|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> About those Book Bannings.. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1685110958 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 07:22:38 |
|
Title: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 07:22:38 Is it wrong to control the types of things that we put in front of Children? I remember the stores kept Penthouse, Playboy, Magnificent Muppet Muffs behind the counter. Is it appropriate to tell children that they Could Be THE CENTER of attention and have new clothes and just have a new, exciting life... ?? Is That the stuff they should be thinking about at age ten? What IS a Good book banning? What if Someone just won't allow you to advertise? Or sell it? Here is an example,, ohh, and Look at who they are. When journalist and author Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, positing that transgenderism in teen girls is a social contagion, was released in 2020, Amazon would not allow her to advertise it, and employees of the book-selling giant petitioned for it not to be sold at all. It was twice removed from Target’s shelves, and even a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union called for “stopping the circulation of this book.” With the book’s recent release in Hebrew by Sella Meir, a publisher that specializes in bringing heterodox and conservative voices to light, the debate over whether Shrier’s ideas should even be available in the public square has reached Tel Aviv’s public square: Kikar Atarim, to be precise. Sella Meir and the Tel Aviv International Salon (TAIS) planned a book launch for Shrier for her to advise parents on what to do if their teen daughters say they are transgender. The event was planned to take place at the glass-windowed strip club-turned-event space overlooking the beach, run by the organization Social Space, for next Sunday, until the publishing house’s owner. Rotem Sella, and TAIS founder Jay Shultz were told it was canceled. Cancellation of the book's launch in Israel “We do not host such events,” a woman named Omer wrote. Sella said she called the event “homophobic” in a phone call. TRUST ME, we are Not Afraid of the homos. The destruction of our society? Yeah. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/26/23 at 08:41:19 Is it wrong to control the types of things that we put in front of Children? I remember the stores kept Penthouse, Playboy, Magnificent Muppet Muffs behind the counter. I don't think it's wrong to control the things children can get ahold of. Pronography being one of those items. The exposure of pronography is, typically, regulated by law. Not by individual business owners. Amazon and Target are private businesses. The book Irreversible Damage is not pronography, so I am not sure what the connection is when it comes to preventing children from seeing this book. If Amazon was attempting to sell pronography to minors, I could see a reason for insisting they stop as it is a violation of law, even through private business access. Stopping children from accessing Irreversible Damage is not a crime, letting them see it is also not a crime, so as far as Amazon/Target and this book is concerned, Amazon and Target have the legal authority to sell or refuse to sell the product. Suing to remove it from a private business sales catalogue seems inappropriate. As for Israel they do not have the same rights or laws, so I'm not sure how they should address private businesses distributing information or product in a public square. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 08:52:29 Books in the library showing boys suckin boys is a crime. If not, it should be. For some reason the libtards are offended by the normies not wanting to see the kids encouraged to go Full RootHugger. Why is this happening? I thought school was for learning about things like math and reading. Why are we teaching children about sex with Johnny and Ralph? If you're queer,you'll figure it out on your own. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/26/23 at 11:30:28 My understanding is that "sex education" is less about how to anatomically interface with another human being, but especially for older kids, how to be safe. I think there should be a differentiating terminology where "sex education" is for younger kids and covers the anatomical components of human sexual organs, and rudimentary sexual contact. The safety components would be addressing the fact that if they are ever sexually abused, they can report it, and it most likely going to be a human they know and trust. "Safe Sex" should be for older kids, 6th grade on up where sexual intercourse is beginning, and cover literally any type of safer contact possible. If abstaining from sexual contact, and scared straight images of STD's worked we would have stopped having teen pregnancies in the 50's. Ask yourself when some hot girl wanted to go further than third-base if those STD images of genital warts was stopping you from going any further with her, you know, for safety. "Safe Sex" would have to cover homosexual, and every other type of whatever people come up with when it comes to personal identification and sexual contact with others. I see no reason for gay males to receive less education than straight ones in regard to safety. Also addressing exposure and acceptance towards pronography, revenge pron, App-based dating and abuse, rape, and date-rape should be covered in these courses. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 12:48:55 The Class sex ed is, or used to be, as you describe it. That is not the only time during the day Children are being sexualized. You understand a parent who was reading iBook From the Library and told to Stop, because what they were saying wasn't suitable for the audience, BUT IT WAS MEANT TO BE READ BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL KIDS... Don't go thinking what is going on is okay. It's NOT every school, some of the parents who complained were investigated by the FBI and called domestic terrorists. America is in Trouble. Absolute perverts are teaching school in places. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Serowbot on 05/26/23 at 13:04:43 It's all about states rights 'till it don't go yer' way. Civil war wasn't about slavery... Then abortion wasn't either. Now, it education. This is how you know you're fighting paper tigers. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 13:50:45 I can have an opinion. States rights or parents rights? Who gets to decide what Their kids are exposed to? I'm dealing with a paper tyrant. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Serowbot on 05/26/23 at 15:56:48 States rights or women's rights? Who gets to decide who controls their own body? When you think one way and they think another,... you should decide? This is a polls at 70%/30% ... 60%/30% depending on how it's asked. But pro-choice always is the majority. When you feel strongly one way and they feel strongly another... shouldn't the decision be up to each individual? Wouldn't that be democratic? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 19:16:25 Her body? If she wants to chop off HER arm,,okay.. But the BODY you so casually allow her to chop up is the body of the child. Not HER BODY. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/26/23 at 20:58:11 States rights or parents rights? Who gets to decide what Their kids are exposed to? Both. One thing to remember is not every parent is involved in their kids lives. The overwhelming amount of sexual and physical abuse when it comes to kids is from their parents. Nutritional neglect: parents. Drug exposure: parents. Alcohol abuse: parents. If not for external sources some kids would never get any useful information, get out of abuse cycles, or live. It makes sense that active healthy parents should have primary say in what their kid is exposed to. However if not for some degrees of public education, some kids wouldn't get any education about options in the real-world. They would only know how to abuse, because they were abused. I think when it comes to certain types of education, like sex-ed, or health class, even some economics, the curriculum should be available to parents and they should be able to decide if their kid attends that class. What parents should not be able to do is prevent all kids from learning things they don't want their kid to learn. It's pretty hypocritical to say you want control over what your kid sees, and then also want control over what other human's kids see. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/26/23 at 23:02:51 Right After you point out what lousy parents some kids have you protect their guidance |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/26/23 at 23:59:32 What I said was: It makes sense that active healthy parents should have primary say in what their kid is exposed to. Active Healthy Parents Inactive abusive parents should not have primary say in what their kid is exposed to. They don't care anyway. They would never look at school curriculum, or even make sure their kid goes to school. To be clear, I think any known human of any quality of parenting that has a child or children that think they should have control over what their child or children see, are pretty darn hypocritical if they want to control what other known human's child or children see. Why isn't it ok for someone to control what your kid sees, but ok for you to control what their kid sees? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/27/23 at 04:48:56 Way too much nuance to explain. If you don't understand that restricting perverted books from children is something society owes the children, that's on all of you who are confused. Homosexuality Is perverted. Atheists may not get it. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by WebsterMark on 05/27/23 at 05:23:12 Pro-choice does not always win in a poll exactly because of the way the question is asked. And not surprising but either Sew is being purposely deceptive to this fact or willfully ignorant. Could go either way. The 61% is a general question about abortion. First trimester the number is 61% agree it should be legal. However, second trimester the numbers drastically flip to 65% against and in the third trimester it’s 80% against. If abortion laws settled on the first trimester, the debate would go away. It’s the 2nd and 3rd trimesters where normal people feel the need to grant rights and protect an unborn child that can’t protect itself. (Which is the same reason why normal people are against gender reconstructive surgery on 13 and 14-year-olds knowing that they’re not old enough to make a decision like that. They have to be protected from themselves the way unborn babies sometimes need to be protected) But organizations like Planned Parenthood found a cash cow in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and it turned into a political football that backs the pro-life crowd into no abortions corner and the pro-death crowd into abortions anytime up until birth corner, even after birth in the event of a botched abortion, and the baby is born alive, or when defects are detected such has downs syndrome. And yes, mothers have aborted babies after they know they’re the opposite sex of what they wanted. Abortion should never be birth control, but that’s what it’s turned into a lot of poor neighborhoods. It’s hard to get abortion numbers, but there was a report that came out a number of years ago that said 70% of black pregnancies were aborted in New York City. If you’re in favor of laws that allow unrestricted abortions up to birth, there’s something wrong with you, |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/27/23 at 07:44:20 5A7A78706D7A1F0 wrote:
Word Salad so you can wiggle. Or stand up and 'Pick One'. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/27/23 at 07:58:01 7757555D4057320 wrote:
'Safe Sex' and same sex interaction education , should start when a child is 10 (+/-). OK got it ! What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies and Cutting Off sexual parts today ? Why is it BAD, for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/27/23 at 09:40:06 "... the curriculum should be available to parents and they should be able to decide if their kid attends that class ..." "... parents should not be able to do is prevent all kids from learning things they don't want their kid to learn ..." Word Salad so you can wiggle. Or stand up and 'Pick One'. Incorrect. Sentence One is talking about THEIR kid. Sentence two is talking about EVERYONE ELSE'S kid. Parents should be able to decide what THEIR OWN kid sees, but not have control over what OTHER human's kids see. You can't tell the difference between deciding something for Your kid, and deciding for ALL other kids? Safe Sex' and same sex interaction education , should start when a child is 10 (+/-). OK got it ! Some kids 10+ are giving each other hand jobs. Just last month the pediatric care team provided their regional case loads and middle school aged kids are having sex. Mostly oral, but it's happening. They have been watching video pronography on cellphones since they were in 3rd or 4th grade, what would we expect to happen? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/27/23 at 09:53:27 Way too much nuance to explain. If you don't understand that restricting perverted books from children is something society owes the children, that's on all of you who are confused. Homosexuality Is perverted. Atheists may not get it. I never said restricting perverted books from children is bad. I never said anything like that, you just equate anything other than absolute agreement, to absolute DISagreement. When you asked who gets to decide who "Their" kids get exposed to I said "Both" because I don't assume every parent acts in the best interest of their child. The issue with any active, healthy human parent saying they should have complete control over what THEIR kid sees, is that they have to be willing to let other active, healthy parents have the Same rights, or it's hypocritical. The only way to do this is to let each active, healthy parent(s) have a choice. I want complete control over what My kid sees. I also will stop Your kid from seeing certain things. That sounds equal? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/27/23 at 10:00:43 49696B637E690C0 wrote:
No comment/stats on: "What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies and Cutting Off sexual parts today ? Why is it BAD, for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?": |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/27/23 at 13:06:39 No comment/stats on: "What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies and Cutting Off sexual parts today ? Why is it BAD, for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?": No comment on: You can't tell the difference between deciding something for Your kid, and deciding for ALL other kids? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/27/23 at 14:24:56 4A6A68607D6A0F0 wrote:
Sure I can. If I had Children, (which I don't) I would 'decide', a Boy child would NOT be told/taught/explained how to SUCK a D ick. (Nor a Girl child) YET, the UL, DFI, FDS, 'WOKE", Socialists will, 'DECIDE', For me. Your Turn. "What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies today. And the Cutting Off sexual parts today ? "Why is it BAD, for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ? One more, in the field you say you are very knowledge in. Why do so many medical professionals, 'cut off Boobs and D icks' ? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/27/23 at 14:46:07 Sure I can. If I had Children, (which I don't) I would 'decide', a Boy child would NOT be told/taught/explained how to SUCK a D ick. (Nor a Girl child) YET, the UL, DFI, FDS, 'WOKE", Socialists will, 'DECIDE', For me. This is why I said healthy active parents should be able to choose for their own kid and only their own kid with the exclusion of all other known humans. So nobody is deciding for you. You get to decide. How that is "word salad" I do not know, I clearly provide two different situations and could not logically pick only "one" unless only one human child existed on the planet. ""What were the percentages of 'teen pregnancies in the 50's', VS the teen pregnancies today. And the Cutting Off sexual parts today ?" I don't know. "Why is it BAD, for some nationalities/religions to, 'cut off Clits', on women. Yet in the USA it is OK to cut off Boobs and D icks ?" I think the primary difference is consent. Tying someone down and forcibly removing their genitals is considerably "DIFFERENT" than having a human choose to undergo a procedure with informed consent. Force is, typically, considered "BAD", or more "BAD" than choice. Acknowledging there is a difference between force and choice is not "defending" any action. Just as acknowledging a green shirt is different than yellow shirt is not defending any shirt color. Knowing the difference is not choosing one shirt over another. Consent with children is another issue all together. The question isn't one of comparing genital removal across cultures. It is when can a human provide informed consent, or have medical power of attorney over another, to approve permanent body changes? If a kid can't choose to get a tattoo because it's "permanent" why can they surgically change genders? "Why do so many medical professionals, 'cut off Boobs and D icks' ?" I would assume due to demand. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/28/23 at 15:48:51 19393B332E395C0 wrote:
As a answer to the comparison of then and today. 4060626A7760050 wrote:
You chose to 'imply' that yesterdays Sex Ed was bad, and today's is better. Well, unless you consider, educating 10 year old Johnny, and 9 year old Bobby how to jack each other off. Perhaps the UL, FDS, DFI Socialistic WOKE people, should not write or be in charge of Sex Ed. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/28/23 at 18:02:23 As a answer to the comparison of then and today. Yes. My answer is I do not know. "You chose to 'imply' that yesterdays Sex Ed was bad, and today's is better." You chose to infer this, I did not imply it. The problem here, as usual, is that if I am not in lock-step agreement, you consider me to be in DISagreement. Or if you infer I am saying something is "bad" then I can only mean the other thing is "good" or "better". This is flawed logic as we all know a human can think both methods of education are ineffective. I can think STD genital wart image education is ineffective, AND that other forms of sex education are ineffective too. This fact can of course not be Observed. "Well, unless you consider, educating 10 year old Johnny, and 9 year old Bobby how to jack each other off." The fundamental difference here is Sex Education is not exclusively a how-to guide. Just as firearm education is not exclusively how to aim and pull a trigger. A human can learn safe firearm handling, storage, cleaning, without learning how to go murder people. But anti-gun will choose to ignore this. Ignoring firearm safety won't stop negligent discharges. Ignoring Johnny and Bobby are giving each other hand-jobs under the bleachers won't stop hand-jobs. Obviously how to give a better hand job instruction isn't the answer either. For anyone willing to Observe, that last sentence means today's sex-ed is NOT better, if that is what they are doing. The question is what do kids today need to know about what they are choosing to go do, to keep them safe. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 05/28/23 at 19:35:43 Again, because you don't Want to admit it. It's NOT JUST during The Sex Ed CLASS, the children are being inundated with this insanity. If they don't agree they get scorned. Are you really that far from what is going on? Homosexual acts being promoted in school is WRONG. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/28/23 at 20:01:10 Again, because you don't Want to admit it. It's NOT JUST during The Sex Ed CLASS, the children are being inundated with this insanity. I never said it was JUST during Sex-ed, I was just responding to MnSpring on that part of the multiple aspects of this conversation. "Homosexual acts being promoted in school is WRONG." As usual, you interpret that if I am not in absolute agreement on all aspects of everything, I am in complete DISagreement. I never said schools should promote homosexual acts, I said schools should provide information in regard to safe practices, active healthy parents should have choices in this, because a teacher telling Johnny not to kiss Billy has never stopped that from happening. That never worked in the past, it won't work today. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/28/23 at 22:03:28 5B7B79716C7B1E0 wrote:
And you have facts/numbers/stats to support that ? Or is it just your opinion ! Oh, "...If abstaining from sexual contact, and scared straight images of STD's worked we would have stopped having teen pregnancies in the 50's. ..." IS you Implying. Regardless of your spin |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/29/23 at 07:04:56 And you have facts/numbers/stats to support that ? Or is it just your opinion ! It is my opinion. Do you know many humans that didn't kiss another human because a teacher told them not to? Oh, "...If abstaining from sexual contact, and scared straight images of STD's worked we would have stopped having teen pregnancies in the 50's. ..." IS you Implying. Regardless of your spin It does not imply anything else is "better", because some things can be the "Same" or even "Worse". You will only accept "Better" as an outcome, even though multiple other assessments exist. Just as you insist any alteration to the 2nd Amendment can only be "gun control", as if there is no way anyone could propose pro-gun ownership changes to the 2nd. This makes no sense. My opinion implies that if the strategy were effective, it would have been effective years ago. Doing the same thing today is no more effective - humans still have sex under age 18 or prior to marriage no matter how many STD pictures you show them. The ratio of pro-sex media, social interaction etc. far, far exceeds health class or sex-ed. That is my opinion, based on the number of humans being treated for STD's, the number of humans still reproducing at a young age, and all these abortion discussions that keep going on. |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by MnSpring on 05/29/23 at 07:48:58 5777757D6077120 wrote:
So you believe that what 'was' done/said, like, don't/because/etc was not effective. And the current, do this/like this to be 'safe', is better. OK Got it ! |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Serowbot on 05/29/23 at 08:24:24 I guess kids will just have to learn about sex the old fashioned way.... Internet porn :-? |
|
Title: Re: About those Book Bannings.. Post by Eegore on 05/29/23 at 10:39:00 So you believe that what 'was' done/said, like, don't/because/etc was not effective. And the current, do this/like this to be 'safe', is better. OK Got it ! Incorrect. You repeating something that is false won't make it true. I never said today's programs were "BETTER" You did. You inferred that. You choose to only accept the word "better", you refuse to acknowledge that things can be the "same" or "worse". I said if images of STD's stopped kids from having sex it would have worked years ago. Nothing about that statement implies anything about modern sex-ed. Since we STILL have kids having underage sex, that should indicate (to anyone that isn't trying their hardest to Spin this into an argument), that today's sex-ed programs aren't any "better". It didn't work decades ago, it won't work now. You will insist I imply "It didn't work years ago, today is better." |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |