Ten Most Harmful Books of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

[Sibelius]

<p>

because you are ultra conservative?Sibelius?

</p>

<p>Obviously.</p>

[aristotle1990]

<p>People, I don’t think you understand something. These aren’t <em>objective</em> lists of harmful books (how could they be, at that?), they’re considerably biased. The two websites on which these lists are located are quite conservative, and the scholars who formulated them are all conservative. If you’re a conservative, you’ll probably agree with the lists, and if you’re a liberal, you’ll think they’re jokes. I suspect that a list of the most harmful books formulated by liberal scholars would run as follows:</p>

<ol>
<li>Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler</li>
<li>Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman</li>
<li>The Old and New Testaments, Anonymous</li>
<li>Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke</li>
<li>The Bell Curve, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein</li>
<li>The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek</li>
<li>The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis</li>
<li>The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot, Russell Kirk</li>
<li>Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand</li>
<li>The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom</li>
</ol>

[Sibelius]

<p>The Old and New Testaments aren’t anonymous.</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>^</p>

<p>I know. God wrote them.</p>

[sigurros]

<p>Hence why he said anonymous ^</p>

[Sibelius]

<p>

I know. God wrote them.

</p>

<p>Christian thought says God inspired the authors, but it’s not a mystery who wrote them. Nearly all of them have known authors.</p>

[mahras2]

<p>Obv a radical liberal site would draw a list as stupid as the one posted. We are making fun of the website due to its stupidity. I mean the author blames Keynes for the CURRENT debt situation. And, “origin of species” as a harmful book? Nearly all biological and medical advances stem from the cornerstone presented in that book. People who argue otherwise are uneducated or, if they are, ignorant. If they don’t believe the underpinning theory then they should not take medicine as most medical research is based off of ideas first presented by Darwin. I say they go to church and pray their illnesses away (not a catholic one of course!).</p>

<p>I am making fun of the list because its by someone who is not knowledgeable. Not because s/he is a conservative (I am a libertarian myself).</p>

<p>I suggest all to read the works of Popper. It will show why such blind “belief” is detrimental to society. This is regardless of whether you happen to be a liberal or a conservative. At the end of the day, both believe in ideas that are foolish.</p>

[aristotle1990]

<p>

I mean the author blames Keynes for the CURRENT debt situation.

</p>

<p>Yes, that would be its cause. Without Keynes, the concept of deficit spending wouldn’t exist.</p>

<p>

And, “origin of species” as a harmful book? Nearly all biological and medical advances stem from the cornerstone presented in that book. People who argue otherwise are uneducated or, if they are, ignorant. If they don’t believe the underpinning theory then they should not take medicine as most medical research is based off of ideas first presented by Darwin. I say they go to church and pray their illnesses away (not a catholic one of course!).

</p>

<p>Agreed, but only one of the lists has that book.</p>

<p>

I am making fun of the list because its by someone who is not knowledgeable.

</p>

<p>The lists are by a number of scholars. I wouldn’t call them stupid, though admittedly there are a few works on the lists that I’d rather not see there.</p>

[CollegeFanatik]

<p>I don’t agree with many of the books on that list although some do pique my curiosity. </p>

<p>Also, in regards to mahras2’s statement:</p>

<p>

I am making fun of the list because its by someone who is not knowledgeable.

</p>

<p>Just because someone doesn’t have the same beliefs system as you does not invalidate their opinions or make them any less knowledgeable than you.</p>

[nbachris2788]

<p>

Just because someone doesn’t have the same beliefs system as you does not invalidate their opinions or make them any less knowledgeable than you.

</p>

<p>True, but anybody who thinks the world was created in 7 days does deserve to be ridiculed as an idiot.</p>

[juxtaposn]

<p>Interesting that the link you provided comes from “Bob Helt, a well known and longtime member of the Corvair Society of America (CORSA) is a tireless defender of the Corvair.”</p>

<p>

His attack on the U.S. automobile industry for using a system that was not only safe but also employed by many European car manufacturers smacks more of his own socialism than of “consumer protection.”

</p>

<p>You sure about that? I’ll give you this:</p>

<p>

Nader’s thesis blames not the swing-axle design per se but the combination of weight distribution, swing axle with a single, inboard, constant velocity joint, and unusually critical tire pressures. The idea that the Corvair is inherently unsafe is neither universally accepted nor applicable to all model years.

</p>

<p>but also suggest that you take a look at this:</p>

<p>

One of the examples of the book, and the article for which it is probably most widely known although it forms only one chapter, was General Motors’ Chevrolet Corvair. The 1960–63 Corvairs had an unusual rear-engine configuration, 37:63 front:rear weight distribution, significantly more unequal than contemporary European rear-engined cars[Quotation from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source], and a suspension design which was prone to “tuck under” in certain circumstances and which required drivers to maintain proper tire pressures which were outside of the tire manufacturer’s recommended tolerances for the tire and with an unusually high front:rear differential (15psi front, 26psi rear, when cold; 18 psi and 30psi hot). The pressures were more critical than for most contemporaneous designs, but this was not made explicitly clear to salespeople or owners. The pressures also rendered the tires overloaded, according to the standards laid down by the Tire and Rim Association, the relevant industry body, with two or more passengers on board.

</p>

<p>Doesn’t sound so safe to me. Besides, even assuming that the Corvair is perfectly safe:</p>

<p>

The Corvair’s image was permanently tarnished and Unsafe is still often characterized as the book “about the Corvair”, but this is only one of eight chapters, the theme of tire pressures chosen for comfort not safety is recurrent, and the main theme throughout is the way in which the motor industry evades even well-founded and technically informed criticism.

</p>

[Jason1117]

<p>nothing is more harmful than Bible</p>

[Jason1117]

<p>

True, but anybody who thinks the world was created in 7 days does deserve to be ridiculed as an idiot

I disagree.
They are not idiots,they are just uneducated</p>

[aristotle1990]

<p>

Doesn’t sound so safe to me.

</p>

<p>

The handling and stability performance of the 1960-63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic.

</p>

<p>Quoth the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, itself an eventual product of Nader’s own book. This isn’t Bob Hope here.</p>

<p>

even assuming that the Corvair is perfectly safe

</p>

<p>The Corvair was one of Nader’s central examples. It turns out that he was dead wrong, and as such, one might naturally assume that he was wrong elsewhere as well. For instance, his claim that removing the national highway speed limit of 65 MPH would significantly increase highway fatalities was proven false. The problem is that the book is today too ancient to thoroughly parse its facts, but I’m sure that other examples can be found.</p>

<p>Admittedly, the automobile industry at the time wasn’t particularly concerned with safety (nor, might I add, were consumers; there’s a reason why contemporary car manufacturers advertise the safety of their cars). Perhaps some of amount of regulation was necessary, but we went overboard. Manufacturers were forever after designated as the bad guys in an ongoing struggle for consumer protection, when, in fact, without the manufacturers, there wouldn’t be any cars to be protected from. It’s important to do cost/benefit analyses of regulations before they’re implemented, as [url=<a href=“AEI-Brookings Joint Center”>AEI-Brookings Joint Center]this[/url</a>] can often happen (additionally, I read somewhere (though not in the link) that something like 3,000 kids got poisoned by aspirin because of safety caps). Through excessive regulation, we can hamper the accumulation of capital and ultimately weaken our society. While some regulation is necessary, we should give the market a chance to iron out problems before turning to government.</p>