Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.