LGBTQ Issues: What will the public attitude be? (Pt 2)

[Its On A Slab]

Musk is a moron.

And full of.....um, himself (holding my nose).

 

[Go Bama]

The most brilliant mind I’ve ever known personally was my little brother. His accomplishments were amazing, but his social skills were not. He died at 38.

Im not comparing my brother to Musk, just saying I get what NT was saying without the explanation.

 

[Its On A Slab]

My point is it's impossible that Elon has earned the wealth to be considered the richest man on the planet whilst being stupid. It's simply not possible for an unintelligent person to do that. I don't consider his wealth to be a measure of his character, nor do I agree with him on all of his views, but it's silly to suggest someone who has forever changed the auto, space, and banking industries is stupid.

Then again, as an aside, there were some über-intelligent Nazis, capable of doing great things if they applied themselves in the right direction. in other words, even the highly-intelligent can also do some pretty stupid things.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I guess freedom of speech is only a concern when it involves privately owned social media companies and not publicly owned and financed libraries?

Is the suggestion that children have (or should have) unlimited freedom of speech in public schools?

If not, nice straw man.

 

[AlexanderFan]

I've never heard of someone stupid becoming the richest man on the planet while radically changing multiple industries.

But remember, in a binary world if you don't agree with someone that means they are inferior in some way.

Ironic that the Left world”s issues are binary when ithe world is so complicated, but their gender/sex/pronoun world is so complicated when it’s simply binary.

 

[Go Bama]

Ironic that the Left world”s issues are binary when ithe world is so complicated, but their gender/sex/pronoun world is so complicated when it’s simply binary.

If it were simply binary you would have a very good point.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Is the suggestion that children have (or should have) unlimited freedom of speech in public schools?

If not, nice straw man.

Is it your contention that children should not have access to books like To Kill a Mockingbird or any book related to LGBTQ+ subjects? Pregnancy? Human sexuality at any age as a minor? To books that are age appropriate and intended to prevent child sexual abuse by educating children on what is and is not appropriate? Because those are the books being banned, so do you support censorship of the types of books actually being censored?

 

[crimsonaudio]

Is it your contention that children should not have access to books like To Kill a Mockingbird or any book related to LGBTQ+ subjects? Pregnancy? Human sexuality at any age as a minor? To books that are age appropriate and intended to prevent child sexual abuse by educating children on what is and is not appropriate? Because those are the books being banned, so do you support censorship of the types of books actually being censored?

I'm not trying to dive deep into what they should or should not have access to, my response was to the seemingly straw-man quote:
"I guess freedom of speech is only a concern when it involves privately owned social media companies and not publicly owned and financed libraries?"

Unless you disagree that censoring children's access to certain books is illegal or wrong, then the statement above is insincere at best.

If you agree that limiting access to certain materials is okay, then the discussion is about where to draw the line.

ETA: further, I've neither the time nor the energy to get worked up over what some local library in another state is doing. I can find millions of things to get upset about if that's my goal. I agree that removing a book because the author's last name is 'Gay' is stupid, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. There is literally a city full of kids with IQs in the 50s running around with stolen firearms not 20 miles from my house - I'm far more concerned with what's happening in my back yard.

 

[Go Bama]

I'm not trying to dive deep into what they should or should not have access to, my response was to the seemingly straw-man quote:
"I guess freedom of speech is only a concern when it involves privately owned social media companies and not publicly owned and financed libraries?"

Unless you disagree that censoring children's access to certain books is illegal or wrong, then the statement above is insincere at best.

If you agree that limiting access to certain materials is okay, then the discussion is about where to draw the line.

Well, the line should not be drawn at 1984 or To Kill a Mockingbird. Those were required reading when I was in school during a much more conservative era.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I'm not trying to dive deep into what they should or should not have access to, my response was to the seemingly straw-man quote:
"I guess freedom of speech is only a concern when it involves privately owned social media companies and not publicly owned and financed libraries?"

Unless you disagree that censoring children's access to certain books is illegal or wrong, then the statement above is insincere at best.

If you agree that limiting access to certain materials is okay, then the discussion is about where to draw the line.

BS. This is like saying you have to allow all guns to absolutely anyone or you are not for the second amendment. The argument you are making is the real straw man argument, because no one has advocated for the asinine idea that there should be absolutely no restrictions on content intended for or available to children. No one is saying to allow them in sex shops and theatre and strip clubs. It's ridiculous.

But you are changing to completely rewrite the narrative.

Instead of addressing the real issue you pivot to a hypothetical one with ridiculous implications.

So, do you support keeping children from being able to access age appropriate books on LGBTQ+ matters and race related content, which accounts for 56% of banned books?

Let's keep it real and on the matter at hand instead of theoretical nonsense taken so far that it becomes ridiculous.

 

[Huckleberry]

I started a thread on this issue.

Book Censorship in Public Schools and Libraries

https://pen.org/report/book-bans-pressure-to-censor/ The freedom to read is under assault in the United Statesâ€â€particularly in public schoolsâ€â€curtailing students’ freedom to explore words, ideas, and books. In the 2022–23 school year, from July 1, 2022, to June 31...

www.tidefans.com

 

[crimsonaudio]

BS. This is like saying you have to allow all guns to absolutely anyone or you are not for the second amendment. The argument you are making is the real straw man argument, because no one has advocated for the asinine idea that there should be absolutely no restrictions on content intended for or available to children. No one is saying to allow them in sex shops and theatre and strip clubs. It's ridiculous.

Says the guy that equated censoring children's books to not supporting free speech. At least you made me chuckle.

So, do you support keeping children from being able to access age appropriate books on LGBTQ+ matters and race related content, which accounts for 56% of banned books?

Since I disagree that children should have access to everything, I'm not going to worry about what some local elected government chooses to do. As I said, I don't spend my life worrying about everything people in other parts of the country are doing - if they don't want their kids reading about sexuality, fine. I don't care.

Further, as you seem to enjoy spending your life being upset about everything everyone is doing everywhere, go for it. I just pushed back on the asinine idea that removing access from kids is somehow a free speech issue.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Says the guy that equated censoring children's books to not supporting free speech. At least you made me chuckle.


Since I disagree that children should have access to everything, I'm not going to worry about what some local elected government chooses to do. As I said, I don't spend my life worrying about everything people in other parts of the country are doing - if they don't want their kids reading about sexuality, fine. I don't care.

Further, as you seem to enjoy spending your life being upset about everything everyone is doing everywhere, go for it. I just pushed back on the asinine idea that removing access from kids is somehow a free speech issue.

Says the "free speech absolutist" that apparently does not understand or truly care about the idea of free speech, which even SCOTUS has said applies to children, even if that right is somewhat limited.

Besides that, since my sister is a teacher and my MIL is a librarian, both in the state of AL, it is of direct interest to me and those I love - especially considering the push to make them criminals if they make a book wrongly banned available to children through intent or negligence.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Says the "free speech absolutist" that apparently does not understand or truly care about the idea of free speech, which even SCOTUS has said applies to children, even if that right is somewhat limited.

Thank you for admitting this.

Your local free speech proponent,
-CA

 

[NationalTitles18]

Thank you for admitting this.

Your local free speech proponent,
-CA

No one ever argued otherwise. Thanks for defeating the straw man you invented, CA. Great job.

 

[Bodhisattva]

In summary, I'm all for my child reading Huck Finn, 1984, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc. at an age where they can understand and appreciate important literature.

I'm not ok with a school providing my child access to literature that is sexually explicit and of no academic value. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

 

[NationalTitles18]

In summary, I'm all for my child reading Huck Finn, 1984, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc. at an age where they can understand and appreciate important literature.

I'm not ok with a school providing my child access to literature that is sexually explicit and of no academic value. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

I also don't want children accessing sexually explicit materials with no educational value and that is not age appropriate.

But we have republicans calling anything they don't like sexually explicit or racist and wanting it banned.

They are misusing and abusing the terms.

Project 2025 (drink!) directly calls "transgender ideology" "pornography" and says it does not deserve 1A protection at all for anyone. This is a perversion of terms and obviously is in opposition to constitutional guarantees.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I also don't want children accessing sexually explicit materials with no educational value and that is not age appropriate.

I'm glad we agree.

But we have republicans calling anything they don't like sexually explicit or racist and wanting it banned.

They are misusing and abusing the terms.

Project 2025 (drink!) directly calls "transgender ideology" "pornography" and says it does not deserve 1A protection at all for anyone. This is a perversion of terms and obviously is in opposition to constitutional guarantees.

Ok. But is anyone here making that argument? I'm not.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I'm glad we agree.



Ok. But is anyone here making that argument? I'm not.

Did I accuse you of that?

No.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Did I accuse you of that?

No.

I'm not sure what you are trying to do. You're all hot and bothered about things that are handled at the local level. I'll defer to the various locals to makes smart or dumb choices. I can't prioritize everything. This issue was not an issue at the schools where Lily attended. And now she's done with primary school, so it's way down on my list of concerns.