Banning romance novels at school

I agree, a 50 step calculus problem could potentially be any book. But I was using that as a hypothetical example, there's nothing wrong with using hypothetical examples. I am applying some of my emotions, but applying emotion to an argument is not the same as committing the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion, also known as the appeal to pity- the use of a pity or sadness-inducing hypothetical anecdote to garner attention. I suggest you study up on your logical fallacies. You use yet another logical fallacy in your next sentence- when you state that I hate romance novels, but many other people enjoy romance novels. You're using the bandwagon fallacy there. Just because many other people besides me enjoy romance novels does not in any way mean that they are correct or justified in doing so. It simply means that their minds are gullible and can be brainwashed by big publishing companies wishing to make a quick buck. Most rules in the world today are made because somebody made a mistake in the past, and rules are created so that mistake will not be REPEATED. Slavery used to be legal, but we outlawed it because it was a tremendous practice, and we keep that law going because it prevents humans from being bought and sold as property. Rules remain so that they can be observed. If one kid in a school is distracted from his work by a romance novel, then the school will likely ban the reading of romance novels because they pose a potential distraction to the process of education. And any kid who goes there in the future will have to refrain from reading romance novels because the school wants less attention on the passionate love of fictional characters and more attention on things like calculus and algebra. if a kid wears a tank top and it slips, then the school will likely ban tank tops. Or they might not even ban tank tops because of one person's past mistake, they might simply ban them because they find them offensive. Same goes for murder- it was not the actions of one individual which caused murder to be outlawed, but simply the concept that murder was ghastly. You never said that romance novels are necessary for survival, but you did somewhat imply that by bringing up a highly specific anecdote about a kid who simply must read a romance novel or she'll die. Seriously, you put way too much unnecessary drama into that. It's a book, not an income tax form. I don't think high schoolers are quite old enough to live on their own and take care of themselves, which is exactly why rules such as a ban on romance novels are enforced. You might think teenagers could be self-sustaining, but most adults disagree, and your viewpoint on how capable a teenager is to run society might be influenced by the fact that you belong to that age group. I'd say that teenagers wouldn't be able to run society judging by the nature of your argument, which has grammatical errors and a lack of commas in many, many places. But that's an off-topic ad-hominem, so I'll get back on topic. For more information on how teenagers could potentially run the world if they were given the opportunity, check out Roger Korman's 1970 film Gas, and observe the results, then interpret them for yourself. Things like parties and staying up until 2 am on school nights are exactly why there's so much cause for concern. Staying up until 2 am on a school night is detrimental to your mental and physical health. Sleep deprivation is not a wise choice if you wish to succeed academically. I wouldn't say going to parties until 2 am is normal, I'd call it a rebellious act. The parent reading through the book first is one part of it. The other part is whether romance novels are banned or not at the school. And if a kid reads a romance novel without permission, then by all means things should happen immediately. I don't know what anybody finds in romance novels, I thought they went out of fashion after the Vietnam war and the collapse of 1950s McCarthyist America.