The cancel culture is getting out of control

No it doesn’t. Context matters. His post even says the subject was already being discussed among 8 year olds and you went ass over tea kettle with “teaching it whether their parents want you to or not.” That doesn’t “fit perfectly” with even the context available to you.

This law doesn’t prohibit “deranged pro-LBQTMNX*/2QRXZ teachers” from “teaching your 6-7-8 yr old about sexual stuff whether their parents want me to or not.”

It prohibits all teachers from teaching anything about those subjects, regardless of how the subject arises, and does not articulate the age when that prohibition ends.

It is a small problem with the law, that could have been fixed. But then it would not have driven a wedge between people who can’t think these things through and those that can.
Do you need a Snickers this morning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
Shouldn't their mission be to stop bullying regardless of who and why?

I realize not everyone is a right or left nut but there are enough of them that are. Particularly in some areas of the country and school systems.

Unfortunately some of them think their job is to advocate instead of be the adult in the room.

Yes 100%. The school acts in loco parentis and has a responsibility to maintain order and discipline when children are on school grounds. Stopping bullying is part of that.

It’s not a perfect analogue, but Criminal law is what I know best, so let’s look at Murder. If someone is only being kept alive by life support has no quality of life, and will never be able to survive without life support, do you think it should be a crime to turn it off? Should we arrest those who make that decision for their aged parents? Spouses who decide for their injured partner?

By their plain meaning, many homicide statutes say yes.

Saying “no” does not mean you support all forms of murder. It doesn’t mean you think we should only stop certain types of immoral murders.

It just means you support the exceptions that are written into those laws for situations like those, so that the law is clear and people who make those decisions can rely on it.

So while I agree that forcing this stuff into the curriculum is wildly inappropriate, the law doesn’t seem to have considered situations where it may be in everyone’s interest to have an adult in the room who can speak about those issues at all without fear of a lawsuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OHvol40
That post was like a hopper at the Planters’ factory: anything that wasn’t nuts is buried among all the nuts.

Your new avatar:

Always glad to see another noncommittal, drive-by reply!

Since there's no argument to be made regarding the origin of critical theory/studies, it's Marxist proponents' goals and influence in academia, their new victim coalition of women, blacks and homosexuals to replace the universalist working proletariat meme, perhaps you could articulate your argument - ?
 
Yes 100%. The school acts in loco parentis and has a responsibility to maintain order and discipline when children are on school grounds. Stopping bullying is part of that.

I'd like to say schools have been doing more and more "mission creep" into In Loco Parentis for years. But the truth is, parents were the ones that allowed it in the first place.
 
FP1FN5tXMAcmznA
 
Of all the hills for Democrats/Liberals to die on, I just don't understand why they would choose the banning of teaching kids under the age of 9 about transgenderism as high on their list. That's why we have elections though, let them chase little kids with sexual rights and see how far it gets them.
You'd have thought the Dems would have seen Younkin's election as a clue to keep the kids out of it...... seems they are taking it as a reason to double down.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and VolStrom
Yes 100%. The school acts in loco parentis and has a responsibility to maintain order and discipline when children are on school grounds. Stopping bullying is part of that.

It’s not a perfect analogue, but Criminal law is what I know best, so let’s look at Murder. If someone is only being kept alive by life support has no quality of life, and will never be able to survive without life support, do you think it should be a crime to turn it off? Should we arrest those who make that decision for their aged parents? Spouses who decide for their injured partner?

By their plain meaning, many homicide statutes say yes.

Saying “no” does not mean you support all forms of murder. It doesn’t mean you think we should only stop certain types of immoral murders.

It just means you support the exceptions that are written into those laws for situations like those, so that the law is clear and people who make those decisions can rely on it.

So while I agree that forcing this stuff into the curriculum is wildly inappropriate, the law doesn’t seem to have considered situations where it may be in everyone’s interest to have an adult in the room who can speak about those issues at all without fear of a lawsuit.
So you're saying we need to provide teachers the same "thought" protection that our Law Enforcement officers used to have?
And by the way, why would the teacher's responsibility for Heather, be to send a note home with every child saying that one of the student's mother has a wife/live in girlfriend so that the parents can shape their child's perspective, and ensure that bullying doesn't take place?
 
The parental involvement in the schools stinks.

Hence why schools have taken more authority than they should have had to begin with.

I agree with the premise of ILP, don't agree with the way some schools have gone too far in "parenting" students.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
So you're saying we need to provide teachers the same "thought" protection that our Law Enforcement officers used to have?

I’m not sure what this means, so I don’t think I’m saving that.

And by the way, why would the teacher's responsibility for Heather, be to send a note home with every child saying that one of the student's mother has a wife/live in girlfriend so that the parents can shape their child's perspective, and ensure that bullying doesn't take place?

Sounds good.

I don’t think there’s a way to preclude all situations where it comes up. At a minimum the law should give guidance on what “age-appropriate” means, legally, and should create a safe harbor for when teachers have to handle those situations and do so appropriately.
 
That ban is BS. The Oscars should be kissing Will Smith's azz. The slap actually made the Oscar's interesting.

Oscars went from 16.8m viewers to 17.7m viewers so it's not like they are thanking their lucky stars it happened. They probably don't think it was worth the controversy
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
Oscars went from 16.8m viewers to 17.7m viewers so it's not like they are thanking their lucky stars it happened. They probably don't think it was worth the controversy

That shows what I know about ratings. Chris Rock and Smith should share a table at the Oscar's next year.
 
That shows what I know about ratings. Chris Rock and Smith should share a table at the Oscar's next year.

Will should've publicly slapped Chris a week before the Oscars, and then the Oscars bill a confrontation between the 2. That would've got the views up big time
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
Nothing angry about it. I cannot respond to your post because it is overloaded with crazy talk.

If I recall correctly, you were one of those who dismissed the idea of grossly inappropriate CRT, 1619, and sex ed curricula in K12 - and promoted with a promise to defend it by at least the two largest national teacher unions - as if the parents in lockdown with their children's remote learning are just rubes who can't interpret what their eyes and ears witnessed. As a defender of public schooling, perhaps you object to the implication that education has been largely commandeered by at least two generations of American leftists with radical agenda?

Do you take offense at the Marxists in blackface characterization of BLM despite terming themselves as Marxists, as if it's not possible to glean that from their anti-American, anti-nuclear family, anti-capitalist agenda without the admission? In what America is logic, objectivity, math, comfort, a constitutional republic, and biology the constructs of white supremacist society to oppress black people? In which just being white designates you as oppressor?

Again, the problem with Disney and corporate America piggy-backing onto this American variant of Marxism is not just providing cover for the identity group subversion, but participating in it with their executive 'queerness' agenda and advocacy against the FL law. Their objection is not due to imprecise language of the law, but Disney kowtowing to queer employees and their militant movement, instead of running a business who consumers are primarily children.

Some "friends".
Some 'crazy talk'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HammondB3Vol

VN Store



Back
Top