Jump to content
Null

Leftfield

Silver Donor
  • Posts

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Leftfield

Profile Information

  • Location
    Appleton, WI
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,147 profile views

Leftfield's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

1k

Reputation

  1. Wait a minute, everyone....maybe he means he makes triple what all the rest of us make combined! Elon Musk is a troll!!!!
  2. Just looked this up, because I had only heard about it and not read. For some reason I had it in my head that this was something outside of school. I do agree that a public school employee in any capacity cannot be leading it. With that said, in general I don't have a problem with it. I am not religious, and my list of issues with what people do in the name of organized religion is lengthy, but I also recognize the good it can do. Even if I don't share in the belief, a group gathering to humble themselves and give thanks has a beauty to it.
  3. Would be very curious to hear if what was being taught was school-sanctioned, or a rogue teacher. I don't doubt what you are saying, just would like to know the specifics. I am not against limiting what teachers can teach kids about these issues, but the Florida law as written is untenable. Also, I have no problem at all with that coach praying at mid-field and inviting others to join. I fully support and even encourage it. The type of people who protest that are the activist reactionaries that give ordinary, level-headed social liberals a bad name.
  4. You're the one up-in-arms for legislation against something that isn't even a problem, yet I'm the one that's dramatic? Makes sense. But if the law does not allow the school to address why the bullying isn't allowed, how can he be legally be removed from the school? Isn't punishment a form of instruction as to what is right or wrong? Do you really think an unscrupulous lawyer won't seize on an argument like this, or that an activist group won't use the vagueness of the law as a bludgeon against whatever they oppose? I guess you'll be fine with it if a teacher reads a story about a Mom, Dad, and their kids going on vacation and gets sued by a homosexual couple? The reason this is wrong is because it makes the status quo state law. Well, the status quo is biased and makes some children feel ostracized. If it had been written for the goal being espoused, it would have been more specific, and would not put a teacher at risk for being sued even if they just happen to mention a student's gay parents. If they want to make the law say specifically what curricula can be taught, hey, I'm all for it, though using state law for that is ridiculously cumbersome. The simple fact is this was rushed through as a political weapon and nobody could be bothered to think about it.
  5. I'm sure it will be as effective as Tesla's autopilot 😳
  6. Only thing that makes me think it might work is that he's taking it private. That way he doesn't have to answer to shareholders to continuously push growth and revenue, and can change the algorithms so they don't promote the most sensationalistic content. That said, I'm not expecting much, but he has surprised before.
  7. The same thing that prevented it being taught before: state curricula guidelines, district policy, parent and watchdog groups. So the school is not allowed to instruct the student at all regarding that behavior? What if the parents are vehemently against homosexuals and teach their children it's just fine to ostracize or bully someone because of it? It just becomes an endless cycle of sending the kid to the principal and talking to the parents, and not helping the child adapt to a world full of people that are different? The fact that kids know who they're attracted to in 1st grade is irrelevant to a discussion about kids being aware of homosexuality in K-3rd grade? With that thought, along with this.... ...I don't even see the point of continuing. You're going to continue to misrepresent my points. Go ahead and pretend that I'm ok with young children actually learning sex education if it makes you feel better. Might as well join the Mensa crowd hanging "PedoWorld" banners in front of Disney.
  8. "Some." Does that include you? So what if it injected itself into politics...companies do that all the time. And how did they try to take control of the democratic process? All they did was speak out. Just because their base of operations is in California, the don't have a right to speak out? Even though they have thousands of employees in Florida? This is so weak. Extraordinary powers? Their powers extend no further than their borders, and even then all the agreement allowed was for Disney to run their property as they see fit in terms of utilities and infrastructure. It's not as if they could write any new law they wanted. Oh, really? How does this benefit them? From their point of view, the bill benefits them, but how does the retaliation? "Some." "Perhaps." You're very vague in your arguments.
  9. No. And that is a ridiculously simplistic way to view it. Surprised you didn't edit this out after you'd read the rest of my post. Of course they could, and in most situations, should. But there may be times when a teacher has to address it sooner. I gave an example in another thread, but I'll give it here in case you didn't see it: One of my daughter's best friends is the child of a lesbian couple. It has never been a secret, but when some of the kids at school found out and it spread around, there were some that made fun of her about it. This was in 1st grade, if I remember correctly, but certainly before 3rd. Was the teacher supposed to say nothing in that situation, or should she have done what she did: explain to those other children that there are some kids that have two moms or two dads and that it's nothing someone should be teased or ashamed about? While kids that age don't have a concept of human sexuality, and shouldn't, they do know who they are attracted to. I had my first crush when I was in 1st grade. How old were you? If a kid has a crush on another of the same sex, should a teacher not be able to intervene? The way the law is written, not only can the teacher not discuss with a kid why they shouldn't be antagonizing a gay child, they can't even comfort the gay child by telling them they have nothing to be ashamed of. You make this all sound as though teaching sexuality is what anyone opposed to this bill is after, but you are misconstruing it. In fact you are now doing so deliberately because I've already explained otherwise in my previous post. You are being intellectually dishonest. This all came to a head because those who identify as LGBTQ have become more common and more parents are having to have to deal with it, and some of them don't want to. If teaching sex ed to kids had been an issue, this would have been codified long ago. I don't even know what the hell you're arguing here. I already said I agreed K-3 should not be taught sex education, I was simply allowing that there are some on the fringe that might think they should. There are always people on the fringe. I was simply conceding that to show I didn't have my head in the sand about it. If you're going to discuss this in good faith, then you're going to have to make a distinction between sexuality and identity/gender.
  10. I agree, she didn't directly call for martial law, but do you really think she was passing along the message as just a friendly FYI? And do you really believe telling him to declassify material to aid in an attempt override a legitimate election is a joke?
  11. I don't understand this take. How did Disney try to bully anyone? They spoke out against the legislation. They did not threaten. Also, isn't one of the core tenets of conservatism that people should not fear their government, the government should fear the people? Chapek will likely not last much longer as head of Disney. Many were upset with his handling of the company even before this issue came up. For Michael Eisner to have publicly criticized his handling of the issue speaks volumes. I ask again, does the retaliation against Disney have a benefit to anyone other than those who are trying to be re-elected? It is wasteful, petty, sets a dangerous precedent, and should be frightening to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.
  12. Text of the original bill is only seven pages and a fairly quick read. The statute I cited was the only thing that jumped out to me. Most of the rest seems to be codifying the status quo. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
  13. Unless I missed it, I don't see where Disney or anyone on this forum said that schools should have set programs to teach sex education (it seems a popular tactic to attack those who are opposed is to claim they are against everything in the bill, rather than a very specific statute). The problems are, 1) the attempt to prevent teachers from even addressing it if the need arises, and 2) the very existence of the statute is a clear inference that anything other than heterosexual relationships and cisgenders is aberrant and should be treated as such. As to the first problem, the statute is so vague it basically allows any mention whatsoever related to LGBTQ to be a violation: 3. 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. No teacher is going to risk being fired and/or prosecuted saying anything to help a child that might be dealing with these issues, and it does not allow teachers to help build a society that is accepting of them. Which of course is the reason many people support it. There is an attempt to frame those who oppose this law as wanting actual sex education to be taught to K-3 kids, which is ridiculous. I won't deny there are people out there that do, but that is a very small percentage. The statute I gave above is the only one that is objectionable. I fully support parents having complete access to their child's mental and physical health information, and having a say in what their child is taught, and I will give credit to the law for leaving a provision in cases of suspected abuse, but again this was a solution in search of a problem, and the motivation behind many who spearheaded this is clear.
×
×
  • Create New...