Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Ah, f-bombs and movie ratings. It all makes sense now. I assume they've instituted a procedure to remove all "R-rated books" from their curriculum/library in a timely manner, then? None of these things are reasons... nor are they valid. They are excuses and they are spin. I think Elfwreck put it best:

It sure isn't as if teenagers were dropping f-bombs all day long. No never.

[mldavis2]

Mercy sakes alive! Such language! Well, I never! Gee whiz, I'm sure glad that at least one community has taken appropriate steps to isolate their children from the real world. Shucks, I'll guess that none of them will apply for jobs out there. Gosh, such terrible language should be forever kept from them, lest they become corrupted to the evil ways of the outside. Golly gee, I'd make sure they never have access to these MR forums, too.

[Hellmark]

While we're at it, let's stop teaching French! French teaches vulgarity, or why else would people be constantly pardoning their french?

[anamardoll]

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?

[TimW]

Cory Doctorow takes a firm stand against the decision in his article here:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/mis...l-schools.html

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by TimW

Cory Doctorow takes a firm stand against the decision in his article here:
http://boingboing.net/2011/08/02/mis...l-schools.html

Interesting article. I note from the comments that Scroggins has a book of his own.

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-.../dp/B00287GKDY

I hope it's as sexy as I keep hearing Slaughterhouse Five is. (It's the new Peyton Place!)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Interesting article. I note from the comments that Scroggins has a book of his own.

http://www.amazon.com/Psychological-.../dp/B00287GKDY

I hope it's as sexy as I keep hearing Slaughterhouse Five is. (It's the new Peyton Place!)

I loved this comment from the article.

Originally Posted by angusm

The least we can do in return is to ensure that 'Scroggins' becomes a part of the language.

"I'd hoped to teach that book this year, but it's been scrogginsed."

"What can I say? Some scroggins ruined it for everyone as usual."

"Dude, what the [Explitive deleted]? When did you start acting so scrogginsy?"

If Anthony Comstock and Thomas Bowdler can get their own verbal monuments, Mr Scroggins deserves no less.

Missouri sure has been scrogginsed up.

[anamardoll]

Hellmark, I loved that one, too, and I like the idea. Someone make an Urban Dictionary adjustment:

Scroggins: Verb; To ban a book, movie, or other source of information due to a perceived conflict between a fictional worldview and the banner's own narrow worldview. I.e., "Slaughterhouse Five was in the Missouri Republic School Library until it got scrogginsed." See also, "Bob has been scrogginsing for Slaughterhouse Five to be removed from the Texas school libraries as well."

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This is where we disagree. I don't see evidence in the article. It just said that Scroggins made a complaint last year because of religious reasons and the superintendent announced that 2 of the 3 books were banned because of the conclusion of the board where 3 out of 7 people were absent (for the whole year?). On the other hand, a person who gives the impression that they are employed by the high-school, talks about peoples jobs being threatened.

It's easy to google information. And if you do that, it actually seems like there is reason to believe the claims of the commenter (the article that I linked to before).

If you don't want to google things, let me help you:
The earliest complaint of Wesley Scroggins. that I could find on the subject. - May 2010
A 29 page manifesto - June 2010
A not-interview of Wesley Scroggins where if you pay attention you will hear the words "You mean the history of you not being able to get on the school board?" at 1:02.

Okay! I was basing my statements on the evidence I had at hand, which was the article and comment alone. You have found additional evidence looks like it legitimizes the commenter. That's great! No problem with that whatsoever.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Ah, f-bombs and movie ratings. It all makes sense now. I assume they've instituted a procedure to remove all "R-rated books" from their curriculum/library in a timely manner, then? None of these things are reasons... nor are they valid. They are excuses and they are spin. I think Elfwreck put it best:

I could also quote Iphinome, mldavis2, and Hellmark here too (and apologies to Elfwreck for lack of embedded comments).

Now we are discussing the reason for the ban! That was my point from the beginning. If we don't discuss the real reasons for the ban, we aren't eliciting any change.

-Pie

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Someone make an Urban Dictionary adjustment

It will make a fine addition to the current definitions. I thought about posting some, but I think that people might find offense even if they are behind a spoiler.

[anamardoll]

Alas, Urban Dictionary is blocked from my place of business, so someone else will have to make the addition/correction.

[mldavis2]

What I still don't understand is why a business school professor at Missouri State University has the influence to request a ban of school curriculum and library contents at a high school in a small Missouri town.

"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads." - George Bernard Shaw

And wasn't it Mark Twain who said the best way to get someone to read something is to tell them they can't read it? Wonder how many kids grabbed their eReaders and downloaded those books in 60 seconds.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Now we are discussing the reason for the ban! That was my point from the beginning. If we don't discuss the real reasons for the ban, we aren't eliciting any change.

-Pie

We have been discussing the "reason for the ban" since the first page of the thread. The only difference in your mind is that since you disagree with some people about what THEY perceive the reason to be, you have been accusing them of being illogical, etc. for not taking the board statements of "age-appropriateness" (i.e., your POV) at face-value.

At least, that is my perception of your posts so far.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

What I still don't understand is why a business school professor at Missouri State University has the influence to request a ban of school curriculum and library contents at a high school in a small Missouri town.

I presume that he lives in the school district and the fact that his children are home-schooled is not enough to prevent him from filing the complaint. In normal circumstances, this would in fact be appropriate because it is POSSIBLE that the children were being home-schooled BECAUSE of the issue raised. (I.e., I've known parents to yank and home-school their children over sex ed that they found to be inaccurate or offensive. This would include, I think, Giggles the Sad Sex Ed Clown or whatever that YouTube guy was called.)

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Is it possible, perhaps, that you do not understand that sometimes people say one thing when they mean another?

The only thing I dislike in any discussion is people putting words in my mouth, or speculating about what I "understand." This is the second time it's happened in this thread. If I'm not clear, please ask me a question, and please please do not speculate on my internal state of mind.

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.

This suggests that you have missed my point entirely.

What evidence do you have the politician is being disingenuous in their quote? No evidence yet presented bears any of that out. Comments have attacked them for deciding on "religious" grounds. Okay, how do you know they did that? Can you present evidence that shows this to be the case?

The only evidence presented (prior to the Google links) are the quotes from the article. The article specifically states the decision was not religious. Yes, that statement could be a lie, but what evidence do you have that it is? None. So we go off complaining about religious bias with nothing to back it up.

That is an unreasoned position to take. It boils down to nothing short of a witch hunt, since it is a completely baseless accusation with absolutely no substantive evidence or proof to support it.

Or to attack it purely on logical grounds, the religious argument relies entirely on a fallacious position: "Some Politicians lie (true), therefore this politician is lie-ing. (QED?)"

Case in point:

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.

First, in terms of Christianity, there are no "inherent contradictions," which is one reason to believe it's true (I'm not talking about what some person says about Christianity, I'm talking Christian philosophy and the Bible itself). In terms of politicians (or statements made by Christians), that is a question beyond the scope of this thread, and as I stated above, does not contribute to this discussion because it merely builds a logical fallacy.

OTOH, I have illustrated that the statements made regarding language were truthful. They stated use of something akin to a movie rating system, and Slaughterhouse Five is demonstrably R-rated. This shows that they are telling the truth.

-Pie