Floridas ¨don´t say gay bill¨

[Galiantus III]

Is this a joke? You are aware conservatives have tried to, at pretty much every turn, to eliminate sex-ed from schools. Or are you really, truly, unaware of this fact? It is actually quite insulting of you to suggest that a conservative bill passed to completely eliminate talking about sex in the classroom is not going to be enforced to the fullest extent. We don't want sex ed. Period.

In simple terms you don’t know what your talking, you don’t know what the bill is about, you’re solely engaging in a moral panic that harasses children because you think being gay is sexually abusive because again you don’t what is happening.

If that is what you have (incorrectly) gathered from my comments, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Heloin]

In simple terms you don’t know what your talking, you don’t know what the bill is about, you’re solely engaging in a moral panic that harasses children because you think being gay is sexually abusive because again you don’t what is happening.

If that is what you have (incorrectly) gathered from my comments, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

You called the bill a “Don’t be a Groomer” bill. You are solely engaging in a fictional moral panic that will harass children

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

As mentioned before: any discussion of how a bethroted virgin was impregnated by a supernatural being is highly inapppropiate; as is abstinence only education.
Right ?

Actually, come to think of this again, if we can actually get discussions of Christianity or the display of Christian religious symbols in public schools legally prohibited on these grounds, that would be quite the coup for the progressive movement.

Not that it will happen, because religious people are generally reluctant to accept having their own rules be applied against them, but it's a lovely fantasy to think about.

[Ifreann]

The title of the bill is, as you are clearly aware, Parental Rights in Education. "Don't Say Gay" is just a nickname. Like "Obamacare", or "Hague Invasion Act".

If we're going to give it a nickname, "don't say gay" is extraordinarily inaccurate. "Don't be a groomer" is far more accurate.

So you must think that "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity" constitutes grooming. But you also insist that this has nothing to do with gayness. So if we were to assume a consistent position on your part, you would have to believe that someone who teaches children about a man and a woman falling in love and getting married, the kind of thing that happens in any number of traditional stories for children, is a predatory paedophile who is planning to commit some kind of sex crime.

[The Alma Mater]

As mentioned before: any discussion of how a bethroted virgin was impregnated by a supernatural being is highly inapppropiate; as is abstinence only education.
Right ?

Actually, come to think of this again, if we can actually get discussions of Christianity or the display of Christian religious symbols in public schools legally prohibited on these grounds, that would be quite the coup for the progressive movement.

Not that it will happen, because religious people are generally reluctant to accept having their own rules be applied against them, but it's a lovely fantasy to think about.

Heck, since some people panic when one uses "pronouns" it is about time they get rid of referring to God as "He/Him".
After all, God has no Y-chromosome.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The bill doesn't even seem to do much and for the most part only applies from first grade to grade three. It's just a culture war grandstand, not much else.

it doesn’t define what inappropriate discussion is, thus allowing lawsuits to be filed for pretty much anything that some parent sees as “inappropriate”. this is a smart move, as it censores discussion of gender identity while proponents of the bill can claim that it just applies to inappropriate discussion.

To be honest, I thought there were other policies in effect that define that, as it says "in accordance to state standards." I do expect negative consequences from this bill, but I honestly thought this bill would go a lot further than it does.

I still view this as mostly as a grandstand.

[Ifreann]

Actually, come to think of this again, if we can actually get discussions of Christianity or the display of Christian religious symbols in public schools legally prohibited on these grounds, that would be quite the coup for the progressive movement.

Not that it will happen, because religious people are generally reluctant to accept having their own rules be applied against them, but it's a lovely fantasy to think about.

Heck, since some people panic when one uses "pronouns" it is about time they get rid of referring to God as "He/Him".
After all, God has no Y-chromosome.

I have heard it said that biology is the nature of these pronouns. God, of course, has no biology. God is not a creature of flesh and blood. I believe that the correct pronoun to use when referring to God would therefore be "It".

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I have heard it said that biology is the nature of these pronouns. God, of course, has no biology. God is not a creature of flesh and blood. I believe that the correct pronoun to use when referring to God would therefore be "It".

Of course.

Referring to god with any other pronoun would constitute a discussion of trans identity, punishable by law in any context where a discussion of trans identity is inappropriate.

[Reginalida]

The title of the bill is, as you are clearly aware, Parental Rights in Education. "Don't Say Gay" is just a nickname. Like "Obamacare", or "Hague Invasion Act".

If we're going to give it a nickname, "don't say gay" is extraordinarily inaccurate. "Don't be a groomer" is far more accurate.

That name is awfully inaccurate. Teaching children that boys can kiss boys isn't the same as teaching them grown adults can kiss minors.

[Ifreann]

If we're going to give it a nickname, "don't say gay" is extraordinarily inaccurate. "Don't be a groomer" is far more accurate.

That name is awfully inaccurate. Teaching children that boys can kiss boys isn't the same as teaching them grown adults can kiss minors.

Inaccurate, but it rather suits the purposes of conservatives, who desperately hate LGBT people and want to smear them all as paedophiles in the hopes of making it socially acceptable to commit genocide against them.

[Galiantus III]

If we're going to give it a nickname, "don't say gay" is extraordinarily inaccurate. "Don't be a groomer" is far more accurate.

So you must think that "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity" constitutes grooming. But you also insist that this has nothing to do with gayness. So if we were to assume a consistent position on your part, you would have to believe that someone who teaches children about a man and a woman falling in love and getting married, the kind of thing that happens in any number of traditional stories for children, is a predatory paedophile who is planning to commit some kind of sex crime.

Well just for perspective on what I actually think, I don't think kids younger than around 10 should even be attending school. Like, the only thing anyone needs to learn before that point is how to read. And that can easily be achieved at home, with little effort: I would much prefer the existing school budget for grades K-4 be spent distributing books to kids who need them than hiring teachers. Otherwise, kids should be playing. Not sitting in a classroom being lectured about anything. And yeah, having a teacher talk to them about romance, even if it is non-explicit, is possibly the last thing they need. Let parents decide when their children are ready for such topics. There is no need to have the state get involved with what is more naturally left to families.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Otherwise, kids should be playing. Not sitting in a classroom being lectured about anything.

I once entertained the idea of doing 1940's things for one of my NS's. I learnt that kids in 2022 hate the idea of doing 1940's things.

[Galiantus III]

That name is awfully inaccurate. Teaching children that boys can kiss boys isn't the same as teaching them grown adults can kiss minors.

Inaccurate, but it rather suits the purposes of conservatives, who desperately hate LGBT people and want to smear them all as paedophiles in the hopes of making it socially acceptable to commit genocide against them.

You are a liar.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Let parents decide when their children are ready for such topics. There is no need to have the state get involved with what is more naturally left to families.

First of all, I disagree with the basic principle that parents have the privilege of insulating their children from exposure to ideals different from their own. That exposure is kind of an important part of public education in a pluralistic and democratic society.

On a more pragmatic note, parents have a notoriously horrible track record of getting across topics like these to their children. I can't even count the number of times I heard some variant of "my parents created a really hostile and unwelcoming environment at home" from my gender and sexual minority acquaintances. The state can and absolutely should intervene in the private lives of families to secure the right of children to maintain a dignified existence should their parents wish to infringe upon that.

Protecting the rights and privileges of those members of the citizenry who are unable to defend themselves is, after all, kind of why we have a state in the first place. And that citizenry includes the children.

[Ifreann]

So you must think that "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity" constitutes grooming. But you also insist that this has nothing to do with gayness. So if we were to assume a consistent position on your part, you would have to believe that someone who teaches children about a man and a woman falling in love and getting married, the kind of thing that happens in any number of traditional stories for children, is a predatory paedophile who is planning to commit some kind of sex crime.

Well just for perspective on what I actually think, I don't think kids younger than around 10 should even be attending school. Like, the only thing anyone needs to learn before that point is how to read.

Of course you want children kept ignorant.

And that can easily be achieved at home, with little effort:

Not in this day and age.

I would much prefer the existing school budget for grades K-4 be spent distributing books to kids who need them than hiring teachers. Otherwise, kids should be playing. Not sitting in a classroom being lectured about anything.

Learning in a classroom is bad but learning at home is good. That way parents can teach their children who to hate before their children can develop a natural tolerance and acceptance of others.

And yeah, having a teacher talk to them about romance, even if it is non-explicit, is possibly the last thing they need. Let parents decide when their children are ready for such topics.

Let parents lie to and indoctrinate their children.

There is no need to have the state get involved with what is more naturally left to families.

You never heard the phrase about it taking a village to raise a child? Ah, but what am I saying. As a conservative you of course reject traditional, time-honoured wisdom and good common sense.

[Galiantus III]

Let parents decide when their children are ready for such topics. There is no need to have the state get involved with what is more naturally left to families.

First of all, I disagree with the basic principle that parents have the privilege of insulating their children from exposure to ideals different from their own. That exposure is kind of an important part of public education in a pluralistic and democratic society.

On a more pragmatic note, parents have a notoriously horrible track record of getting across topics like these to their children. I can't even count the number of times I heard some variant of "my parents created a really hostile and unwelcoming environment at home" from my gender and sexual minority acquaintances. The state can and absolutely should intervene in the private lives of families to secure the right of children to maintain a dignified existence should their parents wish to infringe upon that.

Protecting the rights and privileges of those members of the citizenry who are unable to defend themselves is, after all, kind of why we have a state in the first place. And that citizenry includes the children.

So I take it you are pro-life?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

So I take it you are pro-life?

Ah, yes, the "a fetus is a child" comeback. Surely I wouldn't have heard that before a dozen times.

But to give a serious response to your usual conservative nonsense: I lean pro-choice, of course. I actually do find pro-life arguments fairly convincing - certainly a lot more convincing when compared to arguments in favour of abolishing sex education - but on considering the balance of arguments I do lean somewhat pro-choice.

[The Alma Mater]

So you must think that "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity" constitutes grooming. But you also insist that this has nothing to do with gayness. So if we were to assume a consistent position on your part, you would have to believe that someone who teaches children about a man and a woman falling in love and getting married, the kind of thing that happens in any number of traditional stories for children, is a predatory paedophile who is planning to commit some kind of sex crime.

Well just for perspective on what I actually think, I don't think kids younger than around 10 should even be attending school. Like, the only thing anyone needs to learn before that point is how to read. And that can easily be achieved at home, with little effort

By whom ? The average American has an 8th grade reading level. You really think they can teach that skill to their kids ?
In addition, they tend to have jobs. School also functions as daycare.

[Ifreann]

Inaccurate, but it rather suits the purposes of conservatives, who desperately hate LGBT people and want to smear them all as paedophiles in the hopes of making it socially acceptable to commit genocide against them.

You are a liar.

No, just cutting through the bullshit. The ideology behind these bills doesn't want LGBT people to exist in society. You think it isn't obvious when you're here trying to call this the "Don't Be A Groomer" bill? When you say that the mere knowledge of the existence of LGBT people is a plot by paedophiles to sexually assault children, you're not going to stop at banning any discussion of them in schools.

[The Alma Mater]

First of all, I disagree with the basic principle that parents have the privilege of insulating their children from exposure to ideals different from their own. That exposure is kind of an important part of public education in a pluralistic and democratic society.

On a more pragmatic note, parents have a notoriously horrible track record of getting across topics like these to their children. I can't even count the number of times I heard some variant of "my parents created a really hostile and unwelcoming environment at home" from my gender and sexual minority acquaintances. The state can and absolutely should intervene in the private lives of families to secure the right of children to maintain a dignified existence should their parents wish to infringe upon that.

Protecting the rights and privileges of those members of the citizenry who are unable to defend themselves is, after all, kind of why we have a state in the first place. And that citizenry includes the children.

So I take it you are pro-life?

Absolutely. To the max in fact - I believe in forced organ- and bloodharvesting.
All lives matter. If we need to use your body to keep another person alive - you do not get to refuse.

[Galiantus III]

Well just for perspective on what I actually think, I don't think kids younger than around 10 should even be attending school. Like, the only thing anyone needs to learn before that point is how to read.

Of course you want children kept ignorant.

Liar.

And that can easily be achieved at home, with little effort:

Not in this day and age.

Easier today than before, thanks to information technology.

I would much prefer the existing school budget for grades K-4 be spent distributing books to kids who need them than hiring teachers. Otherwise, kids should be playing. Not sitting in a classroom being lectured about anything.

Learning in a classroom is bad but learning at home is good. That way parents can teach their children who to hate before their children can develop a natural tolerance and acceptance of others.

I said "lecture". Not "learn". If you think kids should be chained to a desk for multiple hours a day, you are the one who needs to reevaluate your views.

And yeah, having a teacher talk to them about romance, even if it is non-explicit, is possibly the last thing they need. Let parents decide when their children are ready for such topics.

Let parents lie to and indoctrinate their children.

...as opposed to having a teacher lie to and indoctrinate them.

There is no need to have the state get involved with what is more naturally left to families.

You never heard the phrase about it taking a village to raise a child? Ah, but what am I saying. As a conservative you of course reject traditional, time-honoured wisdom and good common sense.

A village is a local community. This is fundamentally different from the state. It is idiotic to suggest that a bunch of men with an army should be allowed to demand that my child should go to their indoctrination centers where they are going to be taught to hate me and the community they were raised in. It indeed takes a village to raise a child - not an army of bureaucrats.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

When you say that the mere knowledge of the existence of LGBT people is a plot by paedophiles to sexually assault children, you're not going to stop at banning any discussion of them in schools.

This is basically the reason that society's various whiny minorities are so whiny in the first place - they are extremely well aware of what tends to happen to people who get branded second-class citizens in their own societies. They tend to fiercely resist any attempts to wipe them off the cultural and intellectual lives of the community, because taking away a minority's ability to make their issues and concerns heard within the framework of an open and democratic society is usually the prelude to suppressing them.

And if anyone has any doubts, a quick skim through a biography of Alan Turing's later life should clear up any misunderstandings about what the Christian idea of love and respect means to gay people.

[Reginalida]

Inaccurate, but it rather suits the purposes of conservatives, who desperately hate LGBT people and want to smear them all as paedophiles in the hopes of making it socially acceptable to commit genocide against them.

You are a liar.

Then why did you attempt to label this bill an anti-groomer bill? Considering it has nothing to do with pedophilia.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Of course you want children kept ignorant.

Liar.

Not in this day and age.

Easier today than before, thanks to information technology.

Learning in a classroom is bad but learning at home is good. That way parents can teach their children who to hate before their children can develop a natural tolerance and acceptance of others.

I said "lecture". Not "learn". If you think kids should be chained to a desk for multiple hours a day, you are the one who needs to reevaluate your views.

Let parents lie to and indoctrinate their children.

...as opposed to having a teacher lie to and indoctrinate them.

You never heard the phrase about it taking a village to raise a child? Ah, but what am I saying. As a conservative you of course reject traditional, time-honoured wisdom and good common sense.

A village is a local community. This is fundamentally different from the state. It is idiotic to suggest that a bunch of men with an army should be allowed to demand that my child should go to their indoctrination centers where they are going to be taught to hate me and the community they were raised in. It indeed takes a village to raise a child - not an army of bureaucrats.

the army doesn’t run schools. and are you going to indoctrinate your children less?

[Galiantus III]

So I take it you are pro-life?

Ah, yes, the "a fetus is a child" comeback. Surely I wouldn't have heard that before a dozen times.

But to give a serious response to your usual conservative nonsense: I lean pro-choice, of course. I actually do find pro-life arguments fairly convincing - certainly a lot more convincing when compared to arguments in favour of abolishing sex education - but on considering the balance of arguments I do lean somewhat pro-choice.

Then I can ignore your posturing and pretending to care for the welfare of children. If you don't care for their lives, you don't care about them at all.

Well just for perspective on what I actually think, I don't think kids younger than around 10 should even be attending school. Like, the only thing anyone needs to learn before that point is how to read. And that can easily be achieved at home, with little effort

By whom ? The average American has an 8th grade reading level. You really think they can teach that skill to their kids ?

Yes I do. First, the US was far more literate before the creation of public schools than after. Second, I know so because that is roughly how I became literate. My parents got me to about a 3rd grade level through home schooling, then I just started reading all the books at home, and looked in the dictionary when I didn't understand a word. By the time I entered 8th grade I was reading at a 12th grade level.

In addition, they tend to have jobs. School also functions as daycare.

School should not be used as a daycare. They are your kids, not the government's.

You are a liar.

No, just cutting through the bullshit. The ideology behind these bills doesn't want LGBT people to exist in society. You think it isn't obvious when you're here trying to call this the "Don't Be A Groomer" bill? When you say that the mere knowledge of the existence of LGBT people is a plot by paedophiles to sexually assault children, you're not going to stop at banning any discussion of them in schools.

Not what I said, so... liar.