[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Alright, somehow this has turned into a "can books on their own be dangerous" and it seems to be a lot of everyone restating the same points. But simply saying that a book can't be dangerous on it's own is a bit of a cop out in my opinion. A gun isn't dangerous on it's own, untill someone uses it. It's the same with books. Sure if read critically any book can be useful, but I think the intent of the list given in the original post was meant to convey that the use of these books combined with their content is what was harmful.

Hitler used Mein Kampf as a tool to further his agenda of hate. Could he have done this without the book? Sure he could have, but it was another tool. Mein Kampf could be used in a way that most other books could not. Could Dr. Seuss have been used for this purpose? Doubtfull.

Can a nuclear bomb be dangeros on it's own? No, not unless someone uses it. So what is more dangerous, a nuclear bomb, or a boquet or flowers? Mien Kampf, or Dr. Seuss? By your logic, they're all the same, but I see it differently.