What is Digg?147 Comments
- mulegulch1, on 10/12/2007, -30/+133I don't know if the rule has to be that the book was published then, but I would include the Bible and the Koran.
- azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -25/+96Um, guns do kill people--a lot more efficiently than most other methods. I've been living in a country with virtually no guns for the past few years, and I gotta say I like it. And I'm a former NRA member, so don't bother quoting all the arguments at me--I know them backwards and forwards.
But that said, I don't think books should be banned. Not even the Bible and the Quran, both of which encourage their followers to kill people for holding piddling ideological differences. (Yes, yes, I know they also encourage loving your neighbor and all that, fine. The fact is, they do, in places, unequivocally tell you that God wants you to murder certain people.) Are books dangerous? Hell yes. Should they be banned? Hell no. People need to grow up, learn to think for themselves. They're not going to do that with the dangerous books locked away. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+74@Oakes:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -Aristotle - Noein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50digg to be used as summer reading list
- Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48Why is Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" on that list?
Every person who travels in an auto benefited from his car safety crusade. Tens of thousands of lives have been saved because of it.
I can understand why conservatives might object to the rest of the list and to some of Nader's other writings, but to object to a book about consumer safety is beyond ridiculous. Scratch that: it's beyond lunacy. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50@Oakes:
I thought about not replying to this, but seriously... it just boggles my mind that you don't get that quote. I honestly can't wrap my head around that fact. Even if you are just a teenager... I mean, wow. That's amazing. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -13/+54I believe this list (including the Honorable Mentions) reflects the basic agenda of the religious right in this country and where their mindset is in terms of what they would like to purge from our soceity. Sex and evolution seem particularly singled out. Classic!
- Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39No they didn't. They just don't realize it's about them.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -6/+38...missionary position.
- graystar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+36They missed 1984 by George Orwell.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -7/+34"The Kinsey Report", yep, everything about sex scares these people. Do you think they even know how people become pregnant?
- Septimus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Books are only dangerous because people are stupid.
Unfortunately not much you can do about that... other than letting Darwin's run it's course. - Spanktacular, on 10/12/2007, -12/+37Nazis had some of the largest book burnings in history, Oakes. That's also where the term "politically correct" originated, during their witch hunt of the other academics who were openly criticizing them. Today's "conservative" (nothing in common with the word) and members of the right wing, have more in common with Nazis than anyone else at the moment...
Learn from history, or you'll simply be repeating it. - Inaeth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29This just exemplifies the raison d'etre for their political viewpoint- Ignorance is Bliss. With ignorance, they are more likely to control the vast masses.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30Conservatives hate any economic theory that doesn't give them all the money. Keynes actually recommended increasing taxation during times of prosperity.
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -18/+39"Why is Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed" on that list?"
Because he's a politician and he's not republican.
Don't forget this list was compiled by wackos. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19My point is that Hitler was a boring madman as a writer.
- Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Anyone considering "The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin" in their top 10 harmful books shouldn't deserve a digg.
However, this is a good list of books to read, so digg! - GinsuGuy585, on 10/12/2007, -7/+24Mein Kampf is on of the most racist and illogical books I have ever read.
Like most of the books listed, any hate propaganda incites people to believe they are enemies with others. This is a dangerous thing. It is dangerous because some people will believe it. Much like those info-mercials offering 'miracle cures' for cancer, arthritis, and the like, these books trick people into believing what the writers want them to believe. A balance must be maintained between protecting citizens and upholding their freedom.
If you have that aunt, mother, friend, who always buys Ronco products, keep these books away. - astatine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Yeah, let's take some events over sixty years apart and imply that they're connected...
"The US abolished slavery in 1865, and the New York stock exchange crashed in 1929!"
"Woodrow Wilson took the US into the Great War in 1917, and by 1980, the US had an alarming quantity of disaffected army veterans!"
Interesting game, this buck-passing. - eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21I dunno about any else, but seeing don't read these in big blue letters really makes me want to read them.
As for the koran/bible being harmful, the only reason theyre harmful is because people don't read them, and accept what they are being told without question. (at least for the bible, don't know jack about the koran). - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I do believe I've read all of those books... even the honorably mentioned. Although, I have to say The Second Sex probably had a larger impact, worldwide, than Feminine Mystique. The latter might not have been possible without the former.
- unbreakable, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin"??
They have got to be kidding. This book belongs in the Top 10 amazing book of any century. - Aggaman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I think the guy who read all of Mein Kampf should be dugg up for perseverance.
Out of curiousity I tried reading some of it once. It is the most tedious book I have ever opened. It reads like some of those "personal philosophies" you sometimes find on the internet, only worse. - Karkian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15If you'd read the comments you'd have noticed that the vast majority are AGAINST banning books...
- jaikar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Banning books by an organization, a group of people, a country, etc. only shows how weak the banning body is in refuting the books claims. This is a civilization sickening practice.
Exactly what is happening in the Islamic countries in general. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Azza, I know that this comment is somewhat irrelevant to the whole discussion, but you brought it up, and I can't just leave it untouched. There is a reason that we ( Americans ) have the right to carry arms. The reason is not for property protection. The reason is not to discourage crime. Both of those things would be easier if only law enforcement had guns. The reasoning behind that right is far more important, and thought we don't need it NOW we may need it in the future. This reason is that if or when eventually the government gets completely out of line we can stand up to it and forcefully overthrow it. (Don't give me any bull about the government already being out of line, and don't give me any bull about rifles vs machine guns, don't forget that soldiers are people, too). When the time comes that your government completely loses its integrity, you will also wish that you had a right to carry arms.
- MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14dianetics anyone ?
- rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26Shame on everyone who's voting down azzageddis comment, I'd wager a pretty penny that if you read the comment and then thought on it for a moment you'd agree.
Get a grip on reality and stop voting down good comments. - darkdaedra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11There is not a single Libertarian book on that list...
- cyberdork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14And I guess they didn't put the 'Bill of Rights' on the list, because it doesn't qualify as a book.
- nocountries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11yes but it's dangerous to the religious right, who think
i) the world is about 10,000 years old
ii) dinosaurs never existed
iii) there is no such thing as evolution. Ask a farmer trying to protect his crops with chemicals. The bastards (er, the bugs, not the farmers!!) evolve in the space of a few years!!! - hellocharlie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Check out this little gem from the originating article:
"FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt." - on "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money"
What a way to pass the buck!? :-) - wetworx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I am a conservative and I am just happy you know how to read.
- DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Wouldn't the Republicans want a justification for the Leviathan state? They certainly seem to be building one.
- Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The Judges
These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books.
Arnold Beichman
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution
Prof. Brad Birzer
Hillsdale College
Harry Crocker
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University
Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union
Prof. Robert George
Princeton University
Prof. Paul Gottfried
Elizabethtown College
Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University
Herb London
President
Hudson Institute
Prof. Mark Malvasi
Randolph-Macon College
Douglas Minson
Associate Rector
The Witherspoon Fellowships
Prof. Mark Molesky
Seton Hall University
Prof. Stephen Presser
Northwestern University
Phyllis Schlafly
President
Eagle Forum
Fred Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute
That's a list of universities/colleges NOT to attend. - afpunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I love this gem from the original article.
"Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate."
I'm no big fan of any given economic theory, but I just find this hilarious. Its so easy to see the benefits of capitalism when you are sitting at a cushy job at a conservative think tank, eh? Given that the wage gap continues to grow, I'm not sure you can yet say that Marx was wrong. A revolution still COULD happen, its just not likely, due more I think to apathy than to the joys of capitalism. - ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@positron
Agreed. I, too, was surprised that Harry Potter wasn't on the list. The religious freaks were burning them (OH MY GOD...THEY'RE WITCHES!!!!!1! Burn them. Burn them all!!!!!) - Clbck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10What is bliss?
- masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I agree. I mean, The Communist Manifesto is read all the time. I just read it last semester for my history class (though the professor was better than most). It just talks about ideal communism (the type that has never been done), and how it is the ideal social structure. But, ideal communism, while it would be...ideal, would be strikingly boring, not to mention that it would have to rely on the human heart not becoming corrupt.
In otherwords, Communism doesn't work, and if it did, you'd be bored as hell. - Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7So much for Princeton. Community College, here I come!
- llewner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Conservatives" ehh? Funny how there are MANY different kinds of political conservatives. Do fiscal conservatives agree? Aren't blanket statements fun?
Sheesh .. those darned evil conservatives, almost as bad as those godless liberals. I'm glad all humanity in America fits into one category or another and is easily labeled with a blanket statement. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15@azzageddi -- "Um, guns do kill people--a lot more efficiently than most other methods."
Yep. All those guns in prison right now...convicted of walking around and killing people on their own accord. Humans are just accessories to murder. - hellocharlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I've encountered a great number of conservatives who read far more "leftist" literature than anything else. It's like sizing up the opposition.
Most will have heard the phrase, "the Devil knows the Bible like the back of his hand."
Even though it damn near kills me, I try hard to follow conservative literature... like "Human Events." *shudder* - mcflynnthm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is kind of old, but I still love that list. I'm always fascinated that they would put Marx above Hitler. Maybe I read a different translation of The Communist Manifesto, but it didn't seem particularly threatening :P
- iamdecal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I love the fact that they have links to amazon .... dont read these books, but if you do i'll be getting a percentage ;-)
- Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8That's the point, though. It's a list of the "most dangerous" books as compiled by a conservative think tank. The linked blog just listed them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Aggaman,
I totally agree. I skimmed it a while back and remember him ranting about syphillis way too much for a political book. Someone got the clap and just had to write a book about it, I guess. - vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@eonblue: Maybe you should try reading the bible yourself. It *is* a dangerous book, and 90% of what's in it should be off-limits for children. What you are told about the bible by the church, evangelists, etc. is mostly just the good parts.
It is a tragedy that religion (of any kind) is being taught to children. - barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"But that said, I don't think books should be banned. Not even the Bible and the Quran, both of which encourage their followers to kill people for holding piddling ideological differences."
The Qur'an does not tell you to kill people with different beliefs, there are some points in the Qur'an where it literally says "kill the non-believers" or such but they are part of accounts of history. They are referring to certain battles that went on with Muslims at certain periods in time. And it says kill the non-believers, as in the enemy in that situation. Just like you would say "kill those men", doesn't mean to kill every man, it is just pointing at the enemy in that situation. If you have seen anything saying killing all the non-believers in the Qur'an, then you interpretted it out of context. -
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is