General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOne child is holding something that's been banned in America to protect them.
RKP5637
(67,030 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)When? Have I been in a cave?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)I checked (curious). Apparently it was sanitized early on . . .
sarisataka
(18,197 posts)you won't even recognize some of the stories
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Children were a lot more resilient then - if they heard those stories now, they'd need to be in therapy.
sarisataka
(18,197 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)but we did work our way through Shakespeare . . . and he survived Titus Andronicus, so I imagine the original stories wouldn't have bothered him too much.
I have to admit that I still occasionally have nightmares about "The Red Shoes". H.C. Anderson was damned bloody, too!
Kablooie
(18,571 posts)Cannibalism, child abuse, dismemberment, slaughter of innocents, the walking dead & deals with the devil.
Fun for one and all!
sarisataka
(18,197 posts)I'll have to pick up that one
bluemarkers
(536 posts)It's beautiful.
Earth_First
(14,910 posts)Not sure where, if anywhere else.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900519&slug=1072598
Cleita
(75,480 posts)AsahinaKimi
(20,776 posts)All would have been forgiven, and the California Wine boards would be pushing PSA's to read the book, trust me on this one!
You are so right!
randome
(34,845 posts)When it often does the exact opposite.
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...the book is banned? Why?
Laurian
(2,593 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,483 posts)allan01
(1,950 posts)a banned book enlighens the world . robeling shame this is done
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)One child is holding something that's been removed from a recommended reading list for silly reasons.
alcina
(602 posts)and equally ridiculous, just replace the book with a Kinder Egg.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_107.html]
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nt
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Yes, "it's correct in all but details" is sometimes a fair defence.
No, the OP is dishonest in spirit as well as in letter.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)And while I don't think our gun laws should necessarily be as strict as say, the U.K.'s - you're British, correct? - I think they're closer to the right idea than we (Americans) are.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)right wing politics/behavior in this country is downright SICK!!!!!! To think that the hypocrites would be able to ban a book because of a bottle of wine being shown/mentioned appalls me. Yet the AR-15 auto is the right thing to do. Amazing how SICK this country is and how down the toilet it's politics are. SICK! SICK!! SICK!!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)this one doesnt work.
the book was not banned across the u.s. and that would have to be books for this to work, not that particular book. it is not banned anywhere, just not a readers list.
and while that gun hasnt been banned, it is not allowed in any school or without proper papers, a child would not be holding it in public anywhere.
so, nah....
alfredo
(60,065 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)alfredo
(60,065 posts)our access to certain books than access to guns.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hence me making the initial post. i get what it is saying. but, personally feel it is a fail, in the untruthful category.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)The right wants to protect our kids from ideas, but do little to protect them from gun violence.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that is not my issue.
my issue was the dishonesty of the graph. message.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)advertisements, and this is an advertisement for gun legislation. They see the kids, book, gun, and text. That's it. The background only supports the innocence of youth.
sl8
(13,584 posts)Can their views afford to be ignored? Is the demographic of those who don't think for more than a second that large?
alfredo
(60,065 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)The truth is that neither the gun nor the book shown in the OP have been "banned". Claiming that the book has is simply false. I realized that just from reading the linked article. Makes me wonder what else the gun controllers are lying about.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)Two districts in California have banned it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Detachable mag assault weapon, no-go. Only weapons registered before the cut-off period can be possessed in that state.
OP is a false fucking dichotomy.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)The book can be possessed by children without supervision legally and the rifle cannot.
Neither is banned in America per se.
No wonder new gun control legislation is failing so badly.
And, of course, if this had been pro-gun propaganda someone would be calling it child abuse to let that child handle the rifle.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)Here's a partial list of banned books.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/2011/0928/20-banned-books-that-may-surprise-you/The-Witches-by-Roald-Dahl
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Like the NRAs rhetoric, there is often a kernel of truth in the propaganda.
It is what it is.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)the gun kills kids. Why are we defending a child from a book, but not a gun?
Gun users defend their guns like junkies defends their drug.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)The books are not banned from anyone's personal possession
It's a crappy rhetorical image.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)Because of the discussion it has sparked, I think it is quite successful.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)I thought the goal was to reduce gun violence? Who knew it was designed so badly to create dialog on DU?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Book has been removed from reading curriculum, not banned for sale, and none have been rounded up and confiscated and burned.
New, that rifle is unavailable in that state. What do you want to do, round up the existing rifles and destroy them? Perhaps a bonfire of some sort. That would be lovely wouldn't it?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do try and keep up.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Tom Sawyer
Huck Finn
Song of the South
and many others.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)god dammit.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)For a minute, I was thinking this was a poor pro-gun poster.
Euphoria
(448 posts)Until I saw the originator of the ad, I thought it was indicating support FOR guns to protect children.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)than such books. Two school districts verses several states.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)are really overthinking this.
It's a 15 second impact piece meant to make you think on the idea and the dichotomy.
It does accomplish that. Many of our laws are insane.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)It works if you think about it only 15 seconds...my mind immediately went to thinking, wait...that book isn't banned. And then, that's not the truth AND what idiot pro gun control advocate with give the other child a gun to hold to make a point about guns are bad for children? Not to mention...when did we start advocating using children as props? I'm thinking FAIL on may levels.
Instead of trying to make people afraid of losing 2nd amendment rights feel stupid, why aren't we passionate enough about this issues to simply talk to people as equals. The problem is a superiority complex on both sides of this argument...now, complicated by a lack of trust.
We can't have a honest conversation with people who don't want gun control, because they don't trust us. And, they don't trust us because we come into this issue with a holier than thou attitude that could put any religious wingnut to shame.
It feels good and smug to be right. But, it's a sucky way to get the protection our children and schools need. We need to get off our high horses and have real conversations that discuss background checks, mental health issues (especiall funding), our violent society and a host of issues. We'll never be able to make our children safer if we insist in this self gratifying urge to feel superior and prove we're intellectually superior than people who often simply disagree.
I would have been more impressed if the creator of the poster had posted a video with them sitting down with some who disagreed with them and discussed and listened to their concerns while expressing their own. Instead of trying to create some visual smack down while using a child to make a point.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)With Wayne LaPierre in the background smiling, and a bunch of gun cultists clinging to their assault weapons. Or, Christmas cards from the gun cultists standing in the way of much needed gun legislation:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1QtKkJ6z6lvROXG3MlllTqc1hBDfNjY8sQoDJRqGG2RaoDv_E
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR05x6QrF1totbgIptkyQHGcV-3HFaXQuSaFa1UH0DhsanbJuYD
alfredo
(60,065 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So um. Not sure what your point was.
(The entire piece is dead wrong no matter how you look at it)
alfredo
(60,065 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)So, yes.
alfredo
(60,065 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I ask for the Nth time, why are these infographics about guns usually bullshit?
How can a serious and legitimate problem (gun violence) prove so resistant to honest commentary?
I am not a gun person. I am, however, a truth and fairness person and it is F'ing obvious to me that there is no school district that requires children to carry an assault rifle, or makes such weapons available for the kids to check out from the school library.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are two school districts in California that have removed that book from their reading lists. (Not 'banned'.)
The implication of the graphic was that the book is banned, yet the gun is not.
Problem is, the book is not 'banned' and the gun, in California, IS banned statewide for sale. Those in lawful circulation are registered with the state. Rifles not registered carry criminal penalties if caught, the weapon is then destroyed, and no new rifles of that type can be sold in that state.
So, you took it the wrong way, perhaps, but even the correct way, the info graphic is a lie.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900519&slug=1072598
Let me help you with the title:
One child is holding a book pulled from a recommended reading list.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Got to say, posing a young kid with such a weapon is a choice to be carefully made no matter what the 'reason' for doing so might be. I think this ad is not honest nor clear enough to excuse that exploitation. The book has not been banned in America, the gun is not legal in all of America. It is always illegal to arm a child for their protection even in gun happy states. The book is not illegal anywhere, not banned by any legal authority in fact it is an award winner. In America. If a book 'banned' by a couple of schools has been 'banned in America' then a gun which is illegal to carry in many cities, in all schools has in fact been more 'banned in America' than the book.
Ads which seem to promote literacy should be literate.
msongs
(67,193 posts)IrishAyes
(6,151 posts)However, Jesus did not 'play' with wine in the Bible; he blessed it and drank it. In fact his enemies called him a 'winebibber', in modern terms a wino. This is not to say he really went around drunk, but everybody drank wine in those days and his enemies just accused him of over indulgence.
The fundies get around this by claiming the wine was only to cleanse the bad water and that the blessing to drink wine was removed as soon as modern society gained cleaner water. They also claim the fact that he blessed it was purely symbolic. Of course this flies in the face of their required literalism, but if you point that out, they start screaming at you and accuse you of attacking God rather than their own hypocrisy, which they claim to be non-existent. (You know they love to condemn us Irish-American Catholics to hell for drinking wine and a lot of other imaginary reasons.)
What I'm saying is that altogether I can't think of anyone less qualified to pass judgment on wine or even pictures of it than a bunch of crazy fundies who totally misrepresent the religion they claim to own.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
adieu
(1,009 posts)Might be banned. But does the book protect America or even the little girl?
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)disgusted by the responses from lame gun nuts to this post.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There there.
Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)fucking CONservatives, teatalibans, rw, pukes, christofascists....
defacto7
(13,485 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)And thanks for the posting about this group, which I'd never heard of. The news this morning showed the speech that the Newtown mom gave during the President's weekly address. She was absolutely magnificent.
This is such an important issue. The world really is watching and wondering how Americans will handle this.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)..is the pistol grip and adjustable buttstock on the rifle.
Yay progress! Remember this when she asks for you money, time, and vote.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Mr.Pain
(52 posts)We should never protect our kids from reality, we should be educating them about reality.
Is literary censorship a good thing?
[img:|
Am I the only one who sees the complete absurdity in putting something,(anything), in a child's hands the we deem dangerous?