRE bible?

Because I have. Twice. When I was about 10.

It has got to be the most boring pointless book on the surface of the planet. I'm sorry, but christian or not, that book it terrible (in a literary sense). Sure, it has some excellent lessons in it, but you don't need to read the bible to learn those lessons, and trying to find them in amongst the book's 2000 or so pages is like trying to find very small needles in a very large haystack.

-Andrew
 
CptColumbo said:
Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mien Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).
Click to expand...

That reminds me of something another political tool said. I once heard Bill O'Reilly complaining about a university course on the Koran. In his usual manner he described it as "the book of our enemies" so as to display his inability to comprehend complexity by differentiating between Muslims in general and religious extremists. But then I already knew him to be an ass. Next he proceeded to prove to me that he is also an unimaginative fool by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf (again, ass, knew it) and stating that if he'd been told to read Hitler's book in 1938 he'd have bravely and intelligently refused. Fool. I can name one man who most certainly did read Mein Kampf very carefully: Winston Churchill! After all, his mortal enemy had the consideration to offer an insight into the twisted workings of his chaotic mind by publishing his own sick vision. What's ironic is that the people who didn't read Mein Kampf were the Germans themselves. For the most part they couldn't get through its rambling, poorly written crap and simply kept it out of a need to be seen as loyal by any probing Gestapo tools. I don't mean to berate you for not finishing it as it is genuinely crap, I only read it as a history major. And after some seven decades most of us know pretty well what Hitler was on about. But in the late '30s reading it may well have helped many to see some of what was coming their way. But not Bill O'Reilly.

Steven
 
I would have thought something like the "Anarchist's Cookbook" would make a list of harmful books or that one that can only be bought at gunshows (about the coming revolution).
 
The first three books are hard to argue with, although I'm not sure the Little Red Book had much traction outside China. After that, the list immediately decends into a bunch of politicized crap. And any list that includes Darwin, even as "honorable mention," is simply proclaiming a virtue of ignorance.

As far as the site itself, seeing Coulter (incredibly stupid and vicious liar) and Novak (unhesitatingly places in jeopardy the lives of a woman serving her country and her family to ass-kiss his administration handlers) tells me all I need to know about it. And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?
 
:p
Stellafane said:
And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?
Click to expand...

That was always what caught my eye the most. What's up with that?

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot imagine a democrats site with the same kind of propaganda. What are they trying to do!? Why on Earth should that not be people's of business? Do they fear that if a good conservative should get a democratic better half, then he or she will convert? Are they that insecure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom