Not Smack Talk, Just Some Facts

[arein0 977]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

(And fwiw, I oppose "forcing girls to compete with biological boys".  But I don't think it's a major problem and I am content with it being handled at the lowest level possible by school and sports administrators.  It's an issue that is being used by people like yourself to attack transsexuals - just as you are doing. )

I don't think a single person on this board believes that we should "force girls to compete with biological boys" yet that is always the point they always go back to. It's like a broken record at this point. It feels just like the gun talk when the conversation always seemingly goes to banning all guns, yet only extremists want that.

[homersapien 11,431]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

I do think trying to force people to participate in homosexual weddings that don’t believe in them really isn’t any different from prohibiting homosexuals from marrying though.   Don’t know how hard “live and let live” is for some people….

Here's some advice:  Just say "no".  

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What about the kids in K-3 who are homosexual?  What about kids in K-3 who are the children of homosexual parents? 

If these children - or their classmates - want to bring it up because they are curious, or perhaps worried they are different and don't fit it, or even because they are being bullied or ridiculed, it's appropriate to have a state law that prevents teachers for dealing with it at all?

Are you so naive to think such situations don't exist or is it you just don't care?

 

Not naive at all, I don’t see the need to sexual use or have conversations about sexuality with children that age.  That may be your thing I guess, but I think it’s flat out wrong.  
 

And it’s absolutely NOT the job of the schools to discuss it - either for or against.  

[homersapien 11,431]

5 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You don’t think it’s a big problem probably because you don’t have daughters impacted by it.  Daughters who bust their butts trying to be the best athletes they can only to have to unwillingly compete against males.  
 

Your post amuses me.  You talk about live and let live and respecting people and then go on a little tirade full of personal insults, but your probably just insecure - don’t worry, I’m not offended   
 

I have no bigotry at all, but don’t let your ignorance stop you, you’re on a roll….

Man up.  If you are going to dish it out, be ready to take it.

Edited June 3, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Here's some advice:  Just say "no".  

Here some advice - Google the lawsuits around bakeries, photographers and others who have done that and gotten sued……

[GoAU 1,600]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If you are going to dish it out, be ready to take it.

LOL - you amuse me. And other then pointing out that you sound intolerant, I don’t think you’ll find a post with me insulting you - but maybe I’m just not as sensitive….

Edited June 3, 2023 by GoAU

[homersapien 11,431]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Not naive at all, I don’t see the need to sexual use or have conversations about sexuality with children that age.  That may be your thing I guess, but I think it’s flat out wrong.  
 

And it’s absolutely NOT the job of the schools to discuss it - either for or against.  

You are naive if you don't think these issues come up naturally with children. 

These laws prohibit teachers from responding appropriately when they do.

You seem to believe there are teachers out there who are actively pushing these topics on to their students for nefarious reason and they need to be prevented from doing so.  That's about as insane as "Jewish space lasers".  It's the stuff of Q-anon.

In a few years, we'll be looking back at this era with a combination of horror and amusement.

[arein0 977]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In a few years, we'll be looking back at this era with a combination of horror and amusement.

I think it depends on how far it escalates. If it were to end today then yes, but I believe it will get much worse before it gets better.

[homersapien 11,431]

9 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Here some advice - Google the lawsuits around bakeries, photographers and others who have done that and gotten sued……

And how did that come out?  Is anyone been "forced" to participate in a homosexual wedding?  Have you?  What are you afraid of?

And since you bring it up, what makes such discrimination against homosexuals legally different from discrimination based on race?

[GoAU 1,600]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are naive if you don't think these issues come up naturally with children. 

These laws prohibit teachers from responding appropriately when they do.

You seem to believe there are teachers out there who are actively pushing these topics on to their students for nefarious reason and they need to be prevented from doing so.  That's about as insane as "Jewish space lasers".  It's the stuff of Q-anon.

In a few years, we'll be looking back at this era with a combination of horror and amusement.

It absolutely IS happening.  There are all sorts videos showing this stuff happening, you need to pull your head out of the sand and pay attention.   I am not saying that all or even a majority of teachers are doing this, heck it’s a very small minority, but laws aren’t made for the masses.  Most people wouldn’t murder, but we have laws for that too.  
 

The appropriate response for a teacher in that situation is to refer the child to their parents.   

[homersapien 11,431]

4 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I think it depends on how far it escalates. If it were to end today then yes, but I believe it will get much worse before it gets better.

Well, you may be right. 

But as someone who lived during the Birmingham church bombing I have to think we have evolved to the point where generational change is not required for these sort of things.

 

[GoAU 1,600]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And how did that come out?  Is anyone been "forced" to participate in a homosexual wedding?  Have you?  What are you afraid of?

And since you bring it up, what makes such discrimination against homosexuals legally different from discrimination based on race?

I’m confused, you first said you weren’t into forcing people into participating in something they don’t want to, or that couldb be against their beliefs and now your saying it’s discrimination if they don’t and seem to be defending the law suits filed against people that don’t.   
 

It seems to be a contradiction, but maybe I’m missing something.  

[homersapien 11,431]

3 minutes ago, GoAU said:

It absolutely IS happening.  There are all sorts videos showing this stuff happening, you need to pull your head out of the sand and pay attention.   I am not saying that all or even a majority of teachers are doing this, heck it’s a very small minority, but laws aren’t made for the masses.  Most people wouldn’t murder, but we have laws for that too.  
 

The appropriate response for a teacher in that situation is to refer the child to their parents.   

Show me some data.  All you've got is hysterical reaction based on anecdotal evidence.

We don't need laws preventing teachers from proactively abusing their students, sexually or otherwise.  That's already against the law.

These laws are threatening (preventing) teachers from even addressing real world problems in a practical, positive way.

They are designed purely to whip up and pander the reactionary crowd in order to secure their political support, using teachers as the villain.  It's despicable right wing authoritarianism.   Shame on you for buying it.

[GoAU 1,600]

Just now, homersapien said:

Show me some data.  All you've got is hysterical reaction based on anecdotal evidence.

We don't need laws preventing teachers from proactively abusing their students, sexually or otherwise.  That's already against the law.

These laws are threatening (preventing) teachers from even addressing real world problems in a practical, positive way.

They are designed purely to whip up and pander the reactionary crowd in order to secure their political support, using teachers as the villain.  It's despicable right wing authoritarianism.   Shame on you for buying it.

What “data” would you like to see?   I’m assuming even a couple of cases of teachers doing this would be adequate for you, or is there a threshold of these types of cases you find as acceptable?   

[homersapien 11,431]

18 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I’m confused, you first said you weren’t into forcing people into participating in something they don’t want to, or that couldb be against their beliefs and now your saying it’s discrimination if they don’t and seem to be defending the law suits filed against people that don’t.   
 

It seems to be a contradiction, but maybe I’m missing something.  

First let's be clear.  While you as an individual can certainly refuse to support a homosexual wedding, that doesn't necessarily relate to a public business.

Do you think white businesses were being "unfairly forced" to serve black people after the civil rights act of 1964?  Or do you simply not understand the parallel?

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/what-is-title-vii-civil-rights-act

Edited June 3, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,431]

24 minutes ago, GoAU said:

What “data” would you like to see?   I’m assuming even a couple of cases of teachers doing this would be adequate for you, or is there a threshold of these types of cases you find as acceptable?   

I would like to see sufficient data that suggests this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution - like the legislation in question.

But to answer your question directly, a couple of cases does not indicate a systemic problem.  It indicates that it is an extraordinary (rare) problem that should be handled on a local basis using existing local laws.

Edited June 3, 2023 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,600]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, do you think white businesses were being "unfairly forced" to serve black people after the civil rights act of 1964?  Or do you simply not understand the parallel?

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/what-is-title-vii-civil-rights-act

I do understand the parallel, just don’t agree with it.  I also know for a fact that Christian based businesses have been targeted, based on their beliefs, and I find that as wrong.   
 

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, I have no issue whatsoever with homosexuals.  But I also don’t have issues with private businesses honoring their beliefs.   As unappealing as it is to many of us, I agree with a private business being able to chose what business they do and don’t want.  I think it would be a poor business decision to discriminate against anyone, but hey, people are free to make all sorts of poor decisions.  
 

This is the biggest dilemma when you have multiple people whose rights seem to conflict.  

[GoAU 1,600]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I would like to see sufficient data that suggests this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution - like the legislation in question.

But to answer your question directly, a couple of cases is not a systemic problem.  It's an extraordinary (rare) problem that should be handled on a local basis using local laws.

Murder isn’t statistically a problem either, but we have laws for that.   If you had a child subjected to that I would assume you’d have a problem with it.  I know I would.  

If it’s not systemic and not affecting most people, what’s the issue with it?

Assuming you don’t consider all of the examples posted on sites like Libs of TikToc significant, right?   Maybe it’s all fake?
 

 

[homersapien 11,431]

12 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I do understand the parallel, just don’t agree with it.  I also know for a fact that Christian based businesses have been targeted, based on their beliefs, and I find that as wrong.  

 

That is the EXACT same argument that racist segregationists used back in the 60's to justify segregation. 

Trust me I was there.

[homersapien 11,431]

22 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Murder isn’t statistically a problem either, but we have laws for that.   If you had a child subjected to that I would assume you’d have a problem with it.  I know I would.  

If it’s not systemic and not affecting most people, what’s the issue with it?

Assuming you don’t consider all of the examples posted on sites like Libs of TikToc significant, right?   Maybe it’s all fake?
 

 

Good grief.

First, one could argue that murder is a problem. But we are not talking about the murder of school children. (In that case maybe we would have statistics.)

Of course I would have a problem with anyone who abused my child.  Of course, I would be involved enough with my child - and their teachers - to know if such a thing was even possible, much less occurring.

Anything that affects a single child in such a way is a problem and should be dealt with thoroughly and definitively. 

But a systemic solution - such as laws that use fear to prevent teachers  from dealing with any issue relating to sex or sexual orientation that may arise in their class  - are counterproductive and cause risk of harm to the children in their class.

Such laws are being pushed for cynical political reasons and have no real justification if protecting children is the goal, which it clearly isn't.  The goal is to gain political advantage by promoting "cultural war".  The children be damned.  

You should be ashamed of being so gullible to buy into it. 

[autigeremt 6,667]

On 6/1/2023 at 9:18 AM, homersapien said:

Those are sad and pathetic people. 

No….they just don’t agree with your kind. 

[autigeremt 6,667]

25 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That is the EXACT same argument that racist segregationists used back in the 60's to justify segregation. 

Trust me I was there.

Go back to the 60’s so you justify your life. 

[homersapien 11,431]

Just now, autigeremt said:

Go back to the 60’s so you justify your life. 

No need to go back.  I am re-experiencing a lot of it. (Felt that way during the Iraq war.)

In this case, it's the same old bigots, slightly different tune.

[autigeremt 6,667]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

No need to go back.  I am re-experiencing a lot of it. (Felt that way during the Iraq war.)

In this case, it's the same old bigots, slightly different tune.

Ok. 

[homersapien 11,431]

6 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

No….they just don’t agree with your kind. 

You have a keen eye for the obvious.

My kind believe in the "golden rule" (ironically enough.)