Censoring Huck Finn

[ack44]

Porn novels?  You are sounding like you are from outer space man.  It's illegal for children under the age of 18 (21 in some places) to consume pornography.  It also serves no educational purpose.  Stop raising really bad arguments just to raise bad arguments.

Besides, earlier in the thread you stated that you agree that the book should not be censored.  so... the hell?

Ah, I actually hadn't considered porn novels being outright illegal for minors. Are they? If so, that's a hell of a blurry line. And are you okay with this censorship? Because I've also heard that there are versions of Shakespeare that censor out the erotic scenes, and I'm sure a lot of people in this thread would be against these being in schools.

In general I am very anti-censorship, yes. I'm not arguing for this censored version to be in schools, I'm just pointing out how people are over-simplifying the matter.

[Adami]

I still have no idea what you're getting at Ack, aside from trying really hard to show us that we're hypocrates or something.

[Orbert]

I still have no idea what you're getting at Ack, aside from trying really hard to show us that we're hypocrates or something.

[ack44]

Well I do think it's hypocritical to respond emotionally to these kinds of obvious cases of censorship while not giving a shit about how the U.S. government is doing everything they can to suppress huge chunks of information exposing its corruption.

[Adami]

Well I do think it's hypocritical to respond emotionally to these kinds of obvious cases of censorship while not giving a shit about how the U.S. government is doing everything they can to suppress huge chunks of information exposing its corruption.

Well for one, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about censoring art, not hiding government information from the public. If you want to call both of them censorship, fine, but they aren't the same thing.

[TempusVox]

Well I do think it's hypocritical to respond emotionally to these kinds of obvious cases of censorship while not giving a shit about how the U.S. government is doing everything they can to suppress huge chunks of information exposing its corruption.

That you Julian?

[hefdaddy42]

Well I do think it's hypocritical to respond emotionally to these kinds of obvious cases of censorship while not giving a shit about how the U.S. government is doing everything they can to suppress huge chunks of information exposing its corruption.

Well for one, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about censoring art, not hiding government information from the public. If you want to call both of them censorship, fine, but they aren't the same thing.

This.  Apples and oranges.

[Quadrochosis]

All censorship is wrong. Period.

[ack44]

Well I do think it's hypocritical to respond emotionally to these kinds of obvious cases of censorship while not giving a shit about how the U.S. government is doing everything they can to suppress huge chunks of information exposing its corruption.

Well for one, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about censoring art, not hiding government information from the public. If you want to call both of them censorship, fine, but they aren't the same thing.

This.  Apples and oranges.

More like blueberries and dorians.

[Adami]

Ack, at this point it just seems you're spamming the thread. Why not go into every thread and post a bunch about how other things are more important?

[ack44]

I shouldn't have gone off topic, it was my mistake to respond to another one of your attempts to make things personal. But still, my questions at the top of this page are valid. And being ignored.

[Adami]

What points? That we shouldn't care about this because we don't care about the government not telling us everything that they do?

It's not even a point, and it certainly has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[bosk1]

Ack, as far as I can tell, you are the only one making this personal, and you have not made any points other than to derail the thread.  Get out of the thread.

[Orbert]

I shouldn't have gone off topic, it was my mistake to respond to another one of your attempts to make things personal. But still, my questions at the top of this page are valid. And being ignored.

Your questions are being ignored because they don't make any fucking sense and have nothing to do with the topic at hand.  And when people give you shit about it, you take it personally, even if it would happen to anyone else who did the same thing.  You're the one making it personal.

[ack44]

After some consideration, I admit that I've said some provocative things in this thread that I didn't need to say, and I apologize for that. But to say that all my points have been derailments of the thread is harsh to say the least, considering I was initially the only person willing to actually look into the matter beyond the apparent surface. Still, I was wrong to got carried away. I'll be more careful from now.

[7StringedBeast]

What are you talking about?  I knew what was going on with the subject matter as well.  You just wanted to call me out for some reason.  I responded to all of your posts that needed responding to and I feel like I did it a good job at coming back at your points.  I provided you examples when you wanted them, did you not read my posts?  I'm kind of baffled atm.