Thread: Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.
View Single Post
Old 08-02-2011, 07:02 PM   #213
EatingPie
Blueberry!
EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.
 
EatingPie's Avatar
 
Posts: 888
Karma: 133343
Join Date: Mar 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 (RIP); PRS-600 (Good Riddance); PRS-505; PRS-650; PRS-350
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
Sorry, that part wasn't directed specifically at you. There were several other posts that suggested there was absolutely nothing to see here. They were well within their rights so everyone should just move along.

I do agree with you that if religion did not honestly play a part in the book's removal, then religion need not be discussed—and in fact may be confusing the issue. Unfortunately, in order to accept the fact that religion only kick-started the process and wasn't used as review criteria, I have to take the word of people I don't know. And frankly, I just don't trust anyone who determined that Slaughterhouse Five wasn't age appropriate reading material for 13-17 year-olds—based on content alone. Period.
At this point, there is no way to have a reasoned debate. You must throw out all evidence provided simply because you don't know the people. That is not a rational position to take. It is exactly the same as me saying that I do not know Richard Dawkins, and therefore I do not trust his opinions or assertions at all. You think I might be taken to task for saying something like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverClothe View Post
This is exactly what I was thinking. I think EatingPie is just unfamiliar with how religious conservatives act. My father grew up in a very conservative family (I'm sure my grandmother would disown us if she knew we have been going to a church that allows women to speak in front of the congregation and even plays instrumental music!). Luckily for me, he learned the error of those ways and raised me better.
I am not ignorant the way people act -- be they liberal or conservative, religious or atheistic -- please do not state or imply that I am.

Quote:
The religious conservatives are very good at word games. They have to be to justify their strange beliefs.
At this point, you are merely slinging vitriol at "religious conservatives." This is also an unreasoned standpoint to take as it offers nothing substantive to the debate... except to get it pushed out of public viewing on mobileread.

Quote:
On the topic of the new information coming out, it seems to be even worse than the first article indicates.
The new information cited was a comment by a person who we must assume is involved in the case. Why should we believe that person any more than those cited in the article?

-Pie
Last edited by EatingPie; 08-02-2011 at 07:09 PM.
EatingPie is offline