"Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries&

[The One and Only...]

Keynes' book should have been at the top of the list.

[Big Papa Goat]

Originally Posted by derrida

Not that I don't appreciate what you wrote, goat, but Mead's real point was that emotionally turbulent adolescence is not an unavaoidable consequence of the human genome because there exist cultural institutions that allow teenagers to come to terms with the increased responsibilities of adulthood and attendant social expectations. According to Mead, among the Samoans this took the form of a period of free sexual experimentation before eventually establishing a more-or-less monogamous household. Please explain to me why you think Mead's conclusions are false.

I don't think you can discount instances of polyandry and matriarchy in formulating a sociobiological account of the species. I think that if you look at each case, the deployment of aspects of biological sexual dimorphism for certain activities corresponds to specific dominant economic modes which may or may not have been predominant throughout the development of the species.

ya, truth be told all I know about Meads book is from reading books that have criticized it in an offhand way.
As for the thing about economics influencing gender roles, it certainly could have.

[Zhukov]

How many have YOU read?

Me:

The Communist Manifesto (good)

Quotations from Chairman Mao (rubbish)

Beyond Good and Evil (ok)

General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (rubbish)

What Is To Be Done? (good)

Soviet Communism: A New Civilization (rubbish)

Prison Notebooks (good)

[Helm]

Mao Zedong

His name was Mao Tse Tung, not Mao Zedong, or Moa. I mean, come on. And whether or not there's anything redeemable about his written work is something you can only say after you've read it.

I find this list hilarious. I do not dissagree that knowledge is dangerous. That's the point.

[Helm]

1. The Communist Manifesto (important)

2. Mein Kampf (interesting, funny)

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao (regurtitated)

6. Das Kapital ( not all of it. difficult for people without much economic knowledge like me)

7. The Feminine Mystique (part of it. Interesting.)


9. Beyond Good and Evil (poetry, with occasional bits of brilliance)

What Is To Be Done (interesting)


On Liberty (dissagreable)

Origin of the Species (what can I say? I agree.)

Madness and Civilization (very interesting, not post-modernist, entertaining)

Introduction to Psychoanalysis (His later work is better)


Descent of Man (as said before)

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I try very, very hard not to think of the conservative movement as a gaggle of thick-skulled fanatics.

I try not to think of John Shait is a complete and utter moron, but its pretty hard.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by Helm

His name was Mao Tse Tung, not Mao Zedong, or Moa. I mean, come on. And whether or not there's anything redeemable about his written work is something you can only say after you've read it.

I find this list hilarious. I do not dissagree that knowledge is dangerous. That's the point.

Would you say the same thing if a KKK Grand Wizard's book was on that list? Or if Robert Mugabe had a guide to being a racist cocksucker, would you find some value in that?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I try not to think of John Shait is a complete and utter moron, but its pretty hard.

Who?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Would you say the same thing if a KKK Grand Wizard's book was on that list? Or if Robert Mugabe had a guide to being a racist cocksucker, would you find some value in that?

Well, somehow I think there's a difference between a book about a political philosophy and pure hatemongering.

Besides, even if it is written by an utter loon, you can't say there's nothing of value til you've read it.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Would you say the same thing if a KKK Grand Wizard's book was on that list? Or if Robert Mugabe had a guide to being a racist cocksucker, would you find some value in that?

As I've said. I wouldn't know if there's any value in that until I've read it. Of course I prioritize because there's so many books one can read in a lifetime, and you have to go with those you think will be more important for your intellectual growth, but still... yes, I would not judge a book by it's title, it's cover or who wrote it. And in fact, even if I read a book that's absolutely hateful, I'd still learn a lot from it, by inspecting racist, bigoted people and how they think. I think it's important to understand people that are different from you. Any point of view is valuable, and it pays to study and understand it, regardless of whether you embrace it or not.

[Anonymouse]

one could argue that last night's leftover meatloaf was more harmful than any book ever written.

[Big Papa Goat]

one could argue a lot of things.

[Anonymouse]

indeed, like how could a book be harmful?

Mustafa can read the koran and go bomb himself because he thinks allah told him to

I could read the Koran, and go back to eating my cheese danish and watching Charles Bronson in Death Wish 2

[Helm]

use the silencer, charles!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I try not to think of John Shait is a complete and utter moron, but its pretty hard.

Checkmate!

[The One and Only...]

Wait, when did Vince return?

[Emu]

He pops in and out of existence from time to time.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Would you say the same thing if a KKK Grand Wizard's book was on that list? Or if Robert Mugabe had a guide to being a racist cocksucker, would you find some value in that?

The whole point is those books ARE NOT on the list you fucking retard. Had they been on the list, maybe it would have made some sense.

[Helm]

first, uhh... no?


and second, to vince a book about communism is greater evil than just hatespeech.

[Ant10708]

Is this a list of 'evil' books or books that have caused harm? Because a book about communism or anything doesn't have to be filled with anything controversial for it to become harmful. The KKK book wouldn't be on the list because the KKK is dying out and there book wouldn't be as harmful.

[Abcdxxxx]

Listing the Feminine Mystique is pretty darn peculiar. I can see some half ass arguments for most of the other titles though...not that I'd agree with them (or any list that omits The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...and while we're at it, did I blink or did they forget Freud!? ).

I do thnk Kinsey belongs on that list though! #4 is a bit generous, but it deserves inclusion. Why? Because it popularized the idea that a study doesn't need a valid basis to reach conclusions, that data can be collected with an editorial slant without a cohesive explanation, and that society shouldn't judge deviance of any stripe. Kinsey's "there are no bad guys, you have to try it first" approach had a deeper philosphical influence then it's credited for, and at it's core, the topic isn't so much sex as much as behavior, and morals. So now here we are, there's a really bad motion picture about him, Homosexuality is vaguely more acceptable, we're still really repressed though sex is everywhere, there are sex therapists and call in sex advice shows for under age kids... and it's not like we've progressed much at all. The Kinsey report was misleading, and as a result we replaced our sexual ignorance and repression with a different type of ignorance, and repression.

[Helm]

There's Freud in there.

I agree we're still sexually opressed regardless of the constant fixation over sexuality in the modern western world. Good points all around.

[ziggytrix]

How can Tipler's Physics for Scientists and Engineers not be on there? I swear, I nearly pulled a muscle hauling that thing around, and if you dropped it on someone's head it could be lethal! This book was so dangerous that a few years after I took the courses requiring it, they split it into 3 seperate books because combined it was just too dangerous!

[derrida]

Westerners are probably repressed because of their fixation on sex, not in spite of it.

[Abcdxxxx]

Well it's a talent to repress the same thing you're fixating on... if that's possible ? ...but I think it's a bit like the way some approach race issues from a point of "White Guilt" or something like it. If it's not sincere, then it's more damaging. If you do something because you think you're supposed to or it represents a certain mind set you aspire to, then that's not really evolution is it? It's like playing drunk at a party to impress people. So now we're hyper sexual, and "New-Feminists" and sleazy frat boys want and get the same thing out of women.