Quote:
Originally Posted by EatingPie
No, this is not logical. It ignores everything stated as the reason for the ban.
|
Is it possible, perhaps, that you do not understand that sometimes people say one thing when they mean another?
For instance, someone may SAY they think Truck Nuts should be banned "for the sake of the children" or "because they are an unnecessary distraction while driving" when they really MEAN that they think they are tacky and gross. But since we don't usually ban things for being "tacky and gross", the ban has to have new words applied like "age-appropriate" and "safety".
I'm somewhat vaguely astonished at the stance you're taking. I have to assume that you believe everything every politician has ever said, ever. Because they wouldn't SAY it if it wasn't TRUE. How does one live like that? I'm genuinely curious.
How do you pick a political party, or -- for that matter -- a religion, if you believe that everything anyone says is true and unassailable? How do you deal with the inherent contradictions that arise? I'm flabbergasted.
Incidentally, since the whole point of this post was a political decision (book banning) based on a religious compliant, I rather think it's IMPOSSIBLE to keep religion and politics out of this thread.
Maybe it should be moved?