BTW, if elected lawmakers aren't focusing on adequate food, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure for their constituents - but revving their engines about drag shows and legislating what docs can/can't do - then they're traitors, making things worse for all of us instead of better.
Don't let them distract you with piffle: if they're telling you that they can bail out giant banks and pay for perpetual war, then they're lying about not being able to provide necessities for Americans that need them.
I am way more libertarian than that, and the absolute last place I look to address the ills that afflict me personally or society at large is a government. Except, of course, when the government is the source of the harm.
Actually, I go to a lot of trouble to not personally insult posters. We're all here because we dig William's station, and have a lot of other convos, so we tend to mingle. And I don't see anything in there about you personally. I'm talking about the stance that teaching young kids about their bodies shouldn't be done.
Want to take another swing at a response? If not, then I think I can make assumptions, right?
Sure, let me explain my purpose for contributing to this discussion. Although I thought that was obvious. I saw that there was a misrepresentation of the facts of the legislation, presumably to stoke its opposition. It was reported that the law prevented children from discussing the menstrual cycle among themselves, and it does no such thing. I don't think we need any more false narratives out there in the world. Personally, I believe the reason this subject has become so contentious is because the government has interjected itself into a topic that has historically, and appropriately in my opinion, been the purview of the family. It is precisely because each family has it's own opinions on the appropriate age and breathe of sexual education that we find ourselves here. The government (school boards and educators) have one set of opinions while the parents have their own. As a parent, and having my own experiences growing up in the '60's and 70's vis-a-vie educational exposure, I all for keeping children as ignorant for as long as I can. In this case, sexual education (of any kind) for third graders and below is inappropriate.
BTW, if elected lawmakers aren't focusing on adequate food, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure for their constituents - but revving their engines about drag shows and legislating what docs can/can't do - then they're traitors, making things worse for all of us instead of better.
Don't let them distract you with piffle: if they're telling you that they can bail out giant banks and pay for perpetual war, then they're lying about not being able to provide necessities for Americans that need them.
I mean maybe there is a weird stretch where you get it to mean that, but generally:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Where's the stretch?
Your response makes a lot of assumptions about who I am, what I believe and what motivates me. Good job attacking that straw man.
Actually, I go to a lot of trouble to not personally insult posters. We're all here because we dig William's station, and have a lot of other convos, so we tend to mingle. And I don't see anything in there about you personally. I'm talking about the stance that teaching young kids about their bodies shouldn't be done.
Want to take another swing at a response? If not, then I think I can make assumptions, right?
So many sorts of BS and efforts to control others have been justified by the stated desire to protect someone or some group. Blacks were kept in their place to protect the honor of White women or genteel society (jazz, that devil music). William F. Buckley once mused that equal rights and civil rights movements were moving too fast, creating the risk that Blacks unprepared for new freedoms and rights would be taken advantage of. Anti-abortion groups claim they want to protect the "unborn children." Ron De Santis wants to protect kids from transgenders and transvestites, and save everyone from Marxism/Communism cloaked as wokeism.
There's been a longstanding struggle over sex edâ"if you teach the kids about sex, they'll suddenly want to do it! Abstinence only!"
Somebody tell me because I don't know: what the hell is wrong with Southern politicians?
Using the word "indoctrinate" is as pejorative as using the word "illuminate" or whatever. If we take it back to the concept of whether or not kids in the single digits should understand how the body works, including sex, then we're playing the same game as "there really is a Santa Claus" and letting them live a lie. Boys and girls are certainly pointing at their pee-pees and... sorry, I don't have sisters so don't know what you folks would call them at that age...
and talking about them in a tactful way might do something to prevent problems later.
Kids on the farm see the animals humping, and normal boys get erections just from friction. Making body parts shameful, hidden, EVIL is a sure fire way to screw up someone's sense of how they should behave later in life. A teen that's unprepared is one that's gonna fly be the seat of his pants and end up being a daddy way before he thought it could happen. ("At marriage, right?")
So I'm clearly not advocating that Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice should be making the rounds with Your American Highway System filmstrips in school. So, folks, please don't start by talking about how horrible that suggestion is that I'm making, because I'm not talking about porn in the classroom. Because that's how people stop things from happening: creating a straw man of something ludicrous and then using that as an excuse for tossing out the whole idea without further consideration.
Your response makes a lot of assumptions about who I am, what I believe and what motivates me. Good job attacking that straw man.
Using the word "indoctrinate" is as pejorative as using the word "illuminate" or whatever. If we take it back to the concept of whether or not kids in the single digits should understand how the body works, including sex, then we're playing the same game as "there really is a Santa Claus." Boys and girls are certainly pointing at their pee-pees and... sorry, I don't have sisters so don't know what you folks would call them at that age...
and talking about them in a tactful way might do something to prevent problems later.
Kids on the farm see the animals humping, and normal boys get erections just from friction. Making body parts shameful, hidden, EVIL is a sure fire way to screw up someone's sense of how they should behave later in life. A teen that's unprepared is one that's gonna fly be the seat of his pants and end up being a daddy way before he thought it could happen. ("At marriage, right?")
So I'm clearly not advocating that Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice should be making the rounds with Your American Highway System filmstrips in school. Don't start by talking about horrible that suggestion is that I'm making, because I'm not. Because that's how people stop things from happening: creating a straw man of something ludicrous and then using that as an excuse for tossing out the whole idea without further consideration.
As a confirmed Right Wing Nutter myself, let me see if I can provide some illumination from my perspective. The desire is that the official government (taxpayer) funded schools should not instruct (indoctrinate) young (up to fourth grade) impressionable children about sex.
Using the word "indoctrinate" is as pejorative as using the word "illuminate" or whatever. If we take it back to the concept of whether or not kids in the single digits should understand how the body works, including sex, then we're playing the same game as "there really is a Santa Claus" and letting them live a lie. Boys and girls are certainly pointing at their pee-pees and... sorry, I don't have sisters so don't know what you folks would call them at that age...
and talking about them in a tactful way might do something to prevent problems later.
Kids on the farm see the animals humping, and normal boys get erections just from friction. Making body parts shameful, hidden, EVIL is a sure fire way to screw up someone's sense of how they should behave later in life. A teen that's unprepared is one that's gonna fly be the seat of his pants and end up being a daddy way before he thought it could happen. ("At marriage, right?")
So I'm clearly not advocating that Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice should be making the rounds with Your American Highway System filmstrips in school. So, folks, please don't start by talking about how horrible that suggestion is that I'm making, because I'm not talking about porn in the classroom. Because that's how people stop things from happening: creating a straw man of something ludicrous and then using that as an excuse for tossing out the whole idea without further consideration.
Bathroom smoking went out with Big Tobacco. This is 'don't say Gay' on little girls who are naturally curious about something that is soon to happen to them. Wait til Suzy lee tells the class that Maria talked about 'periods' during lunch. The teacher may be forced to remove Maria from class ... for potential calls to her parents?
This is being done because of what some parents want; not the majority. And the Right Wing is ready to give it to them, all under the 'moral' cloak of a twisted 'Convenient Store' Christianity.
Gimme a break SD, this right wing censorship of teachers, books and now little girls' speech is getting downright 1692. It has no place in governing. If parents don't like it, they can pay to send their delicate loin fruit to a Private school. Selective morality is what these monsters are pushing.
Missing the original point, of course. That point is that people can pass all the rules they want but it won't stop folks from doing what they want in secret until the laws change or get ignored.
Regarding private schools, they're a holdover from when people wanted segregated schools - but then also wanted the sweet guvmint money, so then they had to find another switch to flip, and that was religion. Roe v Wade wasn't even on the radar for more evangelical churches back in that day. They considered it to be a Catholic issue. But then the Right figured out how to mobilize that group of folks into a robotic voting bloc and then...well - if you want to know more, here's some info by one of my favorite listens, edited...by Brooke.
The Most Influential Christian Talk Radio Network You've Probably Never Heard of
No they haven't, the amendment only pertains to school instruct and materials. The 1st amendment of the constitution protects the children from having their own conversations.https://www.flsenate.gov/Sessi...
I mean maybe there is a weird stretch where you get it to mean that, but generally:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That's a no, I guess. Here, I'll link to an article you can read (Isabeau's link didn't work) and then maybe you can try again.
âSo if little girls experience their menstrual cycle in fifth grade or fourth grade, will that prohibit conversations from them since they are in the grade lower than sixth grade?â Gantt asked.
McClain responded, âIt would.â
Florida just criminalized 4th-grade girls from discussing menstruation amongst themselves. That you "doubt" that they're naturally interested in the subject is not germane or even credible. You may "wish" it, but that don't make it so.
No they haven't, the amendment only pertains to school instruct and materials. The 1st amendment of the constitution protects the children from having their own conversations. https://www.flsenate.gov/Sessi...
As a confirmed Right Wing Nutter myself, let me see if I can provide some illumination from my perspective. The desire is that the official government (taxpayer) funded schools should not instruct (indoctrinate) young (up to fourth grade) impressionable children about sex. There is no provision in the bill to prevent the children from discussing the subject among themselves, but somehow I doubt at that age they are all naturally interested in the subject. Oh, and if the teachers don't like it they are free to choose another profession, unlike the students whose primary education is mandated, by force.
That's a no, I guess. Here, I'll link to an article you can read (Isabeau's link didn't work) and then maybe you can try again.
âSo if little girls experience their menstrual cycle in fifth grade or fourth grade, will that prohibit conversations from them since they are in the grade lower than sixth grade?â Gantt asked.
McClain responded, âIt would.â
Florida just criminalized 4th-grade girls from discussing menstruation amongst themselves. That you "doubt" that they're naturally interested in the subject is not germane or even credible. You may "wish" it, but that don't make it so.
Bathroom smoking went out with Big Tobacco. This is 'don't say Gay' on little girls who are naturally curious about something that is soon to happen to them. Wait til Suzy lee tells the class that Maria talked about 'periods' during lunch. The teacher may be forced to remove Maria from class ... for potential calls to her parents?
This is being done because of what some parents want; not the majority. And the Right Wing is ready to give it to them, all under the 'moral' cloak of a twisted 'Convenient Store' Christianity.
Gimme a break SD, this right wing censorship of teachers, books and now little girls' speech is getting downright 1692. It has no place in governing. If parents don't like it, they can pay to send their delicate loin fruit to a Private school. Selective morality is what these monsters are pushing.
As a confirmed Right Wing Nutter myself, let me see if I can provide some illumination from my perspective. The desire is that the official government (taxpayer) funded schools should not instruct (indoctrinate) young (up to fourth grade) impressionable children about sex. There is no provision in the bill to prevent the children from discussing the subject among themselves, but somehow I doubt at that age they are all naturally interested in the subject. Oh, and if the teachers don't like it they are free to choose another profession, unlike the students whose primary education is mandated, by force.
As soon as they stop them from smoking the bathrooms Iâll believe this means something.
Bathroom smoking went out with Big Tobacco. This is 'don't say Gay' on little girls who are naturally curious about something that is soon to happen to them. Wait til Suzy lee tells the class that Maria talked about 'periods' during lunch. The teacher may be forced to remove Maria from class ... for potential calls to her parents?
This is being done because of what some parents want; not the majority. And the Right Wing is ready to give it to them, all under the 'moral' cloak of a twisted 'Convenient Store' Christianity.
Gimme a break SD, this right wing censorship of teachers, books and now little girls' speech is getting downright 1692. It has no place in governing. If parents don't like it, they can pay to send their delicate loin fruit to a Private school. Selective morality is what these monsters are pushing.
