Poll: Would you ever burn a book?

[Burck]

In desperate straights, I might burn a book for the sake of survival.

Perhaps never if it were by Douglas Adams (I'd rather die in the comfort of his wonderful writing).

But in a split second if it was by Charles Dickens.

DICKENS!!!!

(Alas, [font] is not working for me. )
(Please read "DICKENS!!!!" as if it were in size 20.)
(Thank you. )

 

[WanderingFool]

Books are paper... Its the idea that is valuable...

There was more semi-philosophical crap, but I forgot it...

 

[IndianaJonny]

I have not the self-righteousness or narrow-mindness to cast heavy opinions on subjects/books/programs/beliefs I'm not versed on; it's called "not judging a book by it's cover".

I doubt anybody has the unequivocal authority to decide what would go and what would stay, so either it all goes or it all stays. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451] provides an insightful look at such a "what if" scenario.

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture,just get people to stop reading them."

Touché. So perhaps we should avoid 4-wall TVs before saving our books, no?

 

[ToxicOranges]

Now that I dont need of most of my high school books soon... FWOOM.

Also, Twilight deserves burning. And it's numerous disgusting sequels.

 

[Jedoro]

Because I'm really cold, and its my only option. Or more recently, just finished school, burn lots of old textbooks etc.

This, but I'd definitely go for the tax law books first if I was in a library and cold.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Of course not, why would you? Just because you don't like what's written in it? That seems really immature.

Besides, that's a waste of paper that could otherwise create resources if recycled.

Edit: Oh, but if I'm close to freezing or something, then I don't seem why not. but burning it because its something I don't like? Please, I'm not an idiot.

 

[Ziggy the wolf]

there are some cases where the book is so bad it should be destroyed or if they are overrated

 

[gregitaly]

I have not the self-righteousness or narrow-mindness to cast heavy opinions on subjects/books/programs/beliefs I'm not versed on; it's called "not judging a book by it's cover".

I doubt anybody has the unequivocal authority to decide what would go and what would stay, so either it all goes or it all stays. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451] provides an insightful look at such a "what if" scenario.

"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture,just get people to stop reading them."

Touché. So perhaps we should avoid 4-wall TVs before saving our books, no?

Honestly haven't read Fahrenheit 451 to be honest, it's on the to do list though. But I would like to elaborate I that I agree fully with your assertion that casting judgment on an idea/belief in any form (in this case books) and then censoring it based on your narrow-minded view is a fallacy. (hope I used that word correctly)

 

[Android2137]

I would if I were cold and desperate for heat. Can't think of any other reason. If I was morally outraged over a book, I'd just doodle all over the margins making fun of it or send a letter to the author.

 

[shadyh8er]

Dude, I don't even dog-ear books. The only reason I would burn one is to survive in the cold or something.

 

[BanthaFodder]

I'm trapped in the woods, I'm cold, and there may be wild animals and hobos waiting to eat me in my sleep. all I have is some matches and this book...
this is quite a predicament...

look OP, I think I know what you mean, but you really should be more specific in your question askin'.
taking your question at face value, yes I would burn a book if I needed the fire or if I just felt like burning a book one day. they're books.
however, I'm sure you mean stuff like religious texts and such (ie. the Nazis or that one idiot in Florida), in which case, no, unless I REALLY needed to (take the above "surrounded by hungry hobos" scenario).

 

[Da_Vane]

I try not to to, but if it was really cold, I'd do it - books are just books, and I'd start with the really crap fiction ones first...

 

[Dr Jones]

Well i did vote no, but if i was being threatened with violence, or i had to do it to survive. I wouldn't hesitate one second.

I mean book burning just dont make sense to me.

 

[Free Thinker]

Probably already been said a lot, survival with fire, or if it's among the caliber of Twilight. Only times I'd burn a book.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

In a situation of extreme cold, if it was the only way to get a fire started effectively. And despite the fact that I'm something of a bibliophile, I doubt I'd suffer so much as a twinge unless it was a book I liked (or one I wanted to read, but hadn't).

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

As much as i have come to hate certain books (the twilight series for example) i would never burn one. Burning books is a form of censorship and i don't belive in censorship just becasue you don't like somthing. Also theres a horrible stigma that goes along with book burining, like your actively participating in the destruction of ideas, learning and creativity. Its one thing to hate a book, its another to destroy it. You can always choose not to read somthing. Its your choice! But if you burn a book you rob yourself and everyone else of that choice. Your forcing ignorace on the world.

 

[moosek]

I burn a book if I needed the heat.

 

[Korolev]

The only time I would ever burn a book is to keep warm in a freezing blizzard or to cook food if there is no other fuel available. I would never burn a book, any book, even one's I violently disagree with, for a political point. Even very horrible books, like Hitler's Mein Kampf, should be preserved, mostly for historical purposes and to give an insight into his madness (anyone who tries to claim that Hitler wasn't a blood-thirsty genocidal maniac can be proven wrong with just a couple of pages out of Hitler's own writings). Racist books should be preserved (not promoted) in order to preserve our knowledge of the past's culture. If anyone tries to say "hey, the Confederacy wasn't that racist", we can just point to the crap many in the South were publishing and reading as evidence that "yes, the confederacy was filled with slave owning racist berks".

I think that really awful, hatefilled books should not be promoted or mass printed, but they should be preserved to remind us of what we used to be, and how we have and can change. Once you start saying that some books can be removed or destroyed, you open yourself up to the demolition of history itself. Mein Kampf is an awful, awful book (in terms of subject matter and writing style), but it's a useful reminder of how crazy the Nazis were and how awful Hitler was.

 

[conflictofinterests]

For tinder if there was nothing else. Also because I've been meaning to burn one bible. It seems like something to do to break completely with my Christian past.