Some Top 10 Lists...

[Anacoluthon64]

In particular, I would be interested in comments regarding the composition of this list (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591) and also regarding the individual judges given at the end.

See the masterlist (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/lists-archive.php) for more such lists.

Apologies if this has been examined before and/or if it more properly belongs in a different forum, e.g. Politics.

'Luthon64

[Kaarjuus]

I would say a good commentary on the choices of that list is here (http://blog.loam-music.com/archives/2005/06/theyre_coming_f.html).

To sum up the comment:


However, it got me to thinking; is there anything that ties all of these "harmful" books together? A single thread? And, I am sad to say, yes, absolutely. Without exception, all of these books weaken the case for either big business or religion.

[CptColumbo]

Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mein Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mein Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).

I'm sure the Loose Change crew could tell you how it ends. :p

As for the list, I think the first three are inarguable. More than 100 million people were murdered almost under direct orders from those books.

I swing to the right on most issues and will agree on principle with the most of the remainder of that list. Anymore than that and I think this thread will be sent to the politics board.

EDIT: I looked at the top ten most anti-family TV shows and now I feel guilty. :(

[empeake]

I looked at the top ten most anti-family TV shows and now I feel guilty. :(
Guilty? I'll take any of the anti-family programs over those of the "Best Shows For Families" list.

Overall, quite a pathetic bunch of lists. Particularly depressing is Ten Most Harmful Government Programs (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=8375).

[Anacoluthon64]

Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mein Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).(My emphasis.) In this regard, the title of Hitler's book lends itself well to a German joke, viz. "Mein Krampf" - "Krampf" is German for "cramp" as in "muscle cramp."

'Luthon64

[Kaarjuus]

I swing to the right on most issues and will agree on principle with the most of the remainder of that list.

Really? Let's take a walkthrough.

4. The Kinsey Report. So the books that founded sexology, the systematic, scientific study of human sexuality, and that can be held directly responsible for homosexuality no longer being considered a mental illness, are very harmful?

5. Democracy and Education. The book that says that instead of rote memorization of lessons, children should be taught to think for themselves. This is harmful?

6. Das Kapital. I'm not informed enough to talk of this.

7. The Feminine Mystique. The book that said that instead of being a good little obedient wife, there are other ways for women to find fulfillment than through their husbands and children and staying at home. This is harmful?

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy. The book that founded sociology, the study of human social actions, and said that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge. This is harmful?

9. Beyond Good and Evil. The book that attacked the blind acceptance of Christian dogmas. This is harmful?

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. The book that founded macroeconomics. This is harmful?

Let's also look at some of the honourable mentions.

On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. The book that said that individuals can be sovereign from the state in ethics and economy.

The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. The book that basically founded our understanding of evolution and nature.

Unsafe at Any Speed by Ralph Nader. The book that forced car manufacturers to improve the safety of cars, the main reason millions of people worldwide are alive today.

How can you, in all honesty, agree that these books are harmful?! What kind of a person are you?

[Anders W. Bonde]

I say: Burn the books! Burn the books!

Seriously, though, it worries me deeply that such highly influential conservative morons exist and are allowed to vote. Still, if they wan't to drag the US back to the dark middle ages who am I to complain (except religious fundies vs. religious fundies cause most human conflicts and all terrorism)...

[Anacoluthon64]

Seriously, though, it worries me deeply that such highly influential conservative morons exist and are allowed to vote. Still, if they wan't to drag the US back to the dark middle ages who am I to complain (except religious fundies vs. religious fundies cause most human conflicts and all terrorism)...Agreed, but one could argue that it is the presence of precisely such tensions that ultimately account for the stability of liberal democracies. Problems, however, start occurring when these tensions are amplified and artificially augmented by the ruling mob in a misplaced bid to further entrench themselves while the populace is distracted by such ruses. It's an outgrowth of the Divide-and-Conquer strategy.

Most of Sub-Saharan Africa is thus afflicted.

Regarding the list of "harmful" books, my take is very much in line with that of Kaarjuus - which is why I started this thread. Moreover, it is difficult to see how a book can, short of being ingested or used as a cudgel, be considered literally harmful. The ideas a book espouses can only be harmful to a particular ideology and then only if that ideology is hard to defend to begin with. That is not to say that such books as make up the list in question can't be roped in as a motivator in pursuit of some agenda, goal or ideal. But note that such efforts almost without fail boil down to exploiting ignorance by pretending to inform - i.e. the book, rather than reasoned enquiry, is the source of applicable wisdom. In this view, there is one particular book conspicuously absent from the list.

In fact, it should occupy first place.

'Luthon64

[Mercutio]

I got as far as the popup ad for Ann Coulter, and decided it must be a joke site.

[Kaarjuus]

Agreed, but one could argue that it is the presence of precisely such tensions that ultimately account for the stability of liberal democracies.

So a liberal democracy without fundamental religious conservatives is unstable?

[Anacoluthon64]

So a liberal democracy without fundamental religious conservatives is unstable?Uhm, no, such specificity is hardly what I meant to imply. Rather, liberal democracies, through tolerating and including an assortment of fringe and/or radical groups, or at least not excluding such from the outset, are far more resilient to their quirks and eccentricities. This is another reason the books in question should not be considered to be "harmful."

'Luthon64

[CptColumbo]

I got as far as the popup ad for Ann Coulter, and decided it must be a joke site.

I thought that was part of the list.

Seriously, it kind of tipped me off to who came up with the list.

[gumboot]

Their list of Ten Books Every Student Should Read In College (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=743) had me chuckling.

There's some decent suggestions there... but no.1 stuck with me.

The Bible?

I'm sorry, but have any of the people voting actually genuinely read the ENTIRE bible?

Because I have. Twice. When I was about 10.

It has got to be the most boring pointless book on the surface of the planet. I'm sorry, but christian or not, that book it terrible (in a literary sense). Sure, it has some excellent lessons in it, but you don't need to read the bible to learn those lessons, and trying to find them in amongst the book's 2000 or so pages is like trying to find very small needles in a very large haystack.

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

"Talk about your preachy books. Everyone's a sinner, except this guy."

Homer J. Simpson

[Foster Zygote]

Oh boy. I've read all those books, except Mien Kampf (I started, but I couldn't get through it).

That reminds me of something another political tool said. I once heard Bill O'Reilly complaining about a university course on the Koran. In his usual manner he described it as "the book of our enemies" so as to display his inability to comprehend complexity by differentiating between Muslims in general and religious extremists. But then I already knew him to be an ass. Next he proceeded to prove to me that he is also an unimaginative fool by comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf (again, ass, knew it) and stating that if he'd been told to read Hitler's book in 1938 he'd have bravely and intelligently refused. Fool. I can name one man who most certainly did read Mein Kampf very carefully: Winston Churchill! After all, his mortal enemy had the consideration to offer an insight into the twisted workings of his chaotic mind by publishing his own sick vision. What's ironic is that the people who didn't read Mein Kampf were the Germans themselves. For the most part they couldn't get through its rambling, poorly written crap and simply kept it out of a need to be seen as loyal by any probing Gestapo tools. I don't mean to berate you for not finishing it as it is genuinely crap, I only read it as a history major. And after some seven decades most of us know pretty well what Hitler was on about. But in the late '30s reading it may well have helped many to see some of what was coming their way. But not Bill O'Reilly.

Steven

[CptColumbo]

BTW I did read the so-called Hitler's Second Book ed. by Gerhard L. Weinberg.

[CptColumbo]

I would have thought something like the "Anarchist's Cookbook" would make a list of harmful books or that one that can only be bought at gunshows (about the coming revolution).

[Stellafane]

The first three books are hard to argue with, although I'm not sure the Little Red Book had much traction outside China. After that, the list immediately decends into a bunch of politicized crap. And any list that includes Darwin, even as "honorable mention," is simply proclaiming a virtue of ignorance.

As far as the site itself, seeing Coulter (incredibly stupid and vicious liar) and Novak (unhesitatingly places in jeopardy the lives of a woman serving her country and her family to ass-kiss his administration handlers) tells me all I need to know about it. And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?

[Dog Boots]

:p And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?

That was always what caught my eye the most. What's up with that?

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot imagine a democrats site with the same kind of propaganda. What are they trying to do!? Why on Earth should that not be people's of business? Do they fear that if a good conservative should get a democratic better half, then he or she will convert? Are they that insecure?

[Foster Zygote]

And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?

I guess they're desperate for some lovin'. All that sexual morality makes 'em lonely.

Steven

[senorpogo]

Good God, this borders on scary.

The 9th most popular movie amongst conservative college students is "Zulu". So young conservatives really enjoy a movie where thousands of africans get gunned down? Seems about right.

[Dunstan]

And "Conservative Match"? That's a joke, right?

There was an article in the New Republic not too long ago about these conservative dating sites. The author claims that the women on the sites tend to be true social conservatives (a lot of "no sex before marriage" types), while the men are more libertarian. The sites are mainly popular in blue states -- it's not like you need a lot of help to find conservatives in Alabama.

What are they trying to do!? Why on Earth should that not be people's of business? Do they fear that if a good conservative should get a democratic better half, then he or she will convert? Are they that insecure?

It's an ad for a dating site, what's the big deal? It's not some ideological plot to stop conservatives from "converting." It's a business that's making money by matching people up with what they're looking for.

I'm neither a conservative nor a member of any dating site, but I can understand the purpose. I don't much care about the political views of women I date, but many people do. And imagine being halfway through a date that seems to be going well, when your date discovers that you voted for or support _______, and is appalled and wants nothing further to do with you.

[Stellafane]

...It's an ad for a dating site, what's the big deal?

I think it's the imperative "Stop dating liberals!" (which could be interpreted as a command) that's the most disconcerting.

[Dunstan]

I think it's the imperative "Stop dating liberals!" (which could be interpreted as a command) that's the most disconcerting.

Most advertising contains imperatives:

"Sign up today!"
"Lose weight now!"
"Just do it!"
"Do the Dew!"

[Stellafane]

Most advertising contains imperatives:

"Sign up today!"
"Lose weight now!"
"Just do it!"
"Do the Dew!"

True -- but when the site doing it also features Novak and Coulter, and also lists Origin of Species as a dangerous book, it's frankly scary.

[bjb]

I'll argue against Mein Kampf being on the list of 'dangerous' books. I don't believe the book was widely read or very influetial in Hitler's rise to power. I always thought most of the copies were printed *after* Hitler was in charge and even then, most of the population didn't take it too seriously. I do believe it was dangerous *not* to read the book and had more people read it, maybe Hitler wouldn't have gotten so far.

I'm also disturbed that Darwin's books are on any thinking person's list of 'dangerous' books. Back in my college days, I considered myself to be conservative, which meant I was in favor of lower taxes and smaller government. These days, you can't be a conservative without condemning science, which means you have to deny things like evolution and promote whacko ideal like (un)Intelligent Design.

In any case, I disagree with the idea that books can be 'dangerous'. A couple of those books contain many ideas that are wrong and have lead to much of the human misery of the 20th century, but I can't blame the books for that. The real problem is getting large amounts of the population to go along with these horrible ideas and getting them to commit mass atrocities. Aside from #2 and #3, none of those books were written with the intent to justify mass atrocities. Marx and Engels would not have been very pleased with themselves if they knew what their ideas would lead to, but Hitler and Mao got exactly what they wanted when they wrote their books.

[Foster Zygote]

I gained a better insight into their choice of "most harmful" books after reading some of their other lists. I noticed that the great majority of their "ten best universities" and "ten best colleges" were Christian schools. Their "ten most dangerous professors included a number of extremist boogie men (and women) who are no doubt meant to be taken by readers as typical of "liberal" educators when It's actually like portraying Jim Jones and David Koresh as typical Christians. But the list of Ann Coulters favorite books to curl up with left me no doubt as to the bias of this site.

Steven

[Meffy]

But the list of Ann Coulters favorite books to curl up with left me no doubt as to the bias of this site.
I dare not look. What position is the Necronomicon on it?

... ON THE LIST, that is.

[Foster Zygote]

I dare not look. What position is the Necronomicon on it?

... ON THE LIST, that is.

#5. It's right under #4 How To Declare That Widows Enjoy Their Husband's Tragic Deaths and right above #6 Jesus Hates You Because You Don't Agree With Me. #1 was A Few Things I Pulled Out Of My Bum And Represented As Facts.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

Marx and Engels would not have been very pleased with themselves if they knew what their ideas would lead to.

"I am not a Marxist!" Karl Marx

Steven

He did say that, right? That's not apocryphal is it?

[politas]

Their list of Ten Books Every Student Should Read In College (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=743) had me chuckling.

Interesting that the most recent book on that list was penned in 1835. Talk about a conservative viewpoint!

[grayman]

But no Hucklberry Finn, bummer.

[bjb]

Interesting that the most recent book on that list was penned in 1835. Talk about a conservative viewpoint!

George Orwell's "Animal Farm", which was written as an anti-communist allegory, recieved honorable mention but not "1984", a warning against an all-controlling totalitarian government. Talk about a conservative viewpoint, indeed!

[gumboot]

It's funny that they list their harmful books, some of which have indeed been misused to inflict harm on mankind, yet listed as the #1 book college students should read is probably the single book that has been misused to inflict the MOST harm on mankind of any document. What's with that?

I mean, I don't want any book burning going on, and I certainly don't think books can be harmful, so I'm going to assume it is misuse of books to cause harm that is the problem.

How is it that it's okay for The Bible to be misused for 2000 years to cause untold misery around the globe, yet the Kinsey Report (which quite frankly I've never heard of) gets shafted into number 4 slot as a bad bad book?

What will be in their Top 10 University Courses? Stoneing 101?

-Andrew

EDT. How on earth do you spell "stoneing" "stoning?" "stonning?" erm...

[Stellafane]

These are the same people who believe "guns don't kill people, people do," correct? So wouldn't it follow that "there are no dangerous books, only dangerous minds"?

As an aside: I have no doubt that if Gore were president, Coulter would be a CT'er and Dylan Avery would be making a very comfortable living off Republican contributions.

[Anacoluthon64]

How is it that it's okay for The Bible to be misused for 2000 years to cause untold misery around the globe, yet the Kinsey Report (which quite frankly I've never heard of) gets shafted into number 4 slot as a bad bad book?Which is why I wrote earlier:
Moreover, it is difficult to see how a book can, short of being ingested or used as a cudgel, be considered literally harmful. The ideas a book espouses can only be harmful to a particular ideology and then only if that ideology is hard to defend to begin with. That is not to say that such books as make up the list in question can't be roped in as a motivator in pursuit of some agenda, goal or ideal. But note that such efforts almost without fail boil down to exploiting ignorance by pretending to inform - i.e. the book, rather than reasoned enquiry, is the source of applicable wisdom. In this view, there is one particular book conspicuously absent from the list.

In fact, it should occupy first place.Regarding the Kinsey Report(s), at least some self-appointed protectors of public morality have taken the stance that Kinsey "fathered" ( :D ), via his supposed Darwinist viewpoint, the sexual revolution in the US. Therefore, evolution promotes sin and iniquity and is contra the One TrueTM god.

It hasn't occurred to the proponents of these ideas that there's an unaccounted-for time gap of almost 90 years between the publication of Darwin's ideas - which, one presumes, just lay dormant, festering in and corrupting the minds of nearly four generations - and Kinsey's observations; nor that Kinsey, merely reporting his observations, didn't make "amorality" happen.

BTW, it's "stoning."

'Luthon64

[Axiom_Blade]

And imagine being halfway through a date that seems to be going well, when your date discovers that you voted for or support _______, and is appalled and wants nothing further to do with you.

There's a "Democrat Match", too. (Or something like that. I forget the exact name.)

Personally, I think that anybody who makes politics a deal-breaker is a tool.

[politas]

There's a "Democrat Match", too. (Or something like that. I forget the exact name.)

Personally, I think that anybody who makes politics a deal-breaker is a tool.

I think that politics make a much better deal-breaker than physical appearance (or even sex, for that matter).

Not quite as much of a deal-breaker as religion can be, though.

What do you think is a valid deal-breaker, if not what someone thinks about how social power should be used?