Poll of the Day > Florida went so far right that they went progressive left!

(+) Yeah! (+)

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Good thing they didn't make a homophobic law then.

Except for the fact that they did make a homophobic law

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You mean the politicians who are spreading propaganda so they can get votes by appearing to side with woke culture.

No. I mean normal people who arent homophobic who know about the law

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've given other reasons which you failed to refute.

And thats because I dont believe that other reasons. Im basing it on your post from both this and that other topic

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The "course of study" includes what they are learning.

Its part of it, yeah. But it sounds like they want to material more. Since teachers already usually told the parents what the kids were learning. And if you had good teacher, they encouraged the kids and the adults to talk more about what they learned that day

At this point, every time I get that notification that someone posted on this thread I just assume its you guys. And Im correct.

HornedLion posted...

At this point, every time I get that notification that someone posted on this thread I just assume its you guys. And Im correct.

Haha. Yeah

LinkPizza posted...

Then thats on your for being in the wrong topic. This topic was always about the homophobic part of the law that talks about basically hiding LGBTQ+ people away from kids because they deem them to young to learn basic things like some people are different, and thats ok So, that would be on you for talking about something different than what this topic was about.

My mistake. I thought this was about Florida's Parental Rights In Education bill.
What law were were you talking about?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My mistake. I thought this was about Florida's Parental Rights In Education bill.
What law were were you talking about?

The stuff that was talked about in the video. The video mentions a specific part of the law in the memo/template being shared. It says: The Florida House of Representatives has recently ruled that 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. Thats the part of the law people are talking about. If the law talks about anything else, who caress Because the only part people have been talking about in this topic is about that specific part of the law... You can pretend like you dont understand all you want, but that wouldnt be a good look for you if you did Youre the only person bringing up other parts of the law. No one cares about those parts. Many parts of the law are things that were either already happening at many schools, or things that could be made into their own law (or school policies). We were talking about a very specific part of the law. As in, the part mentioned in the video If you didnt understand something as simple as that, Idk what to tell you

LinkPizza posted...

It says: The Florida House of Representatives has recently ruled that 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. Thats the part of the law people are talking about.

Yes, that's in the Parental Rights In Education bill. That's what I've been talking about. What have you been talking about?

You keep saying there are things in the bill which are not.
You said things are not in the bill which are.
You brought up representation in media, safe spaces, bullying, and implied young children would have enough artistic talent to draw two people kissing.

You accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I genuinely don't understand your meaning. Yet you have repeatedly strawmaned my arguments despite telling you that you have missed the point of what I said.

You say I don't understand context clues, but everything has lead me to believe I'm looking at a larger context than you are.

Heck, I was responding to the OP when you first quoted me. Doesn't that mean it falls of you to understand what the subject was?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Yes, that's in the Parental Rights In Education bill. That's what I've been talking about. What have you been talking about?

You keep saying there are things in the bill which are not.
You said things are not in the bill which are.
You brought up representation in media, safe spaces, bullying, and implied young children would have enough artistic talent to draw two people kissing.

You accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I genuinely don't understand your meaning. Yet you have repeatedly strawmaned my arguments despite telling you that you have missed the point of what I said.

You say I don't understand context clues, but everything has lead me to believe I'm looking at a larger context than you are.

Heck, I was responding to the OP when you first quoted me. Doesn't that mean it falls of you to understand what the subject was?

Like I said, Ive been talking about that specific part of the bill instead of the whole thing. And only that specific part. If you read the other comments, youd understand that. But you arent interested in arguing in good faith. You keep bringing up other parts of the bills that no one cares about. People care about this one specific part All the other stuff you have been bringing up about other parts of that law arent important to our discussion Because those arent the parts people are talking about. So, they can be their own law

As for bringing up stuff that isnt in the bill is because we started talking about normalizing it. I said earlier in the conversation that this bill is moving backwards, while most normal and non-homophobic people are trying to move forward. And one way of moving forward is helping to normalize people part of LGBTQ+ community But the specific comment that got us started on talking about it more was when I said When youre trying to hide is away from kids the way these parents do, they certain do make them feel less than human. We have to fight hard to even get representation in the media. And even when we do, they still dont like it. Sometimes, they boycott anything that portrays gay couples. Safe spaces was from the other topic, which was brought up when I told about why I tagged you what I did. And for the kids drawings, I never said kids would be artistic to draw to people kissing, so youre a liar, as well. What I said was, It doesnt need to be an artist level. Especially since in the end, they describe it, anyway Some maybe could draw them well enough, but not all of them. But I basically said their drawing skills didnt matter. And that was talking about how kids understand relationships since some people (like you and one other guy) dont seem to understand that kids do understand basic parts of relationships And in the end, all of those deal with the bill in the way we were talking about it. And bloomed from conversations of the actual topic. As for you bringing up other parts of the law, that was unneeded. Nobody was saying that those parts needed to go. Nobody was fighting against those specific parts. So, defending them is waste of time since thats not was this conversation is about. If they change the homophobic part of the law, but left the other stuff, people would be fine with that

The way youre talking and saying stuff shows the bad faith argument. Most of the things Ive said can only be taken in one way. If its really that hard to understand what Im saying, it seems like maybe you shouldnt be having the conversation in the first place. I havent said many things, if any, that would be hard to understand for most normal people. And even if there were stuff that would be easier to confuse, Id accept that. But most of the stuff you got confused were things that shouldnt have been easy to misinterpret. Which seems more like bad faith that simple misunderstanding That said, I dont remember strawmanning you

and you are absolutely missing context clues. For example, when I was talking about gender reassignment surgery vs gender identity. Everyone else seemed to understand (possibly due to context clues) that I was talking about gender reassignment surgery when I said sex. Where you went to gender identity instead And there were other cases, too Sometimes, you didnt seem to understand context clues. Other times, it seemed like you were arguing in bad faith. And I usually mentioned which one I thought it was

And I understood the subject. But you quoted one specific part of that first quote. Basically saying it was course correction. And since the topics main focus was on the part of the law which dealt with gender, sex, sexual orientation, etc, that makes it sound really homophobic Mix that with what you were saying in the other topic, and thats why I figure you homophobic

LinkPizza posted...

Ive been talking about that specific part of the bill instead of the whole thing.

Then let's look specifically at that and see how our debate has related to it.

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.

- You talk about a Give an inch, take a mile mentality".
- I referenced events where a mile has already been taken and this bill is aimed at putting a stop to that. Thus my conclusion that it was a course correction for something else that has gone in the wrong direction.

- You said people have to hide talks about sexual orientation.
- The part we're looking at doesn't say they can't talk about it.

- You mentioned the law is just trying to push gay and trans rights further back.
- The part we're looking at doesn't distinguish between sexual orientations or gender identities. It applies to straight and cis equally as much as it applies to all others.

- You said "the intent is to keep kids uninformed of anything thats not normal.
- You're only looking at a small part of the bill that you take issue with. You can't discern the intent from that because you're ignoring parts of the bill that are more relevant to it's purpose.

Direct example:
I said "The parents are the main focus."
You said "They arent for me."

As you once argued, Key words: to me.

- You argued some parts can be their own law. Schools can implement them as a policy on their own without making it a law. And a good teacher will do certain things without having to be told to.
- The law was written with a purpose which you're ignoring. Individual parts of the law support that purpose. Many schools are good and many teachers are good, but some aren't. The purpose of the law and the intent behind the parts which support that purpose is to address the schools and teachers that aren't good.

There was a side discussion of your opinion of me that I'm going to count as irrelevant to the subject.

There was a side discussion about what is age appropriate. I would say that is relevant to the subject. Some of your suggestions I thought were age appropriate. Others I thought would confuse children at that age. But due to you suggesting that a doctor is needed to transition between "man" and "woman" (the genders); me trying to continue on as if I understood what you meant; and a disagreement in the LGBTQ+ Community if there are biological differences for a doctor to alter; that went nowhere.

We disagree on if talking about something in class would qualify as a classroom instruction. While this is relevant the subject we are at an impasse in discussing it. I presume we both perceive the other as being too biased to talk about it rationally.

There was a side discussion about what is child abuse. This is not relevant to the subject as it was stated. But it is very relevant to understanding the subject. I think this is the most relevant to the intent of the bill. It is also the hardest part to grasp when looking at just a part of it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

~snip~

Ok. Ill start with the bullet points you pointed out.
-I did mention give and inch, take a mile mentality. As in, if we let them start with stuff like you cant talk about gay people, how far will they go afterwards We have been getting more rights to where people treat us like people. So, why should we start letting them take rights away
-All you said was, No, things have gone in the wrong direction. This is the course correction. Since my whole point was things have been going on the right direction because people who are part of the LGBTQ+ community have been getting more rights, that means that the course correction you were talking about would be taking rights away from gay people. That, mixed with the other topic, it why you seemed very homophobic. I dont remember you referencing where this mile has been taken, though

-With this rule, they wont be able to talk about sexual orientation. But I dont remember saying they had to hide talks about it. However, I did say, Id feel awful if I had to hide myself away. Maybe thats what youre talking about.
-And the part says they can teach about it. Discussion teacher in a form of teacher. Therefore, they are not allowed to talk about it. And teachers know that. Which is why they wont be allowed to talk about it since they cant teach about it

-And pretty much most people who arent homophobic can see that it is trying to push trans and gay rights back further. The law was made around the day time as these Anti-trans laws that have been popping up recently
-It doesnt distinguish because that would be outright bigotry in a law. So, they pretend they are stopping all discussion about it instead. And if you discuss it, you get in trouble. But those same homophobic people who would say something if they heard a teacher talking about a gay or trans person wouldnt say anything if they heard the teacher talking about a regular relationship. Theyd probably say something like, Its fine. Its a natural part of life. Which is the problem. Many parents are fine with one and not the other They have to basically hide bigotry in their law behind being equal. But nobody is going to get mad at the teacher for talking about what they consider a normal relationship

-And that is their intent. They are trying to keep the non-normal things away from kids. Kind of like how its always been. Nobody taught me what gay was in school. I heard it from friends during recess and when hanging out. But the time we were old to enough to ask about it in class, everybody had a negative look on it. And people got called it when they werent gay. If they learn about being gay and acceptance earlier, things would have probably been much better
-And of course Im only looking at the part of the bill I take a problem with. Thats the only part thats important to me. To most people. Maybe it seem small to you because youre not gay, but it is a big part to me. Because I know how many, many, many gay people felt when younger. Not only have I talked to many gay people I know it real life (I sleep with a lot of gay guy), but I talk to people on this site and Reddit about it, too Being able to learn about this early, and for acceptance for it to be taught earlier, would have help many of us. Not only to understand who we were, but to also help us to be ourselves earlier And if the other part was their purpose, they should have made that a law by itself. Why add in the homophobic part

For you direct example, thats not a strawman. The whole time, Ive been trolling about the kids learning about sexual orientation and stuff. The conversation was ALWAYS about the kids. I even said multiple times earlier, I dont care about the adults. I said they shouldnt have any say over what the kids learn if they sent them to school So, I dont see how me saying the parents arent the main focus for me is a strawman, when Ive basically been saying that the whole time

As for the keywords, I said to me because you were talking to me Other people take different stances on whats the main focus on the law. The kids not learning, having to hide themselves, and being bullied in the most important part to me. Other who dont like the law have other main focus. Some dont like the homophobic parents who are helping this law to exist, for example. To them, the parents are the important part. Thats why I said, to me. But most people feel the same. People have been talking about it. Its a pretty dumb and homophobic law It does nothing to help anyone. And only goes to set back gay rights many years

-And all of that is true. The part of the law you like, and the part of the law I dont like could be different laws. They deal with different things, so they could be different laws. The problem is getting both laws approved. They know that people normally wouldnt approve of the law I dont like because its pretty bad. But would probably approve of the law you like since it could be helpful. But if the laws were split up, the ones you liked would get approve, but probably not the one I dont like. And they couldnt have that. So, they put them together. Its not the first time they have tried to do stuff like this, either They out multiple things in a bill trying to get multiple things approve at once because they know others wouldnt go for certain things by themselves. And schools could implement their own school policies. Many already do. Most schools I went to for elementary school have this agenda books where we put in stuff we talked about. And would also send things home weekly about whats going on at school. They could call parents about different stuff happening. They had PTA meetings where they talked about it. And encourage different parents to chaperone fields trips to talk to many of them And good teachers do know how to do stuff on their own. Many like to get parents involved because it can help with discussion. And can even give a little insight on the parents, tbh
-Im ignoring other parts of the law because those arent the parts we are talking about. The whole law isnt the issue. Only part of it is an issue. So thats the part Im talking about. And this law isnt going to make the bad schools and teacher better. Most will still be bad. The law only matters if theyre caught. And if its a bad school with bad teachers, they could technically hide the bad stuff they do. This law doesnt actually fix this. It adds legal consequences. But legal consequences only matter if they are caught. And technically, many things already had legal consequences. But instead of jail, it would be losing their job, and license to teach or whatever its call So, if this law was to address the bad schools and teachers, it will most likely do a shitty job

But the side discussion actually isnt irrelevant, though. Thats actually kind of important, too

(Continued in next post)

(Continued from previous post)

When it comes to age appropriate, thats another way to keep people from talking about sexual orientation and then like. Parents can easily say something isnt age appropriate and say they dont want their kid learning. Kind of like how some parents didnt want their kid learning sex ed, even if they were literally going through puberty They would most likely be able to do the same thing now And are you saying you dont need a doctor for gender reassignment. Because you do. Thats it a fact. If you want to surgically change your genitals. And telling them they need a doctor wouldnt confuse them You need a doctor for a lot of things, and they would probably understand thatAnd not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community agrees on everything. But thats no difference from the rest of the world. Not everyone will always agree

We disagree on that, but talking about it in a classroom is literally teaching. Its literally call discussion teaching. Trying to find a loophole by pretending its not is not only a shitty thing to do (which would fit into the bad teacher category you were talking about because people are trying so hard to break Burke without breaking it), but its walking a fine line. And one that might not work in their favor due to certain parents And I dont really think this is a bias thing. Discussion teaching is a literal thing. Ive done them plenty of times at school. It was one of my favorite teaching methods (usually for things other than math) But in the end, its a literal way of teaching. So, in that case, they could easily get in trouble. Legally, the law would be against them since they would see the discussion as a form of discussion teaching. Therefore, it would be illegal

As for the child abuse, this bill does nothing to stop it. You keep mentioning that the bills is to tell parents about what they are learning, and the material they learned it from. But that doesnt stoop any kind of child abuse Like at all

So did anybody find proof the image was real?

If people are paying attention, every Red State in the union is turning the clock back.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It stops child abuse by keeping parents informed.
I clearly said that teaching about sexuality at that age is child abuse.
You're calling any argument homophobic regardless of the motivation behind it.

Normal people like them aren't in the light that much. They will find it strange that so much attention is being called to this.

You normalize something by not singling it out. For example, can you think of a time where people ever needed to raise awareness of fire hydrants aside from not parking in front of one. You probably pass by them all the time without giving them a thought. That's because no one is trying to draw your attention to them. It's sounds like that's what yo want for the LGBTQ+ community. For people to leave them be and not think much of them being there. Except your method for achieving that is to keep pointing at them saying there they are.

Well shit, so do I. I thought everyone felt that way.

I honestly wouldn't pay you any mind except for your argument that you're set apart from everyone else. What you have described about what you makes you so different actually sounds like the normal experience to me.

I don't care if people like me are shown on TV. I just want to be entertained with a good story. It doesn't matter to me who that story is happening to. You mentioned backlash because of representation being introduced. Well, I don't think it's because of who is being represented as you said. I think it's because the representation is taking priority over being entertaining, or writing a good character, or advertisers telling you about their product.

That would be a discussion. That is allowed by this law. It is not class instruction about getting a divorce and marrying a new partner.

Except LGBT+ feeling devalued comes in tandem with them likely to be murdered for being LGBT+. You just feel depressed for no reason other than you want sympathy. This means you need to STFU and go the fuck away.

BUMPED2002 posted...

If people are paying attention, every Red State in the union is turning the clock back.

As soon as the Democrats allow the Red States to secede I will gladly move north. I will laugh my ass off as I watch them try to succeed as a nation on their own and fail spectacularly.

Arcturusisnow posted...

As soon as the Democrats allow the Red States to secede I will gladly move north. I will laugh my ass off as I watch them try to succeed as a nation on their own and fail spectacularly.

Remember how much Kentucky and other red states suck away at our budget, meanwhile NY nets us money?

Haha, let the idiots create their own country. Theyll establish their own trade with other nations and watch the Ship Port of Idaho become a powerhouse.

But seriously, at this point I just wish they would. Then theyd see that with the absence of the left, minorities, homosexuals, etc., their own problems still exist. And maybe then theyd grow a fucking brain.

HornedLion posted...

Remember how much Kentucky and other red states suck away at our budget, meanwhile NY nets us money?

Haha, let the idiots create their own country. Theyll establish their own trade with other nations and watch the Ship Port of Idaho become a powerhouse.

But seriously, at this point I just wish they would. Then theyd see that with the absence of the left, minorities, homosexuals, etc., their own problems still exist. And maybe then theyd grow a fucking brain.

They would almost immediately become a third world nation and probably start terrorist attacks in the name of Trump Jesus

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/1/9/AAZslrAADKM7.jpg

Can we talk about how Florida Republicans just punished Disney for exercising their right to free speech?
For the Right, it's "free speech, unless it's speech we don't like."

Zareth posted...

Can we talk about how Florida Republicans just punished Disney for exercising their right to free speech?
For the Right, it's "free speech, unless it's speech we don't like."

Why do any company need their own government?