Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.
It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.
Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.
The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.
Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.
I’m in the anti-ban camp because restricting access to knowledge due to arbitrary lines like age is the opposite of learning. It is up to the reader and their mentors to guide their reading depending on ability and maturity as needed. No two people will have the same levels at the same age so books appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another.
That said, to nitpick a tad: pointing to the Internet when on a discussion of book banning or restrictions is more “red herring” or “false equivalence” than strawman.
Man, the straw man was about having access to the internet as an example of uncensored access to information invalidating book moderation. It wasn’t about equivocating between different degrees of offending narratives. I was just following the principle to its final conclusion.
It doesn’t have to be a snuff film. That was an example or meant to be a hypothetical to further the discussion. I don’t see how nitpicking it is constructive if it sidesteps my point.
Now we get to an actual strawman -Finally! My position has never been the banning of all books, but rather questioning if moderation is useful or not. You can’t say that the logical conclusion of some moderation is total banning because it doesn’t follow.
The person I replied to said internet exists so banning books is worthless anyway which is not a terrible argument. I think it’s worth considering it 2024. I was just taking the hypothetical to its extreme conclusion to test if it was still a principled position to have. I think we all agree at this point.
Anyway. I’m not pro banning and I appreciate the convo so thanks.
Cheers!
I’m in the anti-ban camp because restricting access to knowledge due to arbitrary lines like age is the opposite of learning. It is up to the reader and their mentors to guide their reading depending on ability and maturity as needed. No two people will have the same levels at the same age so books appropriate for one may not be appropriate for another.
That said, to nitpick a tad: pointing to the Internet when on a discussion of book banning or restrictions is more “red herring” or “false equivalence” than strawman.