Harbal wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 12:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:34 pm
Harbal wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 11:19 pm
You can't know what it contains until you've read it for yourself.
Again, not true. If you know it contains vile material, there's no excuse for allowing it for children. You don't have to drink all the poison to know a thing is poisoned.
You have made reference to "perverted" books, and seem to expect people to just take your word for it,...
I don't. I expect you to look up the videos, if you care. But I don't suspect you really do. As for me, I can tell by the mere list of the contents and the limited quotations provided by parent's who object, as to whether the book is suitable. If you can't, that's on you, I suppose. I'm fine.
However, would your position be that all books should be given to children of any age, until you have time to read them all and decide whether or not the entire book is perverted and vile, or just bits of it? Is that what you're saying?
Why won't you just give me the titles of the books you object to, and let me do my own research?
The videos online will be sufficient. The parents read the books aloud. I don't think you'll have any questions after that...not really, anyway.
On a related note, though, you can't object to anybody banning books.
And why not? Because you're a subjectivist in moral matters. You believe that a person's subjective state is sufficient to constitute something as genuinely moral or immoral.
And whatever I find immoral, you have no objective grounds to object to.
All you can do is say, "I feel otherwise." But so what?
Of course I can object to the banning of books on moral grounds.
You can't expect anybody to care. You're just throwing a personal tantrum, firing off an emotional fit, railing gratuitously into thin air. There are no objective moral facts you can summon to rationalize your reaction to others, because you don't believe in any. You can't give anybody else even one justification for why they have to take your tantrum seriously. Nobody has any reason -- far less any ethical duty -- to care what it is.
So by way of subjectivism, you've got no grounds for objection now. This was the problem I was pointing out to you earlier.