What you're really asking is do I care enough about your version of what causes "pain" to some theoretical people to allow you to bully me into acceding to your version of cancel culture.
With that in mind, probably not. It's like y'all have your sense of humor chopped up and sucked out your ass at some point. I think I'll stick with exercising my 1st amendment rights which protect speech that offends your tender sensibilities.
Besides, if I choose to identify as a redneck, who're your to tell me I'm wrong.
No. I'm clearly asking you a reasonable question. WOULD you leave this post up if it contributed to the pain of LGBTQ people if they told you that?
It's a simple question. Do you care?
And look, I get that you don't understand the reality of the historic oppression of LGBTQ community and how each of these daily aggressions add up. But it's a reality and they would tell you that.
And look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to use oppressive words and ridicule. I'm asking if you give a damn about the pain you're contributing to.
And I get that you don't care today. But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man? Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?
I most certainly don't care that immoral people might find Craig's post offensive or "oppressive"...a word used inanely by Dan as if it has any real meaning in today's world. Opposition is not oppression. Stifling opposition is through means common to "progressives" is.
The irony of conservatives complaining about alleged cancel culture while actively blocking free will discussions on LGBTQ and racism matters in schools and blocking medical decisions for women is deep.
If I knew to a reasonable certainty that my post was literally causing people "pain", I'd consider it. Unfortunately, I believe that the 1st amendment doesn't exist to protect people from offense, and therefore would probably choose to exercise my 1st amendment rights. You know how that goes, exercising one's rights regardless of how that affect others?
"But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man?"
Given the fact that I don't believe I've ever heard you acknowledge that reality of any sort of "Judgement seat", the existence of any sort of afterlife, or any sort of meaningful judgement, I find it amusing that you trot it out here. I guess I'd say that it's just one of those ordinary sins, and that I didn't really know, and that it was just a mistake, and I think I'd be fine. Or, I wouldn't worry about your hunch that my bad sense of humor is a sin. Either way, I'll take my chances.
"Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?"
Again, in the absence of proof, your hunches don't concern me. But I appreciate your effort at cancel culture.
What if, hypothetically, I am correct in my reading of scripture and homosexual sex and abortion are indeed sinful. What would you say to Jesus in front of the Judgement seat when he asks you: "Why did you encourage so many people to engage in destructive sinful behaviors?". "Why did you not fight for the lives of unborn children created in My image?". "Why did you ignore scripture and lead so many people astray?".
It's off topic, but I'd love to hear your answer to Jesus.
I would say that as I understood The Bible and Jesus' words and reason and Justice and common sense..., that I was fighting for the oppressed as I understood my Lord Jesus to teach.
I would point out the reality that LGBTQ people have been oppressed over the years and that Of course we should stand against oppression. I would point out the harm caused by so many religious people in the lives of LGBTQ people and and how I was certain that Jesus was against that harm.
As to abortion, I would say that it was not clear to me that unborn fetuses were fully deserving of all human rights. That reasonably speaking, Human rights come in different stages, thm and that 1 year olds don't enjoy the same rights as 20 year olds.. And I would point out that The Bible does not tell us that abortion is wrong. That God never tell me abortion was always wrong. I would point to the reality of how Jewish folk, as they understood God and humanity back in the days that The Bible was written, did not believe that fetuses had souls yet. And the reality is, I just did not know.
I would say that as I understood God and god's grace, even if I was mistaken, my goodwill mistake is covered by god's grace. We are, after all, and perfect human beings by design.
What is mistaken in all that, if anything? And how about you? When you stand before God and LGBTQ people say your actions caused them harm, what will you say?
The irony of the APL pretending that cancel culture doesn't exist, while actively trying to cancel anyone who doesn't agree with them, is pretty amusing as well.
Of course, no one is "blocking free will discussions of LGBTQ and racism matters". It's, of course, evil to "force" women to actually protect that children growing in their wombs.
But y'all keep advocating for taxpayer funded, unlimited, abortions up to (and possibly beyond) birth, and for pre-pubescent children to have irreversible procedures.
"What is mistaken in all that, if anything? And how about you? When you stand before God and LGBTQ people say your actions caused them harm, what will you say?"
When I stand before the judgement seat, I guess I'll rely on the fact that my sins are forgiven through Jesus, and are wiped away as far as the east is from the west, and remembered no more.
The notion that you think you'll be able to negotiate and explain how you were right, or ignorant, while standing in front of Jesus in judgement would be cute, if it weren't such a sad indication of how you appear see yourself in relation to Jesus.
Craig... "Of course, no one is "blocking free will discussions of LGBTQ and racism matters""
Except Texas, Florida and other places where these topics are being banned in public schools and banned by design.
re: "Judgment seat," while I don't think of it like you do, I DO think we're accountable for our words and actions and that there are consequences and that, as we see with Jesus story of the sheep and the goats, it may well be possible that those who ignore the needs of the least of these are held harshly accountable.
But the point is, YOU do believe in it (if I'm not mistaken) and I just wonder if you'll be faced with a sheep/goats scenario yourself and what you'd do.
As to me, I'm not talking about negotiations. I'm talking about simply relying upon God's grace, as opposed to magic blood to appease an always angry god who's always angry at our imperfections and failures to understand perfectly right. "Bu-but-but, I got the magic blood covering me, Jesus! You can't hold me accountable for being cruel and adding to the oppression of an historically oppressed group of people! Get out of hell free-blood, right?"
LGBTQXYZ.... make up stupid and asinine pronouns all the time and demand others' use of them. THAT offends me! Oh the pain of it all!
And yet we are supposed to worry about causing emotional pain to people who have no common sense and live in an alternate reality where they pretend to be what they are not?!?!?!
1. They are not "banned". Limiting is not banning.
It's fascinating that you say, "while I don't think of it like you do, I DO think we're accountable for our words and actions and that there are consequences", with absolutely no more information than that. You then ask me for more information about what I'll do. Given the reality that I've already answered that question, and the reality that you've failed to give any details, I really don't see what I gain by indulging your off topic fishing expedition.
Of course when you default to snarky, snotty, misrepresentation of your caricatures of what others might believe the degree of motivation to indulge your demands gets even lower.
So, I'll leave it here. If you'd like to provide details, and proof that Matt 25 sheep/goats is the only possible criteria, then I'll consider giving you more detail. If not, then it's on you.
"And yet we are supposed to worry about causing emotional pain..."
As if emotional pain from actual oppression means nothing. Tell me Glenn, how many years were you oppressed for your orientation and gender? How many times have you been beaten or threatened or killed because of your orientation?
Were you ever worried about being kicked out of your family because of your sexual orientation? How about your church rejecting you and calling you pervert? Did you have to worry about that? Did you have to contend with a lifetime of being told that you're going to hell because you're evil for your natural orientation?
Were you ever blocked from marrying the one that you loved bcause of your orientation?
Did you have to live with daily threats because of your orientation?
Did you ever have to live with keeping your spouse a secret for fear of losing your job or being beaten or worse? Remarked your whole life because you were different?
You privileged candy asked white guys think you know about oppression and think it's OK to dismiss oppression as if it's nothing. Meanwhile Jesus your Lord your Lord says to hell with you. For what you did not for the least of these my children you did not do for me. To hell with you Jesus says for treating him like so much shit in the bottom of your shoes.
Meanwhile, Jesus remains on the side of the poor and oppressed whom you mock.
"The irony of conservatives complaining about alleged cancel culture while actively blocking free will discussions on LGBTQ and racism matters in schools and blocking medical decisions for women is deep."
The irony of you continuing to think you have a bead on what conservatism is or what conservatives are doing or intending to do is deep. The greater irony is that no attempt by LGBT enabling school staff allows for opposing points of view, but instead only insists kids must hear their pro-LGBT positions and regard them as actually true. What conservatives seek to do is to deny ANY sexual discussion of any kind which is inappropriate for the age levels LGBT activists insist on indoctrinating to their cause. It's a blatant lie that pro-LGBT staff is trying to have "free will discussion" on LGBT matters. They are demanding of kids acceptance of their perversion and deviancy.
The same is true of "racial matters". No conservative seeks to prohibit honest discussion of racial issues. What leftist dominated schools are doing is not engaging in honest discussion, but of the race-hustling propaganda which widens racial division among our youth.
The only cancelling is by the left of conservative or religious expression. There is few, if any, examples of conservatives cancelling anybody. Thus, Dan lies again.
"And look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to use oppressive words and ridicule. I'm asking if you give a damn about the pain you're contributing to."
I'm holding up a doll. Point to where the pain is from using the wrong pronouns. It's this kind of bullshit which cements the reality of Dan's penchant for lying.
"And I get that you don't care today. But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man? Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?"
Aside from the unnecessary and vile suggestion Christ would say "What the f**l"...(He wouldn't. He's not Dan)...He wouldn't pretend denying sinners their every whim is somehow "oppressing" Him or anyone else...except in the sense sinners want to continue sinning and any thing which isn't enabling of their sin is called "oppressing me". More lies.
"I would say that as I understood The Bible and Jesus' words and reason and Justice and common sense..., that I was fighting for the oppressed as I understood my Lord Jesus to teach."
Good luck with that. I submit Jesus would laugh and say, "I never knew you. You were sent people who explained the Will of the Father and without any evidence their words were wrong, you showed your concern was about pleasing sinners."
What follows the last quote of yours is just too stupid. You like to think you can play that "mistaken" crap after all the evidence proving your position is unChristian and you really think you're going to get a pass? That's some hard-ass wishful thinking right there, but it's patently dishonest. You're contemptible.
Here's an example of the sort of books Dan doesn't want removed from the classroom. https://notthebee.com/article/watch-a-school-board-hastily-silence-a-mom-for-reading-from-sexually-explicit-material-her-daughter-was-forced-to-recite-in-class
IF perverts didn't go around demonstrating and talking about their perversity, no one would "oppress them." Funny how normal married people (you know, a man and a woman) don't go around telling everyone about their sex lives or dressing up as perverts etc.
And Two gay men, committing to one another in love and respect... THIS is reasonable, this is objectively, clearly good and beautiful and moral. is nothing less than perversion.
Your opposition to what is loving, good, rational and moral is, by definition, perverse.
I agree with God and you just called Him perverse. You satanic evil pervert!
"Here's an example of the sort of books Dan doesn't want removed from the classroom."
??
Glenn cited some strange and broken link that was not helpful at all.
The one thing I could read made a vague and unsupported allegation...
"My daughter was forced to participate in the material of this black activity by her teacher. We have pornography laws regarding minors in this state and many of those were violated because of this assignment..."
WHAT "black material...?"
WHAT was the student forced to read??
WHAT book(s) are we talking about?
What is it with conservatives that they can't refer to actual news sources with actual support in the clear and rational manner?? This is why you all are not credible perit's credible. "Notthebee...", whatever that is!, is not a news source or a or a source for reliable journalistic efforts.
A reputable news source making an actual legitimate allegation would say in December of 2022, a student at the Glenn High school in Albuquerque was required to read text from this book this book and she found it upsetting. The text that she was forced to read, allegedly, said... Quote it. The principal at the school said... quote it. The teacher was/was not found to have required the reading.
Like that.
Outside of your closed circles, you'll become laughing stocks because you can't accurately make claims or report actual stories. You rely on conspiracy theory websites that are just just awful, irrational places. They look like they've been put together by an angry twelve-year-old.
Having tried to review your so called source, I can't tell what specific allegations you're talking about or what book you're talking about. Feel free to clarify or just be exposed as someone who doesn't care about making shady or false allegations from nonsensical sources.
I mean, am I wrong? Are you all seeing something different on that website that Glenn mentioned than I am??
Are you all seeing ANYTHING that provides….. Something? Some specific data, a book title? A text? A school name? A city or state?? The name of a teacher, parent... ANYONE??!!
It's a completely blank bit of bullshit nothingness, isn't it? It's empty headed gossip and slander and this should not be, if you are a child of God.. What am I missing?
"I agree with God and you just called Him perverse. You satanic evil pervert!"
But that's exactly the point, isn't it? God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying. In the real world, that has never happened. That is your interpretation that you are conflating with God's opinion but quite literally not anything God has said.
I understand you think that, as I was I once did, but I had to admit reality eventually. You can take it up with God when you meet God... this conflation of your words with God's Word. I advise against it though.
And again, I would just ask you - apart from what you are already believe in your human traditions - can you at least see how for the rest of us it is rational and obvious that supporting people getting married whether they're gay or straight... That this is a good and moral thing? Can you understand why we think that? And why your opposition then seems irrational and hateful and harmful?
Do you have the ability to understand the opposing point of view, even if you don't agree with it?
Trabue: Glenn cited some strange and broken link that was not helpful at all.
LIAR. I just checked the link and it is still there in all its glory. “Black” was used as in “dark” or “evil.” It was foul language, description of sexual activity, etc. The specific book was not noted in the short piece of video or the cited comment, but the point was that the mom reading it got shut off because it was unacceptable language and sexuality. Yeah, your “reputable news sources” won’t even cover such actions. You’re too stupid to understand that all the information was there except for the exact publication. The point of the story was that the trash they want kept in schools are so bad that you can’t read them in a public forum!
God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying.. Hey stupid, God didn’t have to say that when He said that homosexual behavior is an abomination and queer should be executed. Why mention marriage if you’re dead.
Marriage has always been defined as the union of male/female and not male/male or female/female. And YOU know that, you pervert.
""Notthebee...", whatever that is!, is not a news source or a or a source for reliable journalistic efforts."
You are not qualified, nor do you have the authority, to dictate what is or isn't a news source. You haven no standing to be dismissive of ANY reportage. You have only the liberty to do your own research to disprove what is posted and/or provide better facts. All that matters is whether or not the story is true and accurately reported. It doesn't matter who's doing the reporting, except to dismiss it entirely out of rank laziness or cowardice.
"They look like they've been put together by an angry twelve-year-old."
Let's assume it was. Does that mean you have no obligation to rebut it with "better" facts or reporting? You think you have that, while continually relying on sources I've proven are not the bastions of truth and reliability you desperately and ignorantly need them to be so you can be relieved of proving wrong that which comes from our sources.
If a link is poor, fine. That's one thing. But a bad link is not the same as poor reporting. Don't be a Trabue. Act with honor and integrity. Have some adult explain to you what those words mean.
"But that's exactly the point, isn't it? God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying."
No. The point is that God has clearly called homosexual behavior an abomination without providing any hint of any context or scenario in which it might be indulged without being an abomination. This is the fact. You pretend that because there's no mention of "gay marriage"...or anything at all like it...you have some rational basis for presuming two "gay" guys can live life as a married couple and God would be cool with it because they're nice guys. But you don't. You have no such basis and Scripture in no way provides anything even a liar like you can pretend such basis exists. You just lie and pretend you might be mistaken about something so crystal clear. Neither Glenn or anyone else who is honest is conflating God's Word with personal opinion. That would be you. Rather, you pervert God's Word to conform to your opinion.
"can you at least see how for the rest of us it is rational and obvious that supporting people getting married whether they're gay or straight... That this is a good and moral thing?"
No. Because it's not either thing. It is rank rebellion against God's word and immoral as hell.
"Can you understand why we think that?"
Yes. Because you're a twisted pervert who only pretends to worship God more than the world.
"And why your opposition then seems irrational and hateful and harmful?"
All sinners and criminals hate truth and pretends it's irrational, hateful and harmful.
"Do you have the ability to understand the opposing point of view, even if you don't agree with it?"
Not at all a problem. You're selfish, self-serving and wholly in rebellion against the God about whom you only pretend to care.
So I again watched the video from the link provide by Glenn, and Dan once again proves himself false and a liar by presuming there's something wrong with the report as if there's not enough there to make Glenn's point. It's clearly not a freakin' TV show. It's a school board meeting and it's not the first one to have a parent try to read or recite what their child is being force to endure in class and then be told by the school officials it's inappropriate for the parent to do so.
Dan clearly supports subjecting children to pornography and all manner of inappropriate sexual materials without the consent of their parents. Apparently Dan gets a sick thrill out of it, as he does constantly referencing Donald Trump grabbing women by the crotch, despite it not being proven to have ever happened.
Actually, Nothhebee is the sister site of the Babylon Bee. The Bee is a satire site akin to The Onion. NTB came about because they wanted a site where they addressed serious topics in a non satirical manner. My impression is that they are not doing reporting in the sense that most would use the term, but rather aggregating reports from other places and compiling those reports.
Of course, the source of a report has absolutely zero bearing on the Truth of what is being reported. This notion that one can ignore retorts by sources that don't meet some arbitrary level of acceptable "newsieness" is simply a childish, absurd, way to avoid having to interact with the Truth of what is being reported. It's obviously easier to dismiss something because of the source, than to do the research to find out what's True.
Videos of parents being silenced for reading aloud the material that the schools assign their students to read have been out there for a while. But, it's hard to defend the actual material being read, so they just attack the source.
More Ridiculously overtly stupidly observably unsupported claims. What book? What text? What were the specific words? Who said them in what context?!
You can't just make stupidly unsupported claims. The modern conservative movement is a joke. They can't be taken seriously because they repeatedly endlessly put stupidly unsupported usually false claims like this up there as if they were real and yet never provide a single word, a single quote, a single source to support their stupidly false and dangerously unamerican and anti-freedom claims.
Stop it.
Be adult. If you want to make a claim, support it. Give the name of the book. Quote the actual words. Add a link to a credible news source that shows the people involved, their names, the text of the conversation.. That is how adults talk about controversial matters.
Disinformation and false claims are destroying the modern conservative movement and the GOP and are a threat to the rest of us. Just stop it.
Clearly any claim that would require Dan to do a google search is just a bridge too far. Unless Dan is spoon fed every tiny detail as if he were a child, he'll simply pout and play this game he loves so much. Of course, when he is spoon fed the details he'll either bitch about the source (as if Truth is dependent on the source, or ignore it and move along to the next steaming pile of bullshit.
I guess it's worth noting that Dan is making excuses to avoid defending the books being read.
I don't know which books you're speaking of, therefore I'm not defending anything nor am I supporting anything unless I know the book. So, once again, what book? What text? Why is this so hard?
As to Google yet, I followed your link and it was useless. If you have something, presented. Who knows, maybe we'll have some common ground? But I can't know unless you cite the name of the Blessed Mystery book?
Would you have me Google?
" What is the name of that book that, you know, people find problematic? ...For some reason? I can't tell you the name or the author or or any text from it or anything about it. What is the name of THAT book?"
This is so weird. Do you even know the book in question?
If you can't use the information given to google your own sources, then you're clearly not as smart as you think you are.
To answer your question. Yes I do know the name and author of the book who's text was deemed inappropriate for a school board meeting in Cherokee County GA. It's readily available.
Absolutely. But it's not so much the books Dan defends, but the perverse and immoral ideology of which the books are only a part.
But as you say, it wouldn't be difficult if Dan really gave a flying rat's ass about the issue to find examples of this situation. I've seen two different videos myself of mothers attempting to read from books provided to students in their kids' schools and the arrogant leftists of the school board who approved them and support their continued presence would not allow the women to read from them. The point is clear and unmistakable. If the books are appropriate for kids, then why deny the women the ability to read from them to the very people responsible for them? If these alleged adults are too embarrassed to hear them, then what would make less embarrassing for kids?
Dan once expressed outrage at a one time visitor to my blog, Mark M., for daring to suggest the type of sexual practice in which Dan's cherished old lesbians might engage. I found Dan's response not only false, but hypocritical. While mentions of any sexual practice might be rightly regarded as inappropriate, Mark's intention was meant to procure an answer to a standing question Dan was characteristically dodging. Crass perhaps. But to graphically describe a practice Dan does not find immoral or perverse should not have resulted in the same response the mothers received from the school board. It's rank hypocrisy. And again, it's the very same vile crap to which they're intent on exposing kids.
Also, it's laughable for Dan to presume to criticize conservatism... something about which he knows so little... while ignoring the overt, blatant misbehavior of his own kind.
"I have a problem that I think exists out in the world and proof of it is in these alleged events about these alleged words from these alleged books... BUT, I'm not going to tell you ANY specifics about any of it. YOU do the research to find this mystery problem that I'm not going to explain."
? Who operates like that. I'm not going to do research on YOUR alleged problem to see if it exists ESPECIALLY when I don't even know what in the hell you're talking about. WHAT book? WHAT text? What schools? HOW would I know if I found the instance you're vaguely talking about?
This is loony, fellas.
I'm willing to bet that you DON'T know what book (books?) are being talked about.
Doing your work for you, I took your "Cherokee County" clue (seriously, fellas, WHY NOT just cite the book??) and found a reference to a book called "Homegoing." The only book I can find that seems to match that is a book about slavery called Homegoing, by Yaa Gyasi. But I can find no mention to what is so terrible that it can't be read at a high school level.
So, instead of making me buy the whole book (and seriously, I don't even know if this is the right book - but white parents in Georgia complaining about a book about slavery "fits...") just to find out what the troubling text in question is.
Do you know what is in the book that is so shocking and horrible?
A parent read the book Homegoing at a school board meeting. The school board silenced her and prevented her from reading something in the book that was offensive to them (the school board).
Therefore the school board is the body who should be answering your questions about what offended them. If that information hasn't been made public, doesn't it make you wonder why?
The reality is that I don't need to know specifics, the fact that the school board banned reading a book that is available to students in their district is the point. If a book is not appropriate for a public meeting, aimed at adults, how is it appropriate for students?
It's not an admission of ignorance in any rational sense. What specifically caused the school boards to prevent these books being read publicly is irrelevant. The fact remains that multiple school boards have prevented people from reading materials provided by schools for students, because those books contained material that those school boards found objectionable for public consumption. My opinion of the material or what is suitable for public reading is irrelevant. Your opinion of the suitability of the particular passage is irrelevant. What's relevant is that schools provide material to students that their own school board finds too offensive to be read in public.
Their excuse is that the book is only in high schools and not accessible to younger students. Which is absurd because once the book goes out of the library it's accessible to virtually anyone.
Your problem is that you seem to be attempting to move the focus away from the indisputable facts of the situation, and try to argue about whether or not you find the passage in questionable. But that's irrelevant.
"What specifically caused the school boards to prevent these books being read publicly is irrelevant..."
Well, of course, I disagree. Text in context are always important. For instance, were these parents offended because it was a book with an accurate description of the brutality of slavery?? And that's why they raised alarms? Well that's on them, not the book. Of course of, of course, of course, the text always matters.
As to the school board allegedly not wanting it read because the text was too offensive, I have seen nothing to support that claim. Can you point to any place where the school board said that? Or can you admit that this is just a made up claim?
It is as I said. Dan's intent is to defend the proliferation of immorality and promote the false perception of that immorality being moral. Worse, he defends the intent to indoctrinate the youth of America to accept immoral behavior as moral or morally benign. It would be hard to find a more vile and contemptible fake Christian than Dan and his troll (can't forget the troll for whom Dan provides a forum).
"Trying to establish the indisputable facts of the situation is precisely and literally NOT not trying to trying to move the focus away."
The indisputable fact that has been established is that the school board wouldn't allow a parent to read aloud from a book available to students in the school district they oversee. What the book said is irrelevant, THEY found it objectionable enough to shut the parent up. What you think about the specifics of the book is irrelevant, you aren't on the school board.
"THAT is the indisputable reality. Do you recognize that reality?"
That and the indisputable fact that the school board shut up a parent who simply read from a book available to minor students. Unless you are disputing this well attested fact.
"If so, do you recognize how what it seems like to you is just stupidly false?"
Acknowledging the reality of the situation and the indisputable facts is "stupidly false", good to know.
"Well, of course, I disagree."
Because that's what you do.
"Text in context are always important. For instance, were these parents offended because it was a book with an accurate description of the brutality of slavery??"
The indisputable fact is that they were offended, and silenced a parent from reading the offensive text into the record of the meeting. They're opinion is the only relevant opinion in this case, not yours. (or mine for that matter) They are the ones making the decision to allow this offensive book in their school library available to minors. Whether you agree with this reality, or with the actions of the board isn't the issue, and I don't really care what you think. The indisputable reality is that the parent read, the board shut her down, and the book is available to minor students.
"And that's why they raised alarms? Well that's on them, not the book. Of course of, of course, of course, the text always matters."
Idiot, of course it's about them, that's the entire point. Your opinions on the content of the book don't matter. Hell, I'd almost guarantee that there are literally zero books that you would object to being available in a school library to minor students. (You'd probably raise a stink about Trump's books being available)
"As to the school board allegedly not wanting it read because the text was too offensive, I have seen nothing to support that claim. Can you point to any place where the school board said that? Or can you admit that this is just a made up claim?"
Given the fact that there is video readily available, I really don't care if the video evidence doesn't reach your threshold for believablity.
Dan's pretends not to know the reality, which is that schools too often are found to be promoting behaviors parents find objectionable. When parents discover these crimes and protest publicly, they are then attacked, not only by the leftist school board, but now by leftist driven law enforcement, such as Merrick Garland's response of parents as terrorists.
The problem of leftist promotion of pirn in schools is not new. Where I'm from, a Christian woman I met while on the job (over 15 yrs ago), spent more money to win a spot on the Dist 214 school board than any previous candidate. What provoked her were books on summer reading lists which were clearly pornographic. Concerned Women for Anerica posted excerpts of the books in question and they were indeed far more graphic than any typical parent of character and virtue would tolerate. The pervsion promoting leftists argue they have the authority to determine these books are appropriate WITHOUT parental knowledge, never mind agreement.
Apparently, the "quality" journalistic sources Dan insists are superior to those reporting on this travesty either are incompetent or don't care because they're lefties.
Trying citing a legit news source for a change. Any source who claims Floyd was killed by a cop is not a reliable source. By the way, did you even read your link? I doubt it.
48 comments:
Would you care if you knew that LGBTQ people would tend to find this offensive and oppressive... this belittling of their identity?
...and that's a serious question? Would you leave this comment up if you knew it caused pain to a traditionally oppressed group?
And if you don't care, why not?
What you're really asking is do I care enough about your version of what causes "pain" to some theoretical people to allow you to bully me into acceding to your version of cancel culture.
With that in mind, probably not. It's like y'all have your sense of humor chopped up and sucked out your ass at some point. I think I'll stick with exercising my 1st amendment rights which protect speech that offends your tender sensibilities.
Besides, if I choose to identify as a redneck, who're your to tell me I'm wrong.
No. I'm clearly asking you a reasonable question. WOULD you leave this post up if it contributed to the pain of LGBTQ people if they told you that?
It's a simple question. Do you care?
And look, I get that you don't understand the reality of the historic oppression of LGBTQ community and how each of these daily aggressions add up. But it's a reality and they would tell you that.
And look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to use oppressive words and ridicule. I'm asking if you give a damn about the pain you're contributing to.
And I get that you don't care today. But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man? Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?
I most certainly don't care that immoral people might find Craig's post offensive or "oppressive"...a word used inanely by Dan as if it has any real meaning in today's world. Opposition is not oppression. Stifling opposition is through means common to "progressives" is.
The irony of conservatives complaining about alleged cancel culture while actively blocking free will discussions on LGBTQ and racism matters in schools and blocking medical decisions for women is deep.
If I knew to a reasonable certainty that my post was literally causing people "pain", I'd consider it. Unfortunately, I believe that the 1st amendment doesn't exist to protect people from offense, and therefore would probably choose to exercise my 1st amendment rights. You know how that goes, exercising one's rights regardless of how that affect others?
"But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man?"
Given the fact that I don't believe I've ever heard you acknowledge that reality of any sort of "Judgement seat", the existence of any sort of afterlife, or any sort of meaningful judgement, I find it amusing that you trot it out here. I guess I'd say that it's just one of those ordinary sins, and that I didn't really know, and that it was just a mistake, and I think I'd be fine. Or, I wouldn't worry about your hunch that my bad sense of humor is a sin. Either way, I'll take my chances.
"Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?"
Again, in the absence of proof, your hunches don't concern me. But I appreciate your effort at cancel culture.
Dan,
What if, hypothetically, I am correct in my reading of scripture and homosexual sex and abortion are indeed sinful. What would you say to Jesus in front of the Judgement seat when he asks you: "Why did you encourage so many people to engage in destructive sinful behaviors?". "Why did you not fight for the lives of unborn children created in My image?". "Why did you ignore scripture and lead so many people astray?".
It's off topic, but I'd love to hear your answer to Jesus.
I would say that as I understood The Bible and Jesus' words and reason and Justice and common sense..., that I was fighting for the oppressed as I understood my Lord Jesus to teach.
I would point out the reality that LGBTQ people have been oppressed over the years and that Of course we should stand against oppression. I would point out the harm caused by so many religious people in the lives of LGBTQ people and and how I was certain that Jesus was against that harm.
As to abortion, I would say that it was not clear to me that unborn fetuses were fully deserving of all human rights. That reasonably speaking, Human rights come in different stages, thm and that 1 year olds don't enjoy the same rights as 20 year olds.. And I would point out that The Bible does not tell us that abortion is wrong. That God never tell me abortion was always wrong. I would point to the reality of how Jewish folk, as they understood God and humanity back in the days that The Bible was written, did not believe that fetuses had souls yet. And the reality is, I just did not know.
I would say that as I understood God and god's grace, even if I was mistaken, my goodwill mistake is covered by god's grace. We are, after all, and perfect human beings by design.
What is mistaken in all that, if anything? And how about you? When you stand before God and LGBTQ people say your actions caused them harm, what will you say?
The irony of the APL pretending that cancel culture doesn't exist, while actively trying to cancel anyone who doesn't agree with them, is pretty amusing as well.
Of course, no one is "blocking free will discussions of LGBTQ and racism matters". It's, of course, evil to "force" women to actually protect that children growing in their wombs.
But y'all keep advocating for taxpayer funded, unlimited, abortions up to (and possibly beyond) birth, and for pre-pubescent children to have irreversible procedures.
"What is mistaken in all that, if anything? And how about you? When you stand before God and LGBTQ people say your actions caused them harm, what will you say?"
When I stand before the judgement seat, I guess I'll rely on the fact that my sins are forgiven through Jesus, and are wiped away as far as the east is from the west, and remembered no more.
The notion that you think you'll be able to negotiate and explain how you were right, or ignorant, while standing in front of Jesus in judgement would be cute, if it weren't such a sad indication of how you appear see yourself in relation to Jesus.
Craig... "Of course, no one is "blocking free will discussions of LGBTQ and racism matters""
Except Texas, Florida and other places where these topics are being banned in public schools and banned by design.
re: "Judgment seat," while I don't think of it like you do, I DO think we're accountable for our words and actions and that there are consequences and that, as we see with Jesus story of the sheep and the goats, it may well be possible that those who ignore the needs of the least of these are held harshly accountable.
But the point is, YOU do believe in it (if I'm not mistaken) and I just wonder if you'll be faced with a sheep/goats scenario yourself and what you'd do.
As to me, I'm not talking about negotiations. I'm talking about simply relying upon God's grace, as opposed to magic blood to appease an always angry god who's always angry at our imperfections and failures to understand perfectly right. "Bu-but-but, I got the magic blood covering me, Jesus! You can't hold me accountable for being cruel and adding to the oppression of an historically oppressed group of people! Get out of hell free-blood, right?"
LGBTQXYZ.... make up stupid and asinine pronouns all the time and demand others' use of them. THAT offends me! Oh the pain of it all!
And yet we are supposed to worry about causing emotional pain to people who have no common sense and live in an alternate reality where they pretend to be what they are not?!?!?!
Cry me a river.
1. They are not "banned". Limiting is not banning.
It's fascinating that you say, "while I don't think of it like you do, I DO think we're accountable for our words and actions and that there are consequences", with absolutely no more information than that. You then ask me for more information about what I'll do. Given the reality that I've already answered that question, and the reality that you've failed to give any details, I really don't see what I gain by indulging your off topic fishing expedition.
Of course when you default to snarky, snotty, misrepresentation of your caricatures of what others might believe the degree of motivation to indulge your demands gets even lower.
So, I'll leave it here. If you'd like to provide details, and proof that Matt 25 sheep/goats is the only possible criteria, then I'll consider giving you more detail. If not, then it's on you.
Except Texas, Florida and other places where these topics are being banned in public schools and banned by design.
Yeah, because common sense says we don't want children or even high school students indoctrinated into sexual anarchy and CRT.
Glenn...
"And yet we are supposed to worry about causing emotional pain..."
As if emotional pain from actual oppression means nothing. Tell me Glenn, how many years were you oppressed for your orientation and gender? How many times have you been beaten or threatened or killed because of your orientation?
Were you ever worried about being kicked out of your family because of your sexual orientation? How about your church rejecting you and calling you pervert? Did you have to worry about that? Did you have to contend with a lifetime of being told that you're going to hell because you're evil for your natural orientation?
Were you ever blocked from marrying the one that you loved bcause of your orientation?
Did you have to live with daily threats because of your orientation?
Did you ever have to live with keeping your spouse a secret for fear of losing your job or being beaten or worse? Remarked your whole life because you were different?
You privileged candy asked white guys think you know about oppression and think it's OK to dismiss oppression as if it's nothing. Meanwhile Jesus your Lord your Lord says to hell with you. For what you did not for the least of these my children you did not do for me. To hell with you Jesus says for treating him like so much shit in the bottom of your shoes.
Meanwhile, Jesus remains on the side of the poor and oppressed whom you mock.
"The irony of conservatives complaining about alleged cancel culture while actively blocking free will discussions on LGBTQ and racism matters in schools and blocking medical decisions for women is deep."
The irony of you continuing to think you have a bead on what conservatism is or what conservatives are doing or intending to do is deep. The greater irony is that no attempt by LGBT enabling school staff allows for opposing points of view, but instead only insists kids must hear their pro-LGBT positions and regard them as actually true. What conservatives seek to do is to deny ANY sexual discussion of any kind which is inappropriate for the age levels LGBT activists insist on indoctrinating to their cause. It's a blatant lie that pro-LGBT staff is trying to have "free will discussion" on LGBT matters. They are demanding of kids acceptance of their perversion and deviancy.
The same is true of "racial matters". No conservative seeks to prohibit honest discussion of racial issues. What leftist dominated schools are doing is not engaging in honest discussion, but of the race-hustling propaganda which widens racial division among our youth.
The only cancelling is by the left of conservative or religious expression. There is few, if any, examples of conservatives cancelling anybody. Thus, Dan lies again.
"And look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to use oppressive words and ridicule. I'm asking if you give a damn about the pain you're contributing to."
I'm holding up a doll. Point to where the pain is from using the wrong pronouns. It's this kind of bullshit which cements the reality of Dan's penchant for lying.
"And I get that you don't care today. But what about sitting at the judgment seat of Jesus and he says to you... WTF, man? Why would you oppress me? How difficult would it be to at least just say nothing?"
Aside from the unnecessary and vile suggestion Christ would say "What the f**l"...(He wouldn't. He's not Dan)...He wouldn't pretend denying sinners their every whim is somehow "oppressing" Him or anyone else...except in the sense sinners want to continue sinning and any thing which isn't enabling of their sin is called "oppressing me". More lies.
"I would say that as I understood The Bible and Jesus' words and reason and Justice and common sense..., that I was fighting for the oppressed as I understood my Lord Jesus to teach."
Good luck with that. I submit Jesus would laugh and say, "I never knew you. You were sent people who explained the Will of the Father and without any evidence their words were wrong, you showed your concern was about pleasing sinners."
What follows the last quote of yours is just too stupid. You like to think you can play that "mistaken" crap after all the evidence proving your position is unChristian and you really think you're going to get a pass? That's some hard-ass wishful thinking right there, but it's patently dishonest. You're contemptible.
Here's an example of the sort of books Dan doesn't want removed from the classroom.
https://notthebee.com/article/watch-a-school-board-hastily-silence-a-mom-for-reading-from-sexually-explicit-material-her-daughter-was-forced-to-recite-in-class
Trabue,
IF perverts didn't go around demonstrating and talking about their perversity, no one would "oppress them." Funny how normal married people (you know, a man and a woman) don't go around telling everyone about their sex lives or dressing up as perverts etc.
And Two gay men, committing to one another in love and respect... THIS is reasonable, this is objectively, clearly good and beautiful and moral. is nothing less than perversion.
Your opposition to what is loving, good, rational and moral is, by definition, perverse.
I agree with God and you just called Him perverse. You satanic evil pervert!
"Here's an example of the sort of books Dan doesn't want removed from the classroom."
??
Glenn cited some strange and broken link that was not helpful at all.
The one thing I could read made a vague and unsupported allegation...
"My daughter was forced to participate in the material of this black activity by her teacher. We have pornography laws regarding minors in this state and many of those were violated because of this assignment..."
WHAT "black material...?"
WHAT was the student forced to read??
WHAT book(s) are we talking about?
What is it with conservatives that they can't refer to actual news sources with actual support in the clear and rational manner?? This is why you all are not credible perit's credible. "Notthebee...", whatever that is!, is not a news source or a or a source for reliable journalistic efforts.
A reputable news source making an actual legitimate allegation would say in December of 2022, a student at the Glenn High school in Albuquerque was required to read text from this book this book and she found it upsetting. The text that she was forced to read, allegedly, said... Quote it. The principal at the school said... quote it. The teacher was/was not found to have required the reading.
Like that.
Outside of your closed circles, you'll become laughing stocks because you can't accurately make claims or report actual stories. You rely on conspiracy theory websites that are just just awful, irrational places. They look like they've been put together by an angry twelve-year-old.
Having tried to review your so called source, I can't tell what specific allegations you're talking about or what book you're talking about. Feel free to clarify or just be exposed as someone who doesn't care about making shady or false allegations from nonsensical sources.
I mean, am I wrong? Are you all seeing something different on that website that Glenn mentioned than I am??
Are you all seeing ANYTHING that provides….. Something? Some specific data, a book title? A text? A school name? A city or state?? The name of a teacher, parent... ANYONE??!!
It's a completely blank bit of bullshit nothingness, isn't it? It's empty headed gossip and slander and this should not be, if you are a child of God.. What am I missing?
Glenn...
"I agree with God and you just called Him perverse. You satanic evil pervert!"
But that's exactly the point, isn't it? God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying. In the real world, that has never happened. That is your interpretation that you are conflating with God's opinion but quite literally not anything God has said.
I understand you think that, as I was I once did, but I had to admit reality eventually. You can take it up with God when you meet God... this conflation of your words with God's Word. I advise against it though.
And again, I would just ask you - apart from what you are already believe in your human traditions - can you at least see how for the rest of us it is rational and obvious that supporting people getting married whether they're gay or straight... That this is a good and moral thing? Can you understand why we think that? And why your opposition then seems irrational and hateful and harmful?
Do you have the ability to understand the opposing point of view, even if you don't agree with it?
Trabue:
Glenn cited some strange and broken link that was not helpful at all.
LIAR. I just checked the link and it is still there in all its glory. “Black” was used as in “dark” or “evil.” It was foul language, description of sexual activity, etc. The specific book was not noted in the short piece of video or the cited comment, but the point was that the mom reading it got shut off because it was unacceptable language and sexuality. Yeah, your “reputable news sources” won’t even cover such actions. You’re too stupid to understand that all the information was there except for the exact publication. The point of the story was that the trash they want kept in schools are so bad that you can’t read them in a public forum!
God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying.. Hey stupid, God didn’t have to say that when He said that homosexual behavior is an abomination and queer should be executed. Why mention marriage if you’re dead.
Marriage has always been defined as the union of male/female and not male/male or female/female. And YOU know that, you pervert.
""Notthebee...", whatever that is!, is not a news source or a or a source for reliable journalistic efforts."
You are not qualified, nor do you have the authority, to dictate what is or isn't a news source. You haven no standing to be dismissive of ANY reportage. You have only the liberty to do your own research to disprove what is posted and/or provide better facts. All that matters is whether or not the story is true and accurately reported. It doesn't matter who's doing the reporting, except to dismiss it entirely out of rank laziness or cowardice.
"They look like they've been put together by an angry twelve-year-old."
Let's assume it was. Does that mean you have no obligation to rebut it with "better" facts or reporting? You think you have that, while continually relying on sources I've proven are not the bastions of truth and reliability you desperately and ignorantly need them to be so you can be relieved of proving wrong that which comes from our sources.
If a link is poor, fine. That's one thing. But a bad link is not the same as poor reporting. Don't be a Trabue. Act with honor and integrity. Have some adult explain to you what those words mean.
"But that's exactly the point, isn't it? God literally, objectively, factually, demonstrably never said God was opposed to two gay guys marrying."
No. The point is that God has clearly called homosexual behavior an abomination without providing any hint of any context or scenario in which it might be indulged without being an abomination. This is the fact. You pretend that because there's no mention of "gay marriage"...or anything at all like it...you have some rational basis for presuming two "gay" guys can live life as a married couple and God would be cool with it because they're nice guys. But you don't. You have no such basis and Scripture in no way provides anything even a liar like you can pretend such basis exists. You just lie and pretend you might be mistaken about something so crystal clear. Neither Glenn or anyone else who is honest is conflating God's Word with personal opinion. That would be you. Rather, you pervert God's Word to conform to your opinion.
"can you at least see how for the rest of us it is rational and obvious that supporting people getting married whether they're gay or straight... That this is a good and moral thing?"
No. Because it's not either thing. It is rank rebellion against God's word and immoral as hell.
"Can you understand why we think that?"
Yes. Because you're a twisted pervert who only pretends to worship God more than the world.
"And why your opposition then seems irrational and hateful and harmful?"
All sinners and criminals hate truth and pretends it's irrational, hateful and harmful.
"Do you have the ability to understand the opposing point of view, even if you don't agree with it?"
Not at all a problem. You're selfish, self-serving and wholly in rebellion against the God about whom you only pretend to care.
So I again watched the video from the link provide by Glenn, and Dan once again proves himself false and a liar by presuming there's something wrong with the report as if there's not enough there to make Glenn's point. It's clearly not a freakin' TV show. It's a school board meeting and it's not the first one to have a parent try to read or recite what their child is being force to endure in class and then be told by the school officials it's inappropriate for the parent to do so.
Dan clearly supports subjecting children to pornography and all manner of inappropriate sexual materials without the consent of their parents. Apparently Dan gets a sick thrill out of it, as he does constantly referencing Donald Trump grabbing women by the crotch, despite it not being proven to have ever happened.
Actually, Nothhebee is the sister site of the Babylon Bee. The Bee is a satire site akin to The Onion. NTB came about because they wanted a site where they addressed serious topics in a non satirical manner. My impression is that they are not doing reporting in the sense that most would use the term, but rather aggregating reports from other places and compiling those reports.
Of course, the source of a report has absolutely zero bearing on the Truth of what is being reported. This notion that one can ignore retorts by sources that don't meet some arbitrary level of acceptable "newsieness" is simply a childish, absurd, way to avoid having to interact with the Truth of what is being reported. It's obviously easier to dismiss something because of the source, than to do the research to find out what's True.
Videos of parents being silenced for reading aloud the material that the schools assign their students to read have been out there for a while. But, it's hard to defend the actual material being read, so they just attack the source.
A quick google search revealed instances if FL, GA, CO where parents were stopped from reading books that were inappropriate.
I guess it's still easier to bitch about a "bad link" and the source than to simply do a Google search and address the substance.
More Ridiculously overtly stupidly observably unsupported claims. What book? What text? What were the specific words? Who said them in what context?!
You can't just make stupidly unsupported claims. The modern conservative movement is a joke. They can't be taken seriously because they repeatedly endlessly put stupidly unsupported usually false claims like this up there as if they were real and yet never provide a single word, a single quote, a single source to support their stupidly false and dangerously unamerican and anti-freedom claims.
Stop it.
Be adult. If you want to make a claim, support it. Give the name of the book. Quote the actual words. Add a link to a credible news source that shows the people involved, their names, the text of the conversation.. That is how adults talk about controversial matters.
Disinformation and false claims are destroying the modern conservative movement and the GOP and are a threat to the rest of us. Just stop it.
That's my very criticism of Dan's dishonest rebuke. But it's how he rolls.
Clearly any claim that would require Dan to do a google search is just a bridge too far. Unless Dan is spoon fed every tiny detail as if he were a child, he'll simply pout and play this game he loves so much. Of course, when he is spoon fed the details he'll either bitch about the source (as if Truth is dependent on the source, or ignore it and move along to the next steaming pile of bullshit.
I guess it's worth noting that Dan is making excuses to avoid defending the books being read.
I don't know which books you're speaking of, therefore I'm not defending anything nor am I supporting anything unless I know the book. So, once again, what book? What text? Why is this so hard?
As to Google yet, I followed your link and it was useless. If you have something, presented. Who knows, maybe we'll have some common ground? But I can't know unless you cite the name of the Blessed Mystery book?
Would you have me Google?
" What is the name of that book that, you know, people find problematic? ...For some reason? I can't tell you the name or the author or or any text from it or anything about it. What is the name of THAT book?"
This is so weird. Do you even know the book in question?
If you can't use the information given to google your own sources, then you're clearly not as smart as you think you are.
To answer your question. Yes I do know the name and author of the book who's text was deemed inappropriate for a school board meeting in Cherokee County GA. It's readily available.
Absolutely. But it's not so much the books Dan defends, but the perverse and immoral ideology of which the books are only a part.
But as you say, it wouldn't be difficult if Dan really gave a flying rat's ass about the issue to find examples of this situation. I've seen two different videos myself of mothers attempting to read from books provided to students in their kids' schools and the arrogant leftists of the school board who approved them and support their continued presence would not allow the women to read from them. The point is clear and unmistakable. If the books are appropriate for kids, then why deny the women the ability to read from them to the very people responsible for them? If these alleged adults are too embarrassed to hear them, then what would make less embarrassing for kids?
Dan once expressed outrage at a one time visitor to my blog, Mark M., for daring to suggest the type of sexual practice in which Dan's cherished old lesbians might engage. I found Dan's response not only false, but hypocritical. While mentions of any sexual practice might be rightly regarded as inappropriate, Mark's intention was meant to procure an answer to a standing question Dan was characteristically dodging. Crass perhaps. But to graphically describe a practice Dan does not find immoral or perverse should not have resulted in the same response the mothers received from the school board. It's rank hypocrisy. And again, it's the very same vile crap to which they're intent on exposing kids.
Also, it's laughable for Dan to presume to criticize conservatism... something about which he knows so little... while ignoring the overt, blatant misbehavior of his own kind.
??
Do you not understand how irrational this is?
"I have a problem that I think exists out in the world and proof of it is in these alleged events about these alleged words from these alleged books... BUT, I'm not going to tell you ANY specifics about any of it. YOU do the research to find this mystery problem that I'm not going to explain."
? Who operates like that. I'm not going to do research on YOUR alleged problem to see if it exists ESPECIALLY when I don't even know what in the hell you're talking about. WHAT book? WHAT text? What schools? HOW would I know if I found the instance you're vaguely talking about?
This is loony, fellas.
I'm willing to bet that you DON'T know what book (books?) are being talked about.
So, so weird.
Doing your work for you, I took your "Cherokee County" clue (seriously, fellas, WHY NOT just cite the book??) and found a reference to a book called "Homegoing." The only book I can find that seems to match that is a book about slavery called Homegoing, by Yaa Gyasi. But I can find no mention to what is so terrible that it can't be read at a high school level.
So, instead of making me buy the whole book (and seriously, I don't even know if this is the right book - but white parents in Georgia complaining about a book about slavery "fits...") just to find out what the troubling text in question is.
Do you know what is in the book that is so shocking and horrible?
Here are the facts we are reasonably sure of.
A parent read the book Homegoing at a school board meeting.
The school board silenced her and prevented her from reading something in the book that was offensive to them (the school board).
Therefore the school board is the body who should be answering your questions about what offended them.
If that information hasn't been made public, doesn't it make you wonder why?
The reality is that I don't need to know specifics, the fact that the school board banned reading a book that is available to students in their district is the point. If a book is not appropriate for a public meeting, aimed at adults, how is it appropriate for students?
There it is. The admission of ignorance.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
You see, the difference is, I prefer to know what it is I'm protesting and not just protest in ignorance.
It's not an admission of ignorance in any rational sense. What specifically caused the school boards to prevent these books being read publicly is irrelevant. The fact remains that multiple school boards have prevented people from reading materials provided by schools for students, because those books contained material that those school boards found objectionable for public consumption. My opinion of the material or what is suitable for public reading is irrelevant. Your opinion of the suitability of the particular passage is irrelevant. What's relevant is that schools provide material to students that their own school board finds too offensive to be read in public.
Their excuse is that the book is only in high schools and not accessible to younger students. Which is absurd because once the book goes out of the library it's accessible to virtually anyone.
Your problem is that you seem to be attempting to move the focus away from the indisputable facts of the situation, and try to argue about whether or not you find the passage in questionable. But that's irrelevant.
Craig...
"What specifically caused the school boards to prevent these books being read publicly is irrelevant..."
Well, of course, I disagree. Text in context are always important. For instance, were these parents offended because it was a book with an accurate description of the brutality of slavery?? And that's why they raised alarms? Well that's on them, not the book. Of course of, of course, of course, the text always matters.
As to the school board allegedly not wanting it read because the text was too offensive, I have seen nothing to support that claim. Can you point to any place where the school board said that? Or can you admit that this is just a made up claim?
Come, be reasonable.
"Your problem is that you seem to be attempting to move the focus away from the indisputable facts of the situation."
Trying to establish the indisputable facts of the situation is precisely and literally NOT not trying to trying to move the focus away.
You have almost no facts. We just finally found out the name of the book. You have no facts beyond the name of the book.
THAT is the indisputable reality. Do you recognize that reality?
If so, do you recognize how what it seems like to you is just stupidly false?
It is as I said. Dan's intent is to defend the proliferation of immorality and promote the false perception of that immorality being moral. Worse, he defends the intent to indoctrinate the youth of America to accept immoral behavior as moral or morally benign. It would be hard to find a more vile and contemptible fake Christian than Dan and his troll (can't forget the troll for whom Dan provides a forum).
"Trying to establish the indisputable facts of the situation is precisely and literally NOT not trying to trying to move the focus away."
The indisputable fact that has been established is that the school board wouldn't allow a parent to read aloud from a book available to students in the school district they oversee. What the book said is irrelevant, THEY found it objectionable enough to shut the parent up. What you think about the specifics of the book is irrelevant, you aren't on the school board.
"THAT is the indisputable reality. Do you recognize that reality?"
That and the indisputable fact that the school board shut up a parent who simply read from a book available to minor students. Unless you are disputing this well attested fact.
"If so, do you recognize how what it seems like to you is just stupidly false?"
Acknowledging the reality of the situation and the indisputable facts is "stupidly false", good to know.
"Well, of course, I disagree."
Because that's what you do.
"Text in context are always important. For instance, were these parents offended because it was a book with an accurate description of the brutality of slavery??"
The indisputable fact is that they were offended, and silenced a parent from reading the offensive text into the record of the meeting. They're opinion is the only relevant opinion in this case, not yours. (or mine for that matter) They are the ones making the decision to allow this offensive book in their school library available to minors. Whether you agree with this reality, or with the actions of the board isn't the issue, and I don't really care what you think. The indisputable reality is that the parent read, the board shut her down, and the book is available to minor students.
"And that's why they raised alarms? Well that's on them, not the book. Of course of, of course, of course, the text always matters."
Idiot, of course it's about them, that's the entire point. Your opinions on the content of the book don't matter. Hell, I'd almost guarantee that there are literally zero books that you would object to being available in a school library to minor students. (You'd probably raise a stink about Trump's books being available)
"As to the school board allegedly not wanting it read because the text was too offensive, I have seen nothing to support that claim. Can you point to any place where the school board said that? Or can you admit that this is just a made up claim?"
Given the fact that there is video readily available, I really don't care if the video evidence doesn't reach your threshold for believablity.
Dan's pretends not to know the reality, which is that schools too often are found to be promoting behaviors parents find objectionable. When parents discover these crimes and protest publicly, they are then attacked, not only by the leftist school board, but now by leftist driven law enforcement, such as Merrick Garland's response of parents as terrorists.
The problem of leftist promotion of pirn in schools is not new. Where I'm from, a Christian woman I met while on the job (over 15 yrs ago), spent more money to win a spot on the Dist 214 school board than any previous candidate. What provoked her were books on summer reading lists which were clearly pornographic. Concerned Women for Anerica posted excerpts of the books in question and they were indeed far more graphic than any typical parent of character and virtue would tolerate. The pervsion promoting leftists argue they have the authority to determine these books are appropriate WITHOUT parental knowledge, never mind agreement.
Apparently, the "quality" journalistic sources Dan insists are superior to those reporting on this travesty either are incompetent or don't care because they're lefties.
In the news...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/04/us/banned-book-authors/index.html
Trying citing a legit news source for a change. Any source who claims Floyd was killed by a cop is not a reliable source. By the way, did you even read your link? I doubt it.
Post a Comment