"Do you think there is such a thing as an evil book?"

[Piscivore]

I read recently an interview by Loompanics founder and president Mike Hoy (http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/MikeHoyEvilBooks.html) in which this was the first published question. I was interested in what the board had to say. Thanks for your time.

[LostAngeles]

No.

There are books that incite hatred and violence. There are books to lull people into giving someone else money. There are books that make kids want to play wizard and dragon slayer and see what's down the rabbit hole.

I can read Mein Kampf and not try to exterminate the Jews. I can read Dianetics and not start hooking myself up to an E-meter to become "clear". I can read Harry Potter and Alice and not try to levitate feathers and pop down rabbit holes. (Though I confess to being eight and really hoping that I could go escape through the bathroom mirror. When it didn't work, I gave up.)

Because I've learned how to think about the information I'm taking in. The two most important questions I've earned to ask are "Why?" and "What is/if X?" I also learned to go find out.

The more people who learn that, the less perception of "evil books."

[rebecca]

There is ONE evil book: the Necronomicon.

That's it.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by rebecca
There is ONE evil book: the Necronomicon.

That's it.

I thought of that after I posted, but I didn't want to be silly for once, and there are "Necronomicon"s out there.

They suck. I can't even e-mail Yog-Sothoth with them.

[Ian Osborne]

Ever read The Turner Diaries?

[bignickel]

"Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by bignickel
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

Definitely used for evil, yes.

[Quester_X]

I don't think a book can itself be evil. It can be used for evil, as justification. One could argue that it could cause evil, by giving ideas to people who will use them for ill. But I don't think the object can itself be evil. Sort of like technology, it's intrinsically neutral.

[Mr Manifesto]

Jane Austen's "Persuasion." Without a doubt the most evil book in creation. Samuel Clemens had a great quote about his library being all the better for not having any Jane Austen in it.

[Anders]

Originally posted by rebecca
There is ONE evil book: the Necronomicon.

That's it.
I think you forgot the ;) smily!

[Marc]

Originally posted by rebecca
There is ONE evil book: the Necronomicon.

That's it.

What about The Book of EVIL? (sat the 14th) :p

[Lothian]

'Shalom And Goodbye'
ISBN 1903674204

[hawkins_anderson]

a definite "yes." Books written by wicked people are evil in and of themselves because they are a reflection of that evil.

[Chaos]

There definitely are books there were created for an evil purpose - or, more precisely, a purpose that we would consider evil; the respective authors surely did not think so. For example:

Mein Kampf
the Turner Diaries
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
the Malleus Maleficarum
...

Depending on your POV and on how narrowly or widely you define evil, I guess you also add:

the Anarchist Cookbook (or whatever it is called)
the Communist Manifesto
most, if not all, of L.R. Hubbard´s work
...

[headscratcher4]

Trust me, the Seattle Yellow Pages.

[Melissa Johnson]

Seattle Yellow Pages of EVIL! :D

[rebecca]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Trust me, the Seattle Yellow Pages.

Oh my god, there's one in the other room right now, as I type this.

Shhhh . . . I think I hear . . .

AARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[Anders]

Originally posted by Chaos
There definitely are books there were created for an evil purpose - or, more precisely, a purpose that we would consider evil; the respective authors surely did not think so. For example:

Mein Kampf
the Turner Diaries
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
the Malleus Maleficarum
...

Depending on your POV and on how narrowly or widely you define evil, I guess you also add:

the Anarchist Cookbook (or whatever it is called)
the Communist Manifesto
most, if not all, of L.R. Hubbard´s work
...
I don not agree. The books, the paper and ink are not evil. Maybe the writers are/were evil, but their book just can't be evil. A car can't be evil (please, no remarks about Stephen King novels, ok?).

I can read Mein Kampf and I will certainly not turn bad, I might understand the evil of nazism a litle better though, so mein kampf could actully be a good book. The same goes for the rest of the list, if the books can make us understand a certain part of history, or a certain idea better, are not even these books a way to better knowledge, and thus good books!

[BillyTK]

Jeffrey Archer's Honor Among Thieves is a pretty evil book. After only two chapters it levitated across the room and made me want to break things. Evil. Definitely.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Anders

I don not agree. The books, the paper and ink are not evil. Maybe the writers are/were evil, but their book just can't be evil. A car can't be evil (please, no remarks about Stephen King novels, ok?).

I can read Mein Kampf and I will certainly not turn bad, I might understand the evil of nazism a litle better though, so mein kampf could actully be a good book. The same goes for the rest of the list, if the books can make us understand a certain part of history, or a certain idea better, are not even these books a way to better knowledge, and thus good books!

I didn´t say the books are evil. I said they were created for an evil purpose. That doesn´t mean they were/are always used for it, or that, if they are used for it, this is always successfull.

[LettristLoon]

Yo.

Well, one must define "evil" to know what books it could apply to, but I would suggest that any books encouraging closed-mindedness, and ultimately, leaving the average reader with fewer questions and more certainty, would be "evil" by my lights.

Worst offenders:

The Torah
The Bible
The Koran

But there are others! As stated earlier, The Malleus Maleficarum is one hell of an evil book. So's anything else published by Magical Child, Llewellyn, etc.

Hey! What's wrong with the Communist Manifesto? If Lenin and Stalin and Mao had paid a little bit closer attention to it, we might not dislike them all so much.

Peace,
- B

[ASRomatifoso]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
No.

There are books that incite hatred and violence. There are books to lull people into giving someone else money. There are books that make kids want to play wizard and dragon slayer and see what's down the rabbit hole.

I can read Mein Kampf and not try to exterminate the Jews. I can read Dianetics and not start hooking myself up to an E-meter to become "clear". I can read Harry Potter and Alice and not try to levitate feathers and pop down rabbit holes. (Though I confess to being eight and really hoping that I could go escape through the bathroom mirror. When it didn't work, I gave up.)

Because I've learned how to think about the information I'm taking in. The two most important questions I've earned to ask are "Why?" and "What is/if X?" I also learned to go find out.

The more people who learn that, the less perception of "evil books."

I'm sorry but I disagree.

I think there are evil books, created by evil people, with evil thoughts.

We split hairs when we say "books aren't evil" because they are inanimate or whatever, only people are evil.

Books can last for thousands of years and influence millions of people to do horrible things or good things.

To take a morally relativistic view (which usually I am in favor of) and say that books themselves aren't evil (while technically correct), I think allows evil to flourish.

I believe that some books are evil as well as some people's thoughts. I hate the way that people say "I hate what you are saying but I defend your right to say it". If you are preaching hate, then I don't defend your right to say it.

Lecture me all you want on slippery slopes, where do we stop if we ban someone's free speech, etc. but I think that some people should not be allowed to say or print the things they do.

For those of you who think I am maybe a budding fascist or something, I am not. For the record, I am very liberal, a registered Democrat and lukewarm on the whole spiritual issue but I do believe evil exists, 100% percent and I think sometimes we should be a bit less tolerant of it.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by rebecca


Oh my god, there's one in the other room right now, as I type this.

Shhhh . . . I think I hear . . .

AARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!



"AARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!"?

"That's what it says."

"Maybe it's her last words."

"Don't be silly nobody types "AARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!" as they die."

"Maybe she was dictating."

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


I'm sorry but I disagree.

...

Lecture me all you want on slippery slopes, where do we stop if we ban someone's free speech, etc. but I think that some people should not be allowed to say or print the things they do.

For those of you who think I am maybe a budding fascist or something, I am not. For the record, I am very liberal, a registered Democrat and lukewarm on the whole spiritual issue but I do believe evil exists, 100% percent and I think sometimes we should be a bit less tolerant of it.

That's fine that you disagree. I think the other posters have established my standing for me on "books can be used for evil, but if you're a critical thinker, you should be fine reading them."

Just for the record, you can be a very liberal, registered Democrat and still lean towards fascism. Fascism is like Discordianism, compatible with nearly any system of thought/belief. It's like the roux of government.

But then, I'm a closet Libertarian.

[Brian]

I read chunks of Mien Kampf. Puts the whole "he was nuts but Hitler was a genius" thing to bed.
He compared the "Jews fraternal ism" to wild horses that only band together when there is a common threat to "The Jews".
Sounds a lot like a certain Reich I can think of.

[Agammamon]

Battlefield Earth

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Battlefield Earth

Elaborate, please?

[tamiO]

The Bible? :D

edited to add:oops, i see someone beat me to it.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Battlefield Earth

...That bad, eh?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by LostAngeles


...That bad, eh?

I didn't think it was that bad. The movie was but the book was a five on a ten scale. Wordy but decent.

[Sundog]

No, there aren't any evil books. But wait 'til I'm finished.

[TriangleMan]

I have a book at home that always seems to give me a paper cut when I handle it so I consider it an evil book!

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by TriangleMan
I have a book at home that always seems to give me a paper cut when I handle it so I consider it an evil book!

It's possessed but I can fix that for you. First send me a cheque for $50 and I'll try and view the spirit troubling it remotely. Hopefully, I can remove it with a simple prayer, but some book spirits are much more resilient and need more than just Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I would really like to help you with this problem! This could kill you! Please! Contact me!

END PSYCHIC_NITWIT

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Rob Lister

I didn't think it was that bad. The movie was but the book was a five on a ten scale. Wordy but decent.

But Battlefield Earth was based on a book by L. Ron Hubbard (a.k.a. the root of all evil).

The Anarchist's Cookbook was written with a gross misconception of what anarchy really is.

To second Lettrist, communism has never truly been applied correctly to governance. It always seems, in the hands of corrupted politicians, to devolve into despotism. Karl Marx, needless to say, couldn't foresee the ramifications that pragmatism was to have on his utopian visions.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.


But Battlefield Earth was based on a book by L. Ron Hubbard (a.k.a. the root of all evil).


I agree but I don't understand the connection you're making between L. Ron and a book he wrote.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


I agree but I don't understand the connection you're making between L. Ron and a book he wrote.

I guess you're right, but I still think it was a silly story.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.


I guess you're right, but I still think it was a silly story.

Thus far, so is Dune: The Butlerian Jihad.

[TriangleMan]

Originally posted by LostAngeles


It's possessed but I can fix that for you. First send me a cheque for $50 and I'll try and view the spirit troubling it remotely. Hopefully, I can remove it with a simple prayer, but some book spirits are much more resilient and need more than just Our Lord, Jesus Christ.

I would really like to help you with this problem! This could kill you! Please! Contact me!

Wow! A possessed book so evil that it can repel Jesus!

Why would I want to fix it, do you know how much money I can make off this thing? ;)

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by TriangleMan


Wow! A possessed book so evil that it can repel Jesus!

Why would I want to fix it, do you know how much money I can make off this thing? ;)

But to make money off the Lord is the work of Satan! This book may require Jesus Christ, The Holy Ghost, and God to dispel it! Haven't you ever seen Voltron?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by TriangleMan


Wow! A possessed book so evil that it can repel Jesus!

Why would I want to fix it, do you know how much money I can make off this thing? ;)

Wipe the cover with a paper towel, dip the paper towel in water, dilute to 30c, and sell "Homeopathic Jesus Repellant"! :D

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


I'm sorry but I disagree.

I think there are evil books, created by evil people, with evil thoughts.

We split hairs when we say "books aren't evil" because they are inanimate or whatever, only people are evil.

Books can last for thousands of years and influence millions of people to do horrible things or good things.

To take a morally relativistic view (which usually I am in favor of) and say that books themselves aren't evil (while technically correct), I think allows evil to flourish.

I believe that some books are evil as well as some people's thoughts. I hate the way that people say "I hate what you are saying but I defend your right to say it". If you are preaching hate, then I don't defend your right to say it.

Lecture me all you want on slippery slopes, where do we stop if we ban someone's free speech, etc. but I think that some people should not be allowed to say or print the things they do.

For those of you who think I am maybe a budding fascist or something, I am not. For the record, I am very liberal, a registered Democrat and lukewarm on the whole spiritual issue but I do believe evil exists, 100% percent and I think sometimes we should be a bit less tolerant of it.

I'm all for being less tolerant of evil... why not, it's an easy platform to adopt.

But about these books:

Let's say that the Cutco factory in Olean, NY produces 3 identical kitchen knives. Knife1 is purchased by a serial killer and he puts it to good use in his chosen hobby. Knife2 is purchased by a housewife who uses it to cut vegetables and sometimes her husband uses it to put holes in beer cans cause that's how he likes to open them. And Knife3 is presented as a gift to a young marine who serves as a medic, by his local priest. He takes the knife with him and saves hundreds of lives by cutting bad things from around puppies in Iraq.

Bring all three knives together and set them on a table. Bring in three labels that read, "serial killer", "kitchen" and "hero"... then randomly assign those three labels to each of the still identical knives on the table.

Now we perform lots of controlled tests and it still comes down to the same idea that evil exists only INSIDE people. (whatever that means) I don't really have to explain what controlled tests would prove the point, do I? I mean it's obvious that if I call you on the phone and give you a bad idea, the phone lines aren't evil... why would the written communication be evil? If I paint a picture that inspires someone to do something wrong, you wouldn't say the taxi that they used to get to the art gallery was evil.

If you want to stop hearing people say, "I hate what you are saying but I defend your right to say it." then it's time to address how to rebut those bad ideas you don't want to defend. But don't waste time on the microphone, the book or the soapbox... go after the person speaking (with a good argument of course). And go after the people they are talking to... and go after the people supporting the speaker... but don't waste your energy on the book... it's not the source of the problem.

[LettristLoon]

Sloe:

It's true, the problem isn't with the book, it's with the author.

But, still, if the author didn't communicate, there'd be no way for her or him to actually go about perpetrating her or his brand of "evil." And, in many cases, the authors of "evil" books are dead--you can't very well go on a talk show and debate the Apostle Paul. All you can do is slam his books.

That's what makes books different from, to use your analogy, knives. Knives don't support any particular ideology. Books invariably do--no matter what the book, from radio assembly instructions to cook books to hard-boiled detective stories to Harlequin romance to rock stars' autobiographies. Sometimes, by supporting a given ideology--or even just tacitly accepting the prevailing ideology, the status quo--a book is likely to have either an actively negative impact upon the world, or else simply a deadening one. Either way, that's no good.

And the answer ain't censorship--censorship is a worse evil than anything to be found in a book. The answer is the education of the populace, so that people will be able to spot ******** on sight. That's probably the best one can do.

Peace,
- B

[Sloe_Bohemian]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Sloe:
(snip)
If the author didn't communicate, there'd be no way for her or him to actually go about perpetrating her or his brand of "evil."

That's what makes books different from, to use your analogy, knives. Knives don't support any particular ideology. Books invariably do--
(snip)

And the answer ain't censorship--censorship is a worse evil than anything to be found in a book. The answer is the education of the populace, so that people will be able to spot bulls**t on sight. That's probably the best one can do.

Peace,
- B

I stand corrected/better-informed. I must say that you've spoken better and I like your point... but I find it interesting that you've agreed to the same solution.

Don't blame (i.e. censor) the book, but address the people who need it. *Granted I refered to the bad people in relation to countering their message to the public and you spoke of the public and countering the messages they get from bad people... but I'd say you found a way to prove my argument wrong and still prove my suggestions to be sound.

I still would characterize a book as being no more evil than a toaster... but if we want to discuss the ideas in the book, then I'm right there with everyone on that.

[gjones2]

I won't get into the 'can books be evil' discussion until 'evil' is defined (lots of luck :-). Also defining 'book' might help. Some persons are talking about 'book' as a physical object (obviously not evil, the way I see evil), and others are treating 'book' in terms of the intentions of the author or the likely effects on readers (with that understanding, calling some of them 'evil' makes more sense).

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Hey! What's wrong with the Communist Manifesto? If Lenin and Stalin and Mao had paid a little bit closer attention to it, we might not dislike them all so much.

What's wrong with Marx or with the Communist Manifesto depends on your set of values (for instance, whether you care about individual liberties or not) and on how you view historical determinism, especially Marx's particular brand. By my set of values there's a lot wrong with it. Covering it all would require writing a lengthy treatise rather than an internet post, and I can hardly scratch the surface here.

First of all, there's probably a very good reason why the more idealist aspects of Marx's vision have not been put into practice -- because they aren't practical and don't correspond with the needs and desires of most human beings, including those who are poor (I was born and brought up poor myself, and they certainly aren't what I want). Many of the later abuses, though, are quite consistent with what Marx himself advocated. At the time that he wrote there were a host of political parties that were attempting to improve the lot of the poor through peaceful and democratic means. Marx rejected those parties, insisting on his own historical determinism (mumbo jumbo in my opinion) and on the use of violent means to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Adapting Hegel's absolutist ideas, Marx saw history as being foreordained, and preceding inevitably stage by stage. Conditions for the workers would get worse until there was a violent revolution to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would purge society of its enemies and bring about the communist utopia. (He appears to have been wrong about that.)

[gjones2]

Marx didn't value the rights of the individual any more than did Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Half a century after the ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and over a century and half after the English Bill of Rights (1689), Marx wrote in the Manifesto, "[the bourgeoisie] has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade." In other words, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the freedom peaceably to assemble, freedom from unreasonable search, freedom to be tried by an impartial jury... -- none of these freedoms count. He totally dismisses the importance of advances made in guaranteeing political freedom and civil rights, and this is a clear link to the oppression of the 20th-century Communist regimes.

Again, in another passage of the Communist Manifesto he reduces "freedom" to mere economics, "By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying." No mention of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.

Another thing that he dismisses is the importance of representative democracy, and its potential for solving social problems and resolving class conflicts. Even at the time that he and Engels wrote the Manifesto, its potential for improving social conditions should have been evident to him. He writes, "This organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party... compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers...Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried." Well, isn't that good? So why not work within the democratic system, extend the franchise, and get social conditions improved that way? Why must there be a violent revolution and a dictatorship?

One problem is that he despises the members of other classes, especially those closest to the proletariat such as the petit-bourgeoisie. He portrays these people as if they were all remnants of medieval craftsmen, trying desperately to avoid sinking into the proletariat. Yet it should have been obvious to him that social mobility was upward as well as downward.

"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative."

Here's what the Manifesto says about these people, "The 'dangerous class', the social scum [social scum!], that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue."

It's pretty hard to read those lines and not think about what happened to the Russian kulaks after the Communists took over. This "social scum" -- a hindrance to the revolution -- was eliminated. No need to worry about such things as civil rights. They were just killed.

"What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable..." "...the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

"[Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution."

I could quote many more passages, but I've already written more than I intended. I think it's obvious that there's plenty of evidence in the Communist Manifesto itself that Marx is closely linked with the abuses which took place under later Communist regimes. He rejected civil rights. He rejected representative democracies, viewing them merely as means to work towards the revolution. He advocated the use of violence to establish a dictatorship. Marx was not just a benevolent old theoretician. The words that I've been quoting are from the Communist Manifesto itself.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by gjones2
I won't get into the 'can books be evil' discussion until 'evil' is defined (lots of luck :-). Also defining 'book' might help. Some persons are talking about 'book' as a physical object (obviously not evil, the way I see evil), and others are treating 'book' in terms of the intentions of the author or the likely effects on readers (with that understanding, calling some of them 'evil' makes more sense).

Good point. Since I started this thread, let me offer "evil" as meaning:
Originally posted by Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evil&r=67):
e·vil
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1 Morally bad or wrong; wicked
2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain;

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

I think as well that the collection of Ideas contained in the pages are more relevent to the discussion than the pages themselves. After all, there are several "books" that aren't even on paper yet.

Although I'm still interested in that one that'll keep Jesus away... :D

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Piscivore

...
Although I'm still interested in that one that'll keep Jesus away... :D

Psst... I'm willing to be that Jack T. Chick tracts and anything by those idiot fundamentalists will do it.

"Dad, can I smite these dumb%#^@s?"

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by ASRomatifoso


I'm sorry but I disagree.

I think there are evil books, created by evil people, with evil thoughts.

We split hairs when we say "books aren't evil" because they are inanimate or whatever, only people are evil.

Books can last for thousands of years and influence millions of people to do horrible things or good things.
Yes, but only because the reader allows himself to be influenced by such ideas. In those cases, the book merely solidifies latent notions that the reader must have had all along. They likely would have surfaced eventually in some other fashion.

It is true, books do last for thousands of years and preserve ideas for generations, available for anyone to see. Books represent the minds of those who wrote them. That is why books are of inestimable value. But no one on earth has the right to profess to the rest of the world which books should be seen and which shouldn't, or which should be allowed to be written in the first place. Books (or the ideas presented in them) can sometimes be described as "dangerous," but not evil. I prefer the term dangerous because that can mean either good or bad. It just depends on to whom the idea is dangerous. Kent Hovind described evolution as a dangerous idea. I wholey agree--it's dangerous to religious believers and to religion. And of course it was dangerous to Darwin himself during his lifetime. Many books that we now place great value on today were dangerous to their authors because of the radical ideas they presented. Without dangerous ideas, we wouldn't learn very much.

To take a morally relativistic view (which usually I am in favor of) and say that books themselves aren't evil (while technically correct), I think allows evil to flourish.

I believe that some books are evil as well as some people's thoughts. I hate the way that people say "I hate what you are saying but I defend your right to say it". If you are preaching hate, then I don't defend your right to say it.

Lecture me all you want on slippery slopes, where do we stop if we ban someone's free speech, etc. but I think that some people should not be allowed to say or print the things they do.

This is exactly the view expressed by those who advocate censorship, the purpose of which is to control people by limiting knowledge under the false pretense of "moral relativism." Supressing the publication of evil ideas will not hinder the propogation of evil. As I said before, many books have been written that put their authors in peril. But people espousing "moral relativism" would have had those books supressed if they had their way. Had it been so, we, as a society today would be so much the poorer for that. If I wanted to take the time to look it up, I could quote for you passages of a particular manifesto which in many respects is highly original, sensible, progressive, logical, and brimming with enlightened ideas. You would then be surprised to learn that it was written by the Unibomber. Much of what he wrote is very worthwhile to think about, yet does not necessarily advocate evil. But he became unhinged and started murdering people to get his point across. But that doesn't mean people who want to read his words are going to want to blow people up.

And yet, even books that do promote evil and the perpetration of evil actions have their place in the realm of written literature. Just as we don't delete all historical events that were generated by evil people, we can't go around deleting books written by evil people. A person of morals will read such a book and think, "The person who wrote this must be one sick, twisted individual," and recognize it for what it is. It can then be used as an example of what evil people are capable of and what types of things humanity is up against and how humanity must protect itself from itself. Label such books "evil" if you like, but to eliminate such ideas as if they could never have come into being in the first place is just hiding one's head in the sand.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by LostAngeles

Definitely used for evil, yes.

No. "The Anarchist's Cookbook" can be used for evil, and for good (if it's recipes were used by, say, the French Resistance to fight off Nazis). But, in the end, it's just a book about explosives, and thus just information.

The PEZ is not as such. It's only purpose is evil. It's only design is to besmirth a people using lies. It's only ends are mistrust, at best, and death on a large scale, at worst.

Unfortunately, sometimes in history we get the worst.

[Khonshu]

A lot of stuff in the Anarchist's Cookbook was taken right out of US Military manuals on boobytraps & improvised explosives. I wouldn't call the book evil, and I don't think you could even say that about the intent of the authors.

Books evil? No. Books contain evil ideas? Definitely. Books contain ideas that can be used for evil purposes? Almost all of them (e.g. Chemistry textbooks).

[gnome]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that there are some works that are an outrage. There are some ideas so insidious the author does damage just by bringing them up.

That said, the problem is not that nothing deserves to be silenced, but that nobody can be trusted with that power.

It's similar to my view on the death penalty. There are plenty of people that deserve to die, I just don't trust the decision process.