Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
- Messages
- 10,564
@nutman451
Well, it's true. Say what you will about 2spirit, but at least she is able to identify the thesis of an argument and counter it.
At this point, I think Okdudeswow lacks the reading comprehension. grammar. and the ability to accurately display the opposing argument that is needed to have this conversation. Maybe he should read the Dr Seuss books and get back to us when he's sorted it out?
You seem very weirdly fixated on this point. My argument was never contingent on Dr Seuss being the best possible Children's author. No, it's your job to argue why we should even have to substitute him for anyone else in the first place? As I said, there's clearly a demand for his books, just look at the Amazon and Ebay listings.
What you're doing here is the Nirvana fallacy, insisting that because Seuss is not the pinnacle of literature that he is not important, which does not justify his censorship or removal simply because someone else MIGHT be able to do his work better.
Whether you hate those works is irrelevant to my point, as I merely am pointing out that your line of reasoning can be used to remove those books just as flippantly as you discredited Dr Seuss. You are meant to be justifying why he was censored, and anything not specifically addressing that point such as "other people can do it better," is ultimately not a solid justification for why the action would be taken in the first place.
The latter half is completely irrelevant to the conversation being had, as whether we enjoy the novels subjectively as adults is not the purpose of this conversation.
Though again, this point is irrelevant to the larger discussion as I merely pointed to the Odyssey as a piece of epic poetry which at one point was considered appropriate for kids and now modern standards have considered them not to be.
COULD doesn't mean you SHOULD, and that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's automatically superior. You're meant to be making the case as to WHY we should do something, not presuming that because it has already been done, that is the right course of action, because we're being critical of the rationale behind the censorship of these books and the fact they're not being published anymore. Things like whether other books can do their job or whether or not they sold well is all post hoc rationalizations which are irrelevant to the criticisms being levied about the censorship of books and the destruction of culture.
The Crying of Lot 49 is not as influential or culturally significant as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and has not impacted art in the same way. The Crying of Lot 49 is also a little bit more advanced and you would expect it in more of a college atmosphere. Plus you don't get the ability to analyze Carroll's poetry or the use of poetic devices, which is an important part of the English curriculum. It would be like removing Chaucer or Shakespeare in favor of more modern literature, which discounts the influences they've had on modern English and the anglosphere's culture.
Regardless, this tangent is irrelevant to the larger point of this conversation, so it's not important.
If a publication company stops publishing a book because of modern socio-political pressures and fear of the mob, I would call that censorship. Not to mention that Ebay took down listings of the books because it violated their rules against their 'Offensive Materials Policy,' which by your definition IS censorship. Paired with the fact several libraries are removing them and it's fair to call it censorship.
By your logic, we would have to go full Fahrenheit 451 for a book to be censored, ignoring the frequently most challenged books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird over use of offensive terms despite the messages the books present.
What, will we have to track down the last copies of a book and burn them all for it finally to be considered "censorship" in your eyes because it still exists and is still in circulation? Your definition is too narrow to be useful in any real way.
Strawman. The point I was making was in regards to your logic, and that it was what was used by Christians throughout history destroy art or knowledge from older periods in history because "their works fall out of relevancy and popularity over time," ignoring the importance of recording history and knowledge so future generations may be aware of it and may learn from it.
We learn a lot about a culture from what books they read to their kids, what stories they told, what they wanted their kids to be informed by, and the language they used. Dr Seuss's books would fit that mold, and so would be important to preserve for that purpose
Not even in the slightest. I am merely trying to apply a consistent standard by using your logic.
The slippery slope fallacy is not always a fallacy because it means you have to know reasonable A will lead to B which will lead to C in a casual relationship, so it's not a fallacy if you can demonstrate a clear and logical relationship.
For instance: Abolishing police -> No one will be around to enforce the law -> More people will break the law because they know they will get away with it -> There will be an increase in crime generally -> There will be an increase to violent crime.
Just as the law is based on precedents, you can determine casual relationships that can lead you to a logical conclusion based on several axioms. Where the slippery slope becomes fallacious is when you have not proven a causal relationship, like arguing that gay marriage leads to bestiality would be.
Your argument is that Seuss is not the end all and be all of children's literature, therefore removing him would be okay, but the error in that assumption is that it can be applied to literally anything, and can be used to justify any action.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking me here. I just pointed out that Dr Seuss had literary merit due to the themes explored in his works, which is not to say that everything he wrote was a master stroke of God, but that his works have some importance to culture and so people should be familiar with them. I'm not against change, but you have to make an argument why we SHOULD change, and not just change something for the sake of changing it.
How would changing it so Dr Seuss is not taught be beneficial or substituting him for anything else improve the curriculum? That's a question you have to answer, not me.
When was it part of my argument that we should teach kids every novel with literary merit? I merely pointed out that literary merit is a good standard for what should be taught or remain uncensored in terms of art. So this is, again, a strawman.
Whether I do or not does not refute my argument that ceasing publication of Dr Seuss because of depictions which were not culturally controversial in their time is unjust and that they are very significant in their impact to American culture as a piece of Americana. Any emotional attachment I may or may not have is not the point being discussed here, and it seems you keep attacking points which I have either have not stated and do not support, or which are ancillary to the crux of the argument being had.
Yes, which is why the books should not be censored because they help to teach those lessons in a concise way to a younger audience. Thank you for making my case for me.
@okdudeswow
Well, it's true. Say what you will about 2spirit, but at least she is able to identify the thesis of an argument and counter it.
At this point, I think Okdudeswow lacks the reading comprehension. grammar. and the ability to accurately display the opposing argument that is needed to have this conversation. Maybe he should read the Dr Seuss books and get back to us when he's sorted it out?
You seem very weirdly fixated on this point. My argument was never contingent on Dr Seuss being the best possible Children's author. No, it's your job to argue why we should even have to substitute him for anyone else in the first place? As I said, there's clearly a demand for his books, just look at the Amazon and Ebay listings.
What you're doing here is the Nirvana fallacy, insisting that because Seuss is not the pinnacle of literature that he is not important, which does not justify his censorship or removal simply because someone else MIGHT be able to do his work better.
My point is simple in that your logic can be used to justify the removal of any book without reason, and I pointed to works similar to Dr Seuss in terms of poetic devices and social satire which used to have a heavy audience for kids. I never said you were attacking all of children's literature, but that your line of reasoning could work for literary anything by describing it overly broad manner to make it seem absurd without actually pointing to an argument.
Whether you hate those works is irrelevant to my point, as I merely am pointing out that your line of reasoning can be used to remove those books just as flippantly as you discredited Dr Seuss. You are meant to be justifying why he was censored, and anything not specifically addressing that point such as "other people can do it better," is ultimately not a solid justification for why the action would be taken in the first place.
I never said that you specifically were the one that stopped publishing his books. I literally said it was the publishing company. I asked what is your justification for defending the censorship and was criticizing your apologia because it did not rebut my criticisms but ultimately brought up irrelevant points that really didn't matter.
The latter half is completely irrelevant to the conversation being had, as whether we enjoy the novels subjectively as adults is not the purpose of this conversation.
I'd say it depends what you mean, but it was probably still being taught in Europe to around early preteens in the 19th and early 20th centuries, though we have moved it up slightly in terms of timescale. Even then, I remember being in elementary when I learned about the myth of Odysseus and the Cyclops, or the Trojan War, so it's not like there aren't parts of the books that are not taught to children even now.
Though again, this point is irrelevant to the larger discussion as I merely pointed to the Odyssey as a piece of epic poetry which at one point was considered appropriate for kids and now modern standards have considered them not to be.
COULD doesn't mean you SHOULD, and that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean it's automatically superior. You're meant to be making the case as to WHY we should do something, not presuming that because it has already been done, that is the right course of action, because we're being critical of the rationale behind the censorship of these books and the fact they're not being published anymore. Things like whether other books can do their job or whether or not they sold well is all post hoc rationalizations which are irrelevant to the criticisms being levied about the censorship of books and the destruction of culture.
Yes.
The Crying of Lot 49 is not as influential or culturally significant as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, and has not impacted art in the same way. The Crying of Lot 49 is also a little bit more advanced and you would expect it in more of a college atmosphere. Plus you don't get the ability to analyze Carroll's poetry or the use of poetic devices, which is an important part of the English curriculum. It would be like removing Chaucer or Shakespeare in favor of more modern literature, which discounts the influences they've had on modern English and the anglosphere's culture.
Regardless, this tangent is irrelevant to the larger point of this conversation, so it's not important.
If a publication company stops publishing a book because of modern socio-political pressures and fear of the mob, I would call that censorship. Not to mention that Ebay took down listings of the books because it violated their rules against their 'Offensive Materials Policy,' which by your definition IS censorship. Paired with the fact several libraries are removing them and it's fair to call it censorship.
By your logic, we would have to go full Fahrenheit 451 for a book to be censored, ignoring the frequently most challenged books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird over use of offensive terms despite the messages the books present.
What, will we have to track down the last copies of a book and burn them all for it finally to be considered "censorship" in your eyes because it still exists and is still in circulation? Your definition is too narrow to be useful in any real way.
Strawman. The point I was making was in regards to your logic, and that it was what was used by Christians throughout history destroy art or knowledge from older periods in history because "their works fall out of relevancy and popularity over time," ignoring the importance of recording history and knowledge so future generations may be aware of it and may learn from it.
We learn a lot about a culture from what books they read to their kids, what stories they told, what they wanted their kids to be informed by, and the language they used. Dr Seuss's books would fit that mold, and so would be important to preserve for that purpose
Not even in the slightest. I am merely trying to apply a consistent standard by using your logic.
The slippery slope fallacy is not always a fallacy because it means you have to know reasonable A will lead to B which will lead to C in a casual relationship, so it's not a fallacy if you can demonstrate a clear and logical relationship.
For instance: Abolishing police -> No one will be around to enforce the law -> More people will break the law because they know they will get away with it -> There will be an increase in crime generally -> There will be an increase to violent crime.
Just as the law is based on precedents, you can determine casual relationships that can lead you to a logical conclusion based on several axioms. Where the slippery slope becomes fallacious is when you have not proven a causal relationship, like arguing that gay marriage leads to bestiality would be.
Your argument is that Seuss is not the end all and be all of children's literature, therefore removing him would be okay, but the error in that assumption is that it can be applied to literally anything, and can be used to justify any action.
Never said that nor implied that. I just don't want Dr Seuss's books to be censored. This is like saying "we shouldn't make it so no one can eat apples again," and then it being countered with "so what you're saying is that we only have to eat apples for the rest of our lives?" Address my actual argument, please.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking me here. I just pointed out that Dr Seuss had literary merit due to the themes explored in his works, which is not to say that everything he wrote was a master stroke of God, but that his works have some importance to culture and so people should be familiar with them. I'm not against change, but you have to make an argument why we SHOULD change, and not just change something for the sake of changing it.
How would changing it so Dr Seuss is not taught be beneficial or substituting him for anything else improve the curriculum? That's a question you have to answer, not me.
When was it part of my argument that we should teach kids every novel with literary merit? I merely pointed out that literary merit is a good standard for what should be taught or remain uncensored in terms of art. So this is, again, a strawman.
Whether I do or not does not refute my argument that ceasing publication of Dr Seuss because of depictions which were not culturally controversial in their time is unjust and that they are very significant in their impact to American culture as a piece of Americana. Any emotional attachment I may or may not have is not the point being discussed here, and it seems you keep attacking points which I have either have not stated and do not support, or which are ancillary to the crux of the argument being had.
Yes, which is why the books should not be censored because they help to teach those lessons in a concise way to a younger audience. Thank you for making my case for me.
@okdudeswow
