April 7, 20223 yr 12 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Demonizing gay people by calling them not normal is kind of lame. By definition it's an abnormal behavior. Science dictates that not I. Is autism "normal"? Albinoism?
April 7, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Be definition it's an abnormal behavior. Science dictates that not I. Is autism "normal"? Albinoism? I don’t know. There are a lot of kids who are neuro-different for whatever reason. I wouldn’t tell the parents of an autistic child that their kid isn’t normal. Unless I really wanted to be a dick.
April 7, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: Unless I really wanted to be a dick. But would the statement be honest/accurate ? I know someone who's a high funtioning autistic with enough IQ points to cover the collective message board. That's not normal.
April 7, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, lynched1 said: But would the statement be honest/accurate ? I know someone who's a high funtioning autistic with enough IQ points to cover the collective message board. That's not normal. By percentages? I guess. But if I have a neurotypical teen and one that’s not I’m not going to tell one they’re not normal. And if I have one gay teen and one straight teen I’m also not going to tell one they’re not normal.
April 7, 20223 yr 21 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: By percentages? I guess. But if I have a neurotypical teen and one that’s not I’m not going to tell one they’re not normal. And if I have one gay teen and one straight teen I’m also not going to tell one they’re not normal. That is a parents choice and more importantly their (your) right. As much a right as it is for someone to be gay, left handed, or liberal (😏). On the other hand feelings one way or the other don't change the facts. Attempting to normalize the abnormal will get push back in every arena. Not even the supreme court can change that.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Which states teach sex education to K-3? In NY, it was being taught to first graders - is that close enough for you?
April 7, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Do you ever sit back and consider how silly the positions you take in here are? No because they aren’t silly.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Or yah know, kids of homosexual parents. It's 100% discrimination doc. It's a stupid ass law aimed at stupid ass people to capitalize on their stupid ass prejudices, and frankly I'm really disappointed to see you trying to minimize it. Absolutely pathetic. No one is being discriminated by not discussing sexual orientation with a 5yr old. It is a ridiculous position to take. You can say it is unnecessary or you can say there is some stupid virtue signaling or whatever. But there is no discrimination whatsoever occurring toward those kids simply because a school doesn’t discuss sexual orientation with them at those young ages.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: @DrPhilly this is the crap I'm talking about. People pointing out that "kids aren't being taught about gay sex in kindergarten" aren't doing it to point out that the bill is just redundant. They're doing it to point out that this bill isn't trying to protecting kids from sexual content. It's trying to reinforce that certain lifestyles are abnormal. It's to prevent even the incidental mentioning of homosexual relationships as to keep it classified as taboo. All to appeal to dipshits like trailer trash Spuds McKenzie here. You know full well that I don’t agree with Lynch but the bill itself isn’t discriminatory. Those pushing for it is a different story. I’ve been totally clear from the beginning where I stood. The bill shouldn’t exist and shouldn’t be passed. The entire thing is a huge waste of time and energy with both sides triggered and making all sorts of mental gymnastic type moves. It is pure political crap.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: I really don’t think elementary school kids care about having 2 moms or 2 dads as long as the parents love them. No one is teaching little kids that homosexuality is right (or wrong for that matter). Just like you don’t teach elementary school kids advanced Algebra or Chemistry. Totally agree and if some idiot state wanted to pass a law forbidding teaching algebra to a 5yr old you’d simply laugh.
April 7, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, DrPhilly said: You know full well that I don’t agree with Lynch Whew. 🤣🤣🤣
April 7, 20223 yr Just now, lynched1 said: Whew. 🤣🤣🤣 Rare I agree with you mate. Certainly not this one.
April 7, 20223 yr Just now, DrPhilly said: Rare I agree with you mate. Certainly not this one. All good. Moss and I never agree either but he's one of my favorite people in here.
April 7, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, lynched1 said: All good. Moss and I never agree either but he's one of my favorite people in here. Yep
April 7, 20223 yr Let's take a look again. The bill doesn't prevent teaching lgbqt specifically. What it does do is prevent teaching "sexual orientation". Any sexual orientation including heterosexual orientation. There isn't anything discriminatory about that. Stick to the "dog whistle" argument. That one is better. The other part which is pretty bad is the issue with clarity toward teachers. I'm not so sure it is possible to actually set a clear line here as to what would constitute a breech should the bill become law. A bad bill overall but not discriminatory.
April 7, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Let's take a look again. The bill doesn't prevent teaching lgbqt specifically. What it does do is prevent teaching "sexual orientation". Any sexual orientation including heterosexual orientation. There isn't anything discriminatory about that. Stick to the "dog whistle" argument. That one is better. Your facts are getting in the way of my entertainment. 😏
April 7, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, lynched1 said: Your facts are getting in the way of my entertainment. 😏 I'm one of the police officers around here ; to be clear "not a MOD" but rather just a numbnut poster calling bull sheet.
April 7, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, DrPhilly said: Let's take a look again. The bill doesn't prevent teaching lgbqt specifically. What it does do is prevent teaching "sexual orientation". Any sexual orientation including heterosexual orientation. There isn't anything discriminatory about that. Stick to the "dog whistle" argument. That one is better. The other part which is pretty bad is the issue with clarity toward teachers. I'm not so sure it is possible to actually set a clear line here as to what would constitute a breech should the bill become law. A bad bill overall but not discriminatory. That's kind of what half the letters in that acronym stand for. How are they going to address anything lgb without at least discussing sexual orientation? And again kids aren't being taught the intricacies of gays or straight sex in school. What this does is prevent teachers from answering when a kid asks "why does Timmy have 2 dads?". Or using any teaching material that has gay characters in it. Pretending as if this is going to be equally effect the heterosexual and homosexual population is wildly naive.
April 7, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Demonizing gay people by calling them not normal is kind of lame. Yep super lame.
April 7, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: That's kind of what half the letters in that acronym stand for. How are they going to address anything lgb without at least discussing sexual orientation? And again kids aren't being taught the intricacies of gays or straight sex in school. What this does is prevent teachers from answering when a kid asks "why does Timmy have 2 dads?". Or using any teaching material that has gay characters in it. Pretending as if this is going to be equally effect the heterosexual and homosexual population is wildly naive. It still isn't discrimination. If they were allowed to discuss "why Timmy has a dad and a mom" but not discuss "why Amy has two dads" then yeah but that's not what the bill implies. Also, nothing in the bill prevents a book with gay characters being taught. What's banned is discussing the character's sexual orientation. Those gay characters are just as normal as the straight characters in books so not sure why the character's sexual orientation or gender has to come into play for a 5yr old. Stupid bill. Shouldn't be in play. We can start by agreeing on that. Probably don't need to go further actually. Just get rid of it.
April 7, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, lynched1 said: Perhaps you shouldn't try so hard normalize it. It ain't normal. Neither is bragging about driving drunk but that never stopped you. Given a choice between the two, I'll gladly take the kid with two dads because at least they're not ignorant, low-life, pieces of ish. 8 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Or yah know, kids of homosexual parents. It's 100% discrimination doc. It's a stupid ass law aimed at stupid ass people to capitalize on their stupid ass prejudices, and frankly I'm really disappointed to see you trying to minimize it. Absolutely pathetic. You seriously can't be surprised. This is who he is.
April 7, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said: Neither is bragging about driving and working drunk but that never stopped you. Given a choice between the two, I'll gladly take the kid with two dads because at least they're not ignorant, low-life, pieces of ish. Fixed for clarification. Carry on.
April 7, 20223 yr 7 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Demonizing gay people by calling them not normal is kind of lame. But also very much on-brand for a moronic, backwoods, trump-voting pile of garbage.
April 7, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: It still isn't discrimination. If they were allowed to discuss "why Timmy has a dad and a mom" but not discuss "why Amy has two dads" then yeah but that's not what the bill implies. Also, nothing in the bill prevents a book with gay characters being taught. What's banned is discussing the character's sexual orientation. Those gay characters are just as normal as the straight characters in books so not sure why the character's sexual orientation or gender has to come into play for a 5yr old. Stupid bill. Shouldn't be in play. We can start by agreeing on that. Probably don't need to go further actually. Just get rid of it. Perhaps that's not what the writers of the bill imply, but it will be an unintended consequence. Some parent will complain that little Johnny's Kindergarten book has a character with two dads and is going to cite this bill why it cannot be allowed. The bill is so unspecific teachers don't know what they are and what they are not allowed to teach. I agree, the bill is unnecessary and it just creates more problems.
Create an account or sign in to comment