Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

News and events of the day
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:10 pm And here you guys call teachers terrorists and groomer and constantly attack them. You must be proud.
Typical lie on your part. Strong supporter of teachers. You won’t find derogatory statements from me about teachers. I can’t decide if you have flawed wiring or you’re just too stupid to figure things out properly.
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:40 pm Typical lie on your part. Strong supporter of teachers. You won’t find derogatory statements from me about teachers. I can’t decide if you have flawed wiring or you’re just too stupid to figure things out properly.
So where is your denouncements of the GOP’s attacks on teachers? The Florida law? I didn’t see them, could you point them out to me?
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 8:57 pm So where is your denouncements of the GOP’s attacks on teachers? The Florida law? I didn’t see them, could you point them out to me?
Speaking of the Florida Law, I note that YOU claim you can backup everything you say. You said the Florida law said there was to be “no mention” of the work gay. Please point out where in the Florida Law it says what YOU claim it says. Or you can just admit you never read the law before you started making those claims.
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:31 pm Speaking of the Florida Law, I note that YOU claim you can backup everything you say. You said the Florida law said there was to be “no mention” of the work gay. Please point out where in the Florida Law it says what YOU claim it says. Or you can just admit you never read the law before you started making those claims.
I have read the law - you apparently have not.

The word "gay" doesn't appear in the law, but other words do.

But then, if you read the law, you wouldn't be able to plead ignorance, would you?
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:37 pm I have read the law - you apparently have not.

The word "gay" doesn't appear in the law, but other words do.

But then, if you read the law, you wouldn't be able to plead ignorance, would you?
Well since you claim you can backup what you post, point out the passage that says the mere mention of the word is a violation. That was what you claimed. Back it up.
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:45 pm Well since you claim you can backup what you post, point out the passage that says the mere mention of the word is a violation. That was what you claimed. Back it up.
Actual Bill.

Now, we do realize you won't read the bill yourself, since you couldn't feign ignorance if you do. But line 21-23:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;

Line 97-101:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age=appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:54 pm Actual Bill.

Now, we do realize you won't read the bill yourself, since you couldn't feign ignorance if you do. But line 21-23:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;

Line 97-101:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age=appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
There you go trying to think again. You may have read the law alright. So did I. The difference is that I know what is meant by the word “discussion” and the word “instruction”. It involves a whole lot more than the mere mention of the word “gay”. Perhaps you should look up those words. Language used in drafting legal documents and law tends to be rather precise. This is because in court, ambiguity is usually ruled against the party that drafted the document. In this case that would be the state.

Bottomline, teachers are intelligent people and can manage conversations and questions about such matters without crossing the line into discussions or instruction by simply telling little Johnny to take those topics up with Mom or Dad. Especially if they are speaking with 8 year olds. If they need instructions on how to deflect, derail, ignore such matters, they can always gain those techniques by studying your post on this board.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:22 am Well I guess parents and teachers need to reach agreement on where the lines are drawn. Teachers shouldn’t get a veto either. These are not their kids. That’s why we aren’t discussion flat earth or evolution. Most parents understand that’s part of education. Evolution is taught in private schools as well, FYI.

If agreement cannot be reached, then I don’t see any alternative than thru the election process and/or their the courts.
Teachers are also parents, you stupid idiot. Often with kids in the same districts they teach in.

But because you ignorant conservatives are anti-public, anti-public schools, anti-public libraries, and anti-intellect, you actually believe in this strict binary of all parents being ignorant conservative whites like you, versus teachers.

* Teachers are parents

* Non-Christians are parents

* Non-religious and atheists are parents

* Gay people are parents

* Trans people are parents

Dumb, propagandized conservative white parents are not the only parents, nor are they the most important parents. Only a white supremacist con could even think like this.

Watch the video, and listen to what actual LGBTQ people and organizations are saying about these idiotic public-school defunding bills you support.

Oh and admit that when you say “parents,” you’re excluding most “parents” who aren’t white, white-aspirant, and conservative.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 9:45 pm Well since you claim you can backup what you post, point out the passage that says the mere mention of the word is a violation. That was what you claimed. Back it up.
You never back up jack sh#t. Shut up.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:36 pm Perhaps you should look up those words. Language used in drafting legal documents and law tends to be rather precise. This is because in court, ambiguity is usually ruled against the party that drafted the document. In this case that would be the state.

Bottomline, teachers are intelligent people and can manage conversations and questions about such matters without crossing the line into discussions or instruction by simply telling little Johnny to take those topics up with Mom or Dad. Especially if they are speaking with 8 year olds. If they need instructions on how to deflect, derail, ignore such matters, they can always gain those techniques by studying your post on this board.
This is a really stupid argument.

The repressive, violent vote-suppression laws against African Americans throughout the 19th and 20th centuries did not mention negroes, coloreds, blacks, etc.

Nor did the grandfather clauses that gave away voting rights to illiterate white cons like you, just only back in the day.

This is part of the fundamental duplicity of white conservatives and white supremacy as the law. Now they are trying the old supremacy trip again, on the backs of trans children.

Children. And then these people point at trans children and clutch their pearls and have a "what about the children" freakout. :problem:

All you have to do as a supposed supporter of we LGBTQs is check out what the major organizations have to say about these dumb, conservative bills.

You'll be reminded of what a liar you are, starting to yourself. But you really should visit the ACLU, HRC, PFLAG, and others to take your cues on this subject. They know better than you, as I do, how these laws affect actual people. No LGBTQ organization or group supports these confederate laws and policies. You don't know JS about it, and why would you.

PFLAG is a very good example of the "parents" you deliberately leave out when prattling on about "parent's rights." The local PFLAG provides youth a safe place to land after getting kicked out for being queer.

Ask me how I know. Ask PFLAG what they think of these stupid laws you support - they're "parents," after all. :problem:

You do not believe in "parent's rights." You advocate for special rights for conservative whites...who are chomping at the bit to defund the public schools.

This is also a good time to remind you to watch the OP video, which you very clearly still have not done.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

Do not believe conservatives when they claim to support you.

You are a stick figure, to them.

You're not even a fellow human being, to them.

They think of you as exploitable, because they themselves are exploitable, and are deeply self-loathing people.

I think they think everybody else is, too. :problem:

Why do you think these people need the power of the state to enforce their personal prejudices?
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:36 pm Especially if they are speaking with 8 year olds.
:? why "especially" 8 year olds?

This is an old Cold War/Lavender Scare canard.

Heterosexual adults impose heterosexuality on children starting as soon as they can walk and talk.

Some of us know we are queer before 8 years old and can attest to this treatment/forced-conformity training.

No conservative heterosexual anywhere on Planet Earth takes issue with shoving queer and trans 8 year olds into living as a heterosexual. You guys back up this culture of conformity with extreme violence and the threats of extreme violence like gaybashing, transbashing, murders, and legislation like Don't Say Gay laws.

What's always interesing to me is, the nastiest groomers and predators in this country who make a habit of getting away with your predation are conservative white males.

Did you know? That includes prominent gay ones such as Milo Yiannopolous, that WS Andrew Sullivan, Peter Thiel, and probably Madison Cawthorn. These opportunists are always the first to go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

So it's weird. People keep mentioning that the bill doesn't contain the word "gay". Um, OK. What this reminds me of is, of course, the nation's sodomy laws, which were overturned by Lawrence vs. Texas. They do not mention the word "gay" in them either. They simply illegalize sex acts, basically anything that is non-coital. The problem is, they were never enforced against heterosexuals, even if caught doing same acts. This is EXACTLY why the Court overturned them in Lawrence - selective enforcement, against gays only, effectively made them violate equal protection.

The FL law prohibits discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3. Uh. OK. Look, no teacher was doing explicit discussion of any kind of sex acts in 3rd grade. No teacher was trying to "groom" kids into any specific gender identity or sexual orientation. However, I guarantee there were and are teachers who talk about their het spouses and relationships. They may have a photo of their spouse and family on the desk; heck of course that shouldn't be illegal. I don't know if they get into whether they prefer doggystyle or missionary :roll: but that is discussing their sexual orientation. This law will never be enforced against them. We just have this weird situation though where - really what's acceptable - a gay teacher can't even mention their relationship or marriage? Isn't this "Don't Ask Don't Tell" again? Secondly, there will be students with questions about gender identity. A trans kid will start noticing they feel different from other kids before puberty. If they have any questions, the teacher must only say "go ask your parents"? They can't even tell them to talk to the school's counselors instead? Why is this reminding me of Orban's Hungary?

The law also says discussions of same topics, in grades 4-12, must be "age appropriate". Well, the devil is in the details there. Some zealous parents appear to feel no sex education even in 8-12 is appropriate. "Birds and bees must be left to the parents". Look, all I can tell you is in my 8th grade Health class, they didn't get into deep details about the female orgasm :D , but they discussed STDs (almost in painful detail), masturbation, the burdens of parenting (yes, we did the infamous "egg game"), and how to avoid pregnancy and the serious subject of delaying sex until you're mature enough to deal with its impacts and potential responsibilities. We did not go much into variations of sexual orientation. I understand many schools do this now - and they should. Some apparently want to criminalize, even to a 12th grader, discussing that trans-sex operations and procedures exist. In a thread about "freedom," this sure doesn't sound like it.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

Doonesbury FTW.

Image
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:36 pm There you go trying to think again. You may have read the law alright. So did I. The difference is that I know what is meant by the word “discussion” and the word “instruction”. It involves a whole lot more than the mere mention of the word “gay”. Perhaps you should look up those words. Language used in drafting legal documents and law tends to be rather precise. This is because in court, ambiguity is usually ruled against the party that drafted the document. In this case that would be the state.

Bottomline, teachers are intelligent people and can manage conversations and questions about such matters without crossing the line into discussions or instruction by simply telling little Johnny to take those topics up with Mom or Dad. Especially if they are speaking with 8 year olds. If they need instructions on how to deflect, derail, ignore such matters, they can always gain those techniques by studying your post on this board.
Especially? Well, the law is about High School seniors too. Kids that are already cognizant of sexuality. Kids that are already figuring out their gender roles.

And still the gag order. So that's what you're defending. A gag order on teachers, because one subset of parents who want their children ignorant of the world around them.

So they rule everyone else, especially teachers, who can lose their job if the violate the gag order. And parents who can make coin by suing to enforce this law. That's the new conservative thing - let the religious right make a lot of money from the taxpayer by suing schools.

Such is conservative logic. This is what you're defending.
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 8:46 am Especially? Well, the law is about High School seniors too. Kids that are already cognizant of sexuality. Kids that are already figuring out their gender roles.

And still the gag order. So that's what you're defending. A gag order on teachers, because one subset of parents who want their children ignorant of the world around them.

So they rule everyone else, especially teachers, who can lose their job if the violate the gag order. And parents who can make coin by suing to enforce this law. That's the new conservative thing - let the religious right make a lot of money from the taxpayer by suing schools.

Such is conservative logic. This is what you're defending.
Still having trouble reading I see. The law states quite clearly no discussion or instruction K-3 and thereafter the discussion or instruction should be age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students. That’s not a gag order unless you plan on having discussions or instruction that ISNT age appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Is that what you want the state to do? To have the authority to have discussions with other peoples children on their sexual orientation or gender identity that isn’t age appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Maybe you want a clause in there that says the state and/or teachers can say whatever they want to other peoples kids at any age regardless of whether it’s age or developmentally appropriate?

The law doesn’t say what you claim it says. What it does is to make sure parents are aware of what is being communicated to their children on these matters and other matters that concern the health and welfare of their children. I get that makes you uncomfortable because it clearly puts the rights of the parents to make decisions regarding their minor children over the rights of the state and public schools to do whatever they please with other peoples minor children.

But tell me. What would you change in the law??? Would you mention the parents at all?? Would the parents have any say in these matters??
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:06 am Still having trouble reading I see. The law states quite clearly no discussion or instruction K-3 and thereafter the discussion or instruction should be age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students. That’s not a gag order unless you plan on having discussions or instruction that ISNT age appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Is that what you want the state to do? To have the authority to have discussions with other peoples children on their sexual orientation or gender identity that isn’t age appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Maybe you want a clause in there that says the state and/or teachers can say whatever they want to other peoples kids at any age regardless of whether it’s age or developmentally appropriate?

The law doesn’t say what you claim it says. What it does is to make sure parents are aware of what is being communicated to their children on these matters and other matters that concern the health and welfare of their children. I get that makes you uncomfortable because it clearly puts the rights of the parents to make decisions regarding their minor children over the rights of the state and public schools to do whatever they please with other peoples minor children.

But tell me. What would you change in the law??? Would you mention the parents at all?? Would the parents have any say in these matters??
The law doesn't say, so a parent can sue over anything. When the school is afraid of being sued, they'll gag anything, now, won't they?

I know the intent and what the law will do in real life. You do too, you're just too dishonest to admit it - and you WANT everything banned. Oh, you're for freedom - but just for YOURSELF. Not for anyone else.

There doesn't have to be a law AT ALL. There is no sexual instruction for third graders anyway. The schools can handle everything themselves. They don't need the legislature ordering them by law.

Don't you remember that conservatives are supposed to be for LOCAL control?

But there's nothing the GOP can do that you won't defend, is there?
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

Correct: what the Florida law does is take decisions that were made at the district level, through school boards, and now impose them top-down from Tally over the entire state.

Conservatives used to say they were in favor of localism, that these decisions should be made closest to the people and where they lived. I fully accept the Wilton Manors area school board and some Panhandle school board might have different views on school curriculum. Well, I guess those kinds of conservatives are gone. DePutin now leads the "Tally takeover" - cities can be told what ordinances they can and can't pass, district school boards are having decisions taken out of their hands - but that's not authoritarianism, that's more freedom. Government should be closest to the people, except, of course, when this new breed of cons don't like it.

Maybe on another planet.

Yes, of course, no one disagrees that instruction for children should be age appropriate. The question that gets skipped over is who decides what is age appropriate for what age and how is that decision made? The law is terribly vague on that point, which opens some bad doors. Politicians making that decision? No F'n way. There are some people who think Toni Morrison isn't appropriate for young readers. Some say because she talks about brutal scenes, no one should read it before age 18. Well, that viewpoint, I have to say, is wrong. Here's what I would say: if you think your child can't handle Toni Morrison, a) enroll them in an English class where it's not on the reading list and b) tell them not to take it out of the library. Don't deprive other parents' children of the right to read it.

These decisions should be made by school boards. Locally, by people with experience in pedagogy. (That doesn't mean they are infallible or can't be questioned either, in case anybody wonders about my problem with one's decision on Maus.)
Last edited by ProfX on Sun May 22, 2022 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

ProfX wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:43 am Correct: what the Florida law does is take decisions that were made at the district level, through school boards, and now impose them top-down from Tally over the entire state.

Conservatives used to say they were in favor of localism, that these decisions should be made closest to the people and where they lived. I fully accept the Wilton Manors area school board and some Panhandle school board might have different views on school curriculum. Well, I guess those kinds of conservatives are gone. DePutin now leads the "Tally takeover" - cities can be told what ordinances they can and can't pass, district school boards are having decisions taken out of their hands - but that's not authoritarianism, that's more freedom. Government should be closest to the people, except, of course, when this new breed of cons don't like it.

Maybe on another planet.
Conservationism is one big lie, and Joe's one of the biggest liars. When the Dems control the federal government, conservatives scream about "state's rights" and local control - but when they get the top power, they impose their demands on EVERYONE.

So Joe has no problem with DeSantas being an autocrat. Deep down, Joe doesn't WANT democracy. He wants complete conservative rule.
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:39 am The law doesn't say, so a parent can sue over anything. When the school is afraid of being sued, they'll gag anything, now, won't they?

I know the intent and what the law will do in real life. You do too, you're just too dishonest to admit it - and you WANT everything banned. Oh, you're for freedom - but just for YOURSELF. Not for anyone else.

There doesn't have to be a law AT ALL. There is no sexual instruction for third graders anyway. The schools can handle everything themselves. They don't need the legislature ordering them by law.

Don't you remember that conservatives are supposed to be for LOCAL control?

But there's nothing the GOP can do that you won't defend, is there?
You don’t get anymore local than parents.

“The schools can handle everything themselves”. No mention of the parents? That’s why this law is necessary. I understand you would cut the parents out completely. If you are soooo worried about lawsuits, imagine the suits that will get filed when a things don’t go as you plan and a student and/or a parent files suit? If there is no discussions or instruction in these matters in K-3 then there is no reason to worry about lawsuits is there?

By hey, that’s what elections and laws are for. Democracy. So if you want unfettered access to other people’s minor children outside the knowledge and consent of their parents, state it loudly and clearly and run proudly on that principal in the next election and let’s see if the majority of parents are okay with that. My guess is that they won’t be. All this law really says is that’s it’s inappropriate to have instruction or discussions of this type before the third grade. It also says that after the third grade these discussions should be age and developmentally appropriate. Lastly it says anything that affects the mental or physical well being of a student should be communicated to the parent. You say it’s not necessary. Clearly other people disagree. I don’t see what you object to unless you want to be able to cut the parent out of the loop. Hence the need for the law. To protect parents and students from such overreach.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:59 am Lastly it says anything that affects the mental or physical well being of a student should be communicated to the parent.
Ah, we get to this other aspect of the bill.

In principle, I understand the need for this. On most things, I would agree on parental notification on health matters. Your kid has head lice or test positive for COVID? Of course they must be told.

Now, if the child obtained an abortion and didn't want to tell the parents, (or is pregnant and don't want them to find out while they're considering options) ... if the child is trans or gay and is afraid of the parents finding out because they might be kicked out or abused ... this is why I can't agree with a law that says parents must be told everything, always. There are situational problems and exceptions.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17255
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:59 am You don’t get anymore local than parents.
Then they can home school.
“The schools can handle everything themselves”. No mention of the parents? That’s why this law is necessary. I understand you would cut the parents out completely. If you are soooo worried about lawsuits, imagine the suits that will get filed when a things don’t go as you plan and a student and/or a parent files suit? If there is no discussions or instruction in these matters in K-3 then there is no reason to worry about lawsuits is there?
So one parent can run the schools to their liking, to hell with all the others. Got it. The craziest parent files the suit and the taxpayer pays, and the idea of actually TEACHING goes down the tubes. Florida is already underfunding schools. This is just more of the plan to do away with the very idea of universal education.
By hey, that’s what elections and laws are for. Democracy. So if you want unfettered access to other people’s minor children outside the knowledge and consent of their parents, state it loudly and clearly and run proudly on that principal in the next election and let’s see if the majority of parents are okay with that. My guess is that they won’t be. All this law really says is that’s it’s inappropriate to have instruction or discussions of this type before the third grade. It also says that after the third grade these discussions should be age and developmentally appropriate. Lastly it says anything that affects the mental or physical well being of a student should be communicated to the parent. You say it’s not necessary. Clearly other people disagree. I don’t see what you object to unless you want to be able to cut the parent out of the loop. Hence the need for the law. To protect parents and students from such overreach.
What bullshit. You know, one thing schools are VERY good for is to make sure kids aren't unfed or being abused. Now, obviously you think that children are nothing more than possessions of the parents, and they can do whatever they want to them.

I disagree. You guys only care about life BEFORE a child is born, and whatever the parents do afterwards is okay. You think the parents should be told by the school if the child is gay, even if they'll abuse the child if they find out. You don't give a fuck.

And you call protecting a child "overreach". Shameful.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 10:59 am Hence the need for the law.
Five states total, 4 others other than FL, have a law like FL's "Don't Say Gay".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-LGBT ... ted_States

Guess which ones:
as of 2022: Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas,[3] and Florida.

(You can also read up on how many states had such laws in the past, then either repealed them, or more notably, had their state courts rule they violated the state constitution.

Now here's what's really cute. Both Alabama and South Carolina had (past tense) laws like this, and repealed or overturned them, and now are considering bringing them back. Make up your minds, people.)

Point being, 45 other states are doing just fine without such laws. If there is such a dire need for such laws, why do 45 other states not have them? (Alabama, Ohio, and South Carolina haven't passed theirs yet.)

And again I wanna point out I have never said parents must be "out of the loop" - there is an easy way to get into it - attend school board meetings and vote for school board members - they have been able to do that since, well, forever, and long before these laws were passed.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:08 am Ah, we get to this other aspect of the bill.

In principle, I understand the need for this. On most things, I would agree on parental notification on health matters. Your kid has head lice or test positive for COVID? Of course they must be told.

Now, if the child obtained an abortion and didn't want to tell the parents, (or is pregnant and don't want them to find out while they're considering options) ... if the child is trans or gay and is afraid of the parents finding out because they might be kicked out or abused ... this is why I can't agree with a law that says parents must be told everything, always. There are situational problems and exceptions.
The law also has a provision for this. An exception when a case can be made that parental notification would result in harm to the student. In that case a ruling is made by a special magistrate.
JoeMemphis

Re: Is this the high-water mark of our freedoms? Must-see.

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 11:16 am Then they can home school.

So one parent can run the schools to their liking, to hell with all the others. Got it. The craziest parent files the suit and the taxpayer pays, and the idea of actually TEACHING goes down the tubes. Florida is already underfunding schools. This is just more of the plan to do away with the very idea of universal education.

What bullshit. You know, one thing schools are VERY good for is to make sure kids aren't unfed or being abused. Now, obviously you think that children are nothing more than possessions of the parents, and they can do whatever they want to them.

I disagree. You guys only care about life BEFORE a child is born, and whatever the parents do afterwards is okay. You think the parents should be told by the school if the child is gay, even if they'll abuse the child if they find out. You don't give a fuck.

And you call protecting a child "overreach". Shameful.
As I said. If you believe all that stupid shit you are spewing the state it loud and proud in the next election and let the electorate decide what they want. Let them decide who is primarily responsible for a child. The parent or the state. You tell them you believe it’s the state. Let’s see how that goes over.
Post Reply