Let's talk about suppression

[smf]

I thought the story was self explanatory, but I guess I'll explain it anyway. The parent was reading excerpts from a book that is found in the school library and was kicked out of the school board meeting for being vulgar. If it's too vulgar to be read in front of adults, why isn't it too vulgar for minors to read it?

Either they are Puritans, which I doubt because they allow the book to be in the library in the first place, or they don't like being exposed for who they really are. The G word comes to mind here.

You need to explain how that make them homophobes.

For the point you actually made, books in a library can't offend people who aren't reading them, reading from them aloud can offend those listening. You shouldn't take a sealed adult magazine from a store shelf and open it and show it to passers by either.

 

[smf]

Parents generally know what's best for their kids better than other people.

No, you cannot say that. They assume what they think is best, which is different.

You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.

Pro-lifers should believe that society knows better than individual parents how to bring up their children, or there appears to be an inconsistency.

 

[LainaGabranth]

No, you cannot say that. They impose what they think is best, which is different.

You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.

It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best, when not even a month ago they were telling us that parents are pushing LGBTQ+ stuff on the kids. Which is it? They need to pick a story and stick with it.

 

[smf]

It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best,

Obviously that is only true when they agree with what the parents "know what's best".

I'm surprised tabzer hasn't jumped on this inconsistency.

 

[tabzer]

It's weird how we're hearing the right say parents generally know what's best, when not even a month ago they were telling us that parents are pushing LGBTQ+ stuff on the kids. Which is it? They need to pick a story and stick with it.

It is possible for parents to generally know what's best, though I'm not sure of that. It's also possible for the minority of LGBTQ+ parents to be grooming kids at the same time. I'm pretty sure that the majority of kid trauma doesn't come from parents who oust themselves to some sort of branding though.

 

[tabzer]

I'm surprised tabzer hasn't jumped on this inconsistency.

You were too quick to reach for the edge.

 

[smf]

It is possible for parents to generally know what's best, though I'm not sure of that.

You're not sure about the vague assertion you are making?

How are you going to objectively evaluate it? I thought that was your thing?

I'm pretty sure that the majority of kid trauma doesn't come from parents who oust themselves to some sort of branding though.

That sounds like a non committal cop out, I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence to back it up

Or maybe you meant to say "I want it to be true that the majority..."

You were too quick to reach for the edge.

I haven't reached for any edge. What are you talking about?

If you mean that I didn't give you enough time to comment, then the post I replied to was from yesterday and you replied to the thread within an hour but missed this glaring inconsistency. I'd be interested in why, maybe I shamed you into making a comment now?

 

[tabzer]

You're not sure about the vague assertion you are making?

I didn't make an assertion that parents know best (generally or otherwise). Trader did that. Microsplooge roped me in for commentary.

That sounds like a non committal cop out, I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence to back it up

Or maybe you meant to say "I want it to be true that the majority..."

You want evidence that LBGTQ+ people don't cause the majority of kid trauma?

 

[tabzer]

I haven't reached for any edge. What are you talking about?

If you mean that I didn't give you enough time to comment, then the post I replied to was from yesterday and you replied to the thread within an hour but missed this glaring inconsistency. I'd be interested in why, maybe I shamed you into making a comment now?

Your response to Laina and my reponse to Laina were about 1 minute apart, whose comment came about 5 minutes prior.

The contradiction was in Laina's juxtaposition without solving for the common denominator.

 

[smf]

You want evidence that LBGTQ+ people don't cause the majority of kid trauma?

I'm saying you need evidence if you are going to say what the majority is or isn't, or you're just guessing/wishing.

I didn't make an assertion that parents know best (generally or otherwise). Trader did that. Microsplooge roped me in for commentary.

You asserted that it was possible.

It is possible for parents to generally know what's best, though I'm not sure of that.

 

[smf]

Your response to Laina and my reponse to Laina were about 1 minute apart, whose comment came about 5 minutes prior.

The contradiction was in Laina's juxtaposition without solving for the common denominator.

We both commented on an inconsistency in the post from yesterday, which you missed. I am surprised with your obvious talent for sniffing out inconsistencies in all arguments, that you missed it.

Are you expecting us to point out inconsistencies for you to comment on now?

Or do you just give TraderPatTX a free ride on inconsistencies?

 

[tabzer]

I'm saying you need evidence if you are going to say what the majority is or isn't, or you're just guessing/wishing.

I don't need evidence to just to say something. I'm not interested in trying to convince you that LGBTQ+ people do not cause the majority of kid trauma. I'm perfectly fine with saying "I'm pretty sure that LTBGQ+ people aren't responsible for the majority of kid trauma", be %100 right, withhold evidence, and let you remain upset.

You asserted that it was possible.

I asserted that he disagreed with him, and it was contextually obvious that they both disagreed with each other.

The point I am making now, with Laina and you, is that it possible for two things to be true and not be a contradiction. If you want to have a philosophical discussion on what "possibility" means, find someone else.

We both commented on an inconsistency in the post from yesterday, which you missed.

I am surprised with your obvious talent for sniffing out inconsistencies in all arguments, that you missed it.

I can't be expected to, and I don't, call out every inconsistency.

While I do appreciate your confidence in me, it is misguided.

You are expecting us to point out inconsistencies for you now?

If you want me to talk about something in particular, then yes.

Or do you just give TraderPatTX a free ride on inconsistencies?

What did he say that bothered you?

 

[TraderPatTX]

You need to explain how that make them homophobes.

For the point you actually made, books in a library can't offend people who aren't reading them, reading from them aloud can offend those listening. You shouldn't take a sealed adult magazine from a store shelf and open it and show it to passers by either.

So a book that is offensive to be read aloud to adults is in a library in a school with minors. Make it make sense.

 

[TraderPatTX]

No, you cannot say that. They assume what they think is best, which is different.

You may or may not agree with them, but they provide no empirical proof that their assumptions are what is best for their kids.

Pro-lifers should believe that society knows better than individual parents how to bring up their children, or there appears to be an inconsistency.

I guarantee that I know what's best for my kids more than you do. The left is so controlling, you want to parent other people's kids. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

 

[smf]

I guarantee that I know what's best for my kids more than you do. The left is so controlling, you want to parent other people's kids. Sounds pretty authoritarian to me.

No, you believe you know what's best for them. You are being controlling.

I'm not telling you what to do with your kids, I'm just saying you can't claim you know what's best for them.

It seems it's only authoritarian when you disagree, you love it when state & federal government tell people what to do when you agree with it.

So a book that is offensive to be read aloud to adults is in a library in a school with minors. Make it make sense.

It seems there are some very easily triggered adults, yes.

 

[TraderPatTX]

No, you believe you know what's best for them. You are being controlling.

Raising kids is all about controlling their behavior. As a parent, it is your job to teach them good behavior and to avoid bad behavior. You obviously are not a parent.

I'm not telling you what to do with your kids, I'm just saying you can't claim you know what's best for them.

Except I can claim that, and I do.

It seems it's only authoritarian when you disagree, you love it when state & federal government tell people what to do when you agree with it.

Provide an example of me "loving when state & federal government tell people what to do".

 

[smf]

Provide an example of me "loving when state & federal government tell people what to do".

Banning books in schools you don't agree with would be a start.
Then any law that you support.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Except I can claim that, and I do.

You can make up whatever delusion you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it "is best for them".

It's impossible for you to know just how much your attitude (which seems really shitty on this thread) is messing them up and what effect that will have over the next few decades. Of course, you will blame them if it all goes wrong anyway, like usual.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Banning books in schools you don't agree with would be a start.

So you are ok with minors viewing pornographic material at taxpayer supported libraries. Weird flex.

Then any law that you support.

Where do you stand on abortion?

Read my comments on the numerous abortion threads in this forum. It's literally all the left loves to talk about.

You can make up whatever delusion you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it "is best for them".

Regardless, it is the parents job to raise kids, not society. We don't live in a commune.

It's impossible for you to know just how much your attitude (which seems really shitty on this thread) is messing them up and what effect that will have over the next few decades. Of course, you will blame them if it all goes wrong anyway, like usual.

Maybe I have "shitty" attitude because the left is advocating exposing minors to pornographic images and literature that gets parents thrown out of school board meetings because it is deemed too vulgar to be shown to adults, but not too vulgar for minors and then hide it from parents because they know the parents will object to it, which they are. You are not mad at me for having a different viewpoint, you are mad at me for exposing the left for who they really are. It's no wonder Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Les Wexner, Peter Nygard, Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby are/were fellow travelers.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

So you are ok with minors viewing pornographic material at taxpayer supported libraries. Weird flex.

You know, I really enjoy reading how you have to consistently straw man because you have no other good argument. So let me spell it out nice and clear.

Us:"Stop banning lgbtq+ books. The ones you are banning are not pornographic. And the ones you've cited, not only aren't in kidergarden as you so claim or anywhere in the 5-15 age rating, but likely heavily moderated for it's content in libaries if in high schools. It's also not pornagraphic or designed to get the viewer off. excplicit material? sure, the very very tiny few. But it's not like plenty of other non porn books don't have explict material and also allowed in (high) schools that have nothing to do with LGBTQ+'"
You:
"BUUUUUT BUUuT, POOOORN, you wAnT To MakE thEm SeE pORn"
Being LGBTQ+ is not porn. Kissing a romantic partner is not porn. If it was, you'd be screaming about how all the "media (movies, tv, and news)" Depics straight couples kissing each other as porn.

Two gay dudes, hugging because they love each other, is not porn. Two Lesbians kissing is not porn.

Allowing mediums to have such relationships, is not porn. I didn't hear you screaming about old practically every fucking Disney movie brainwashing my kids with straight propaganda, because all the relationships are straight, because the reality is, it's not propaganda, It's part of society, and should be accepted. So we're kindly asking that you do the same, but for relationships that are not explicitly or not explicitly, straight.

If this is the hill you want to die on, be my guest.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

For fuck sakes, greek statues would be considered porn by your logic because of them being naked af. But discussion of those statues are permitted anyways (I mean for fucksake, we're told that Zeus was a fucking player who took advantage of victims. And that's taught in (high) schools, and all the fuck up shit things he did in Greek mythology. Are we going to count that as porn?)