Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

For children, yes

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

He called me dishonest today. He cant help it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

He called me dishonest today. He cant help it.

---

Actually I said I suspect you're not being entirely honest. But if it makes you feel good to play the victim, feel free.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

No, we are having a discussion about what material is age appropriate. There is no reason to discuss with kindergarteners about the evils of the holocaust or the homo, for that matter.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

And about a dozen others as well. You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum. One would think the common denominator would give you pause, but alas, there is a lack of self-awareness as well.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

I support the Florida law. I believe it prohibits the teaching (public schools) of transexual concepts to children in 3rd grade and under.
That is the suppression of an idea that is appropriate. Quash calls it banning of ideas & I'm okay with that characterization. Whether it is banning, prohibition, or suppression I really don't care. It is appropriate.

Mothra & I have had frank, candid discussions of our differences of opinion in PMs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

I support the Florida law. I believe it prohibits the teaching (public schools) of transexual concepts to children in 3rd grade and under.
That is the suppression of an idea that is appropriate. Quash calls it banning of ideas & I'm okay with that characterization. Whether it is banning, prohibition, or suppression I really don't care. It is appropriate.

Mothra & I have had frank, candid discussions of our differences of opinion in PMs.

---

I agree on both the law and the terminology.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

---

Answering a question that you'd prefer to answer is different from answering my question in your own way. You are either smart enough to know the difference, or you aren't. If I'm a fool it's because I can't resist trying to figure out which it is.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

---

Answering a question that you'd prefer to answer is different from answering my question in your own way. You are either smart enough to know the difference, or you aren't. If I'm a fool it's because I can't resist trying to figure out which it is.

---

No my friend, your modus operandi is to ask a question in place of giving an answer, and if it's not the answer you desire, to continue to ask the same question differently in an attempt to get to the answer you believe gives you the most leverage in an argument. Numerous posters have pointed out this practice as the reason they choose not to engage with you.

---

Such trepidation probably speaks more than anything else to a lack of confidence in your own arguments. In any case, leverage is your concern. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm interested in the reasoning process.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

---

Answering a question that you'd prefer to answer is different from answering my question in your own way. You are either smart enough to know the difference, or you aren't. If I'm a fool it's because I can't resist trying to figure out which it is.

---

No my friend, your modus operandi is to ask a question in place of giving an answer, and if it's not the answer you desire, to continue to ask the same question differently in an attempt to get to the answer you believe gives you the most leverage in an argument. Numerous posters have pointed out this practice as the reason they choose not to engage with you.

---

Such trepidation probably speaks more than anything else to a lack of confidence in your own arguments. In any case, leverage is your concern. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm interested in the reasoning process.

---

Arrogance is another one of your hallmarks (and of course evidences your lack of self awareness), but I can assure you that others' trepidation most likely stems from not wasting time and bandwidth on a person who has no desire to engage honestly with others.

I engage with you because your contradictions amuse me.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. %A0Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

---

Answering a question that you'd prefer to answer is different from answering my question in your own way. You are either smart enough to know the difference, or you aren't. If I'm a fool it's because I can't resist trying to figure out which it is.

---

No my friend, your modus operandi is to ask a question in place of giving an answer, and if it's not the answer you desire, to continue to ask the same question differently in an attempt to get to the answer you believe gives you the most leverage in an argument. Numerous posters have pointed out this practice as the reason they choose not to engage with you.

---

Such trepidation probably speaks more than anything else to a lack of confidence in your own arguments. In any case, leverage is your concern. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm interested in the reasoning process.

---

I engage with you because your contradictions amuse me.

---

"Engagement" is a very generous characterization of what you do. I'll keep hoping though. Again, please consider that others may have valid points even if they don't completely reinforce your beliefs.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Some ideas should be suppressed until children are older.

---

Or how about, not taught in public schools at all? Some areas are best reserved for parents and family. The public schools were not designed or ever envisioned to teach kids about sexuality.

---

So we're not banning ideas, just suppressing them. Whew!

---

Still feigning ignorance regarding that meaning of that phrase I see. %A0Well, I will give you this: you may be intellectually dishonest, but at least you're consistent.

---

Some might say that "suppressing ideas" has a bad connotation and therefore Oso is lying when he uses the phrase. You attack Quash and not Oso, even though they are saying the same thing. This is your idea of intellectual honesty. Most of us are honest enough to just call the thing what it is and say we support or oppose it.

I point this out because it's an example of what makes dialogue with you so difficult. You start with a conclusion and reason backwards from it. Whatever supports the preferred outcome is "honest," and whatever threatens it is "dishonest." So you've blinded yourself to a potentially legitimate concern on Quash's part, needlessly insulted him and me, failed to add anything much in defense of your case, and sabotaged your own credibility all at the same time. Next time maybe consider the possibility that there are arguments on both sides of an issue.

---

You don't answer questions honestly or directly, and have a terrible habit of mischaracterizing others' positions in order to reframe an argument.

---

You're in good company. That's what Jinx always said when she didn't want to answer my questions.

---

You should take note that the critique comes from posters across the political spectrum.

---

Not when I was voting Republican, it didn't. I've gone from popular to unpopular enough times to know what the common denominator is.

---

I agree with you that the Trump Derangement Syndrome, combined with your fear of COVID and embracement of authoritarianism has made you less popular than you already were, but this has been an issue with you since the beginning.

You are the common denominator.

---

Answering a question that you'd prefer to answer is different from answering my question in your own way. You are either smart enough to know the difference, or you aren't. If I'm a fool it's because I can't resist trying to figure out which it is.

---

No my friend, your modus operandi is to ask a question in place of giving an answer, and if it's not the answer you desire, to continue to ask the same question differently in an attempt to get to the answer you believe gives you the most leverage in an argument. Numerous posters have pointed out this practice as the reason they choose not to engage with you.

---

Such trepidation probably speaks more than anything else to a lack of confidence in your own arguments. In any case, leverage is your concern. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm interested in the reasoning process.

---

I engage with you because your contradictions amuse me.

---

"Engagement" is a very generous characterization of what you do. I'll keep hoping though. Again, please consider that others may have valid points even if they don't completely reinforce your beliefs.

---

Throwing stones from your glass mansion again. More lack f self-awareness.

Canada2017 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

If defining age appropriate curriculum material is "banning ideas", then there is an entire litany of mathematics, science, and literature "ideas" that are currently banned. Really not a difficult concept to grasp unless you think government employees and not parents need to be more involved in the sexual identities of 4-8 year olds.

---

And prior to this law the age appropriate concepts were already being taught. But individuals, being people, cross the line from time to time. Prior to this law those teachers were rebuked or fired at the local level.

But ever since Team Karen put on a red jersey we have to pass state laws banning specific ideas. Karen now dictates how we talk about race, gender, etc.

And she will show up in a blue jersey one of these days and y'all will start keening about cancel culture. Again

---

No ideas were banned. They were moved down the curriculum spectrum. They also dictate which and what mathematics you teach, scientific material you introduce, and literary concepts you employ.

Let's stop overreacting to the emotionalism of "I can't talk about my partner".

---

Sure. Soon as y'all quit overreacting to, well, everything. When Texas turns blue and the state starts forcing pronouns on you just remember this hill you fought to defend.

---

Please. This should have stopped with Three's Company. Look away is not a winning strategy.

---

Lol. This is not at all about strategy of look away. It is about the use of state power in the furtherance of the culture wars.

Better up your pronoun game when Dems return to Austin.

---

Why are you ignoring the question? Afraid to answer it?

If you're against banning ideas, then do you support a teacher's right to teach and discuss The Bible and Jesus Christ to their 2nd grade class?

---

Simple

Quash would be dead set against such Christian teachings in 2nd grade and its easier for him to ignore your question than to admit he is a hypocrite .

---

You can teach the Bible as literature in public school. That's been the law a long time. I have no problem with that.

---

But teaching it as fact? How bout dat?

---

Quash just playing his usual word games .

Anything to avoid facing his own hypocrisy.

---

It's not word games just because you didn't understand.

SCOTUS has ruled on this, I agree with their ruling. If you don't like their word games tough *****

Meanwhile you throw conclusions about my hypocrisy out there unsupported. How brave

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

quash said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

If defining age appropriate curriculum material is "banning ideas", then there is an entire litany of mathematics, science, and literature "ideas" that are currently banned. Really not a difficult concept to grasp unless you think government employees and not parents need to be more involved in the sexual identities of 4-8 year olds.

---

And prior to this law the age appropriate concepts were already being taught. But individuals, being people, cross the line from time to time. Prior to this law those teachers were rebuked or fired at the local level.

But ever since Team Karen put on a red jersey we have to pass state laws banning specific ideas. Karen now dictates how we talk about race, gender, etc.

And she will show up in a blue jersey one of these days and y'all will start keening about cancel culture. Again

---

No ideas were banned. They were moved down the curriculum spectrum. They also dictate which and what mathematics you teach, scientific material you introduce, and literary concepts you employ.

Let's stop overreacting to the emotionalism of "I can't talk about my partner".

---

Sure. Soon as y'all quit overreacting to, well, everything. When Texas turns blue and the state starts forcing pronouns on you just remember this hill you fought to defend.

---

Please. This should have stopped with Three's Company. Look away is not a winning strategy.

---

Lol. This is not at all about strategy of look away. It is about the use of state power in the furtherance of the culture wars.

Better up your pronoun game when Dems return to Austin.

---

Why are you ignoring the question? Afraid to answer it?

If you're against banning ideas, then do you support a teacher's right to teach and discuss The Bible and Jesus Christ to their 2nd grade class?

---

Simple

Quash would be dead set against such Christian teachings in 2nd grade and its easier for him to ignore your question than to admit he is a hypocrite .

---

You can teach the Bible as literature in public school. That's been the law a long time. I have no problem with that.

---

But teaching it as fact? How bout dat?

---

Quash just playing his usual word games .

Anything to avoid facing his own hypocrisy.

---

It's not word games just because you didn't understand.

SCOTUS has ruled on this, I agree with their ruling. If you don't like their word games tough *****

Meanwhile you throw conclusions about my hypocrisy out there unsupported. How brave

---

Uber driver, you have played ridiculous word games for years. Which is why few take you seriously .

Dems:

THIS
IS
NOT
HAPPENING!!!!!!

Kindergarten teacher explains why teachers need to talk about pronouns with their students. She thinks we need to discuss gender and pronouns with 5 year olds. pic.twitter.com/8OrhlpoFYS

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 28, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Teachers say they're not doing this now. You think they wouldn't do it because nobody with common sense would do this.
The Florida law prohibits something that teachers aren't doing anyway and have common sense enough not to do. seems like there is no harm, no foul. What is the state encroachment when an activity that is not happening is prohibited.
The legislature passed the bill so I'm not sure what a Democrat governor can do.

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Exactly, The state should not intrude in local school boards

You take tax money you're beholden to the tax payer, right?

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Exactly, The state should not intrude in local school boards

---

But the federal govt should?

Waco1947 said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Exactly, The state should not intrude in local school boards

---

Local school boards are the state. The "state" is the government authority behind the decisions,

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Teachers say they're not doing this now. You think they wouldn't do it because nobody with common sense would do this.
The Florida law prohibits something that teachers aren't doing anyway and have common sense enough not to do. seems like there is no harm, no foul. What is the state encroachment when an activity that is not happening is prohibited.
The legislature passed the bill so I'm not sure what a Democrat governor can do.

---

I'm sure we'll see examples. And those examples will then be written off by the Mithras as one offs, every single time. And since the accused will be labelled groomers by the Canons the result will be a culture wars battlefield because some gay teacher mentioned that he spent the weekend celebrating his marriage anniversary to his husband. Or something else else equally benign/heinous, depending on which jersey you wear.

I taught with teachers who kept photos of their spouses in the classroom. If some Kanon gets her parental rights worked up over a same sex spouse's photo, you know the courts will consider it disparate treatment if only the gay photos get yanked.

If you think straight Christians will not be affected you are dreaming.

Edit. I know there are examples of it occurring now; what I have said (and had distorted) is that up to now these were handled at the local level by and large. It is ad absurdum to make a comparison to murder. We have always prided ourselves over "local control" of schools, it's why school board elections are a bigger deal than RRC elections.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They don't teach Pythagorean Theorem to 4-9 year olds either. Doesn't mean the idea is banned, it's just implemented at age appropriate developmental and educational milestones. Transexualism and gender fluidity are advanced sexual identity and preference concepts that don't belong in any prepubescent teaching environment.

---

Right. And the vast majority of educators know that at the "duh" level.

What y'all are advocating for is the substitution of state law for local common sense.

This sets a bad precedent for the day a Democrat is in the governor's office

Apparently the liberal tears between now and then are worth state encroachment.

Not for me.

---

Teachers say they're not doing this now. You think they wouldn't do it because nobody with common sense would do this.
The Florida law prohibits something that teachers aren't doing anyway and have common sense enough not to do. seems like there is no harm, no foul. What is the state encroachment when an activity that is not happening is prohibited.
The legislature passed the bill so I'm not sure what a Democrat governor can do.

---

We have standards and specifications, backed by law, in numerous industries and services. Education should have none? I am sure that a company or person wouldn't use substandard materials, it is just common sense and 90% don't. So we don't need any laws ensuring planes are safe. It is common sense. Or in Medicine, let common sense determine what medical students are taught.

A law providing standards of practice or minimum requirements is not overreach, especially with young children.

Rawhide said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Disney should not have special tax provisions whatsoever. They are a business, just like the rest of us. Pay up. Btw, I have never been, now would I ever go. We told our kids. We will travel the world, but if you want to go to Disney, that is on you!

---

Had my honeymoon at WDW. It was a blast. It was great. It was under different leadership then.

---

I'm glad you had a good time but, I don't think that ride is open to the public.