Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Even if that were true, does that make it okay?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Florida Now Banning Dictionaries & Encyclopedias
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Christian conservatives.
Hey, don't you remember that millions of people could hardly wait for the new "big store" delivery catalogues? We got to see real humans modeling underwear! Here in Canada, they were the Eaton's and Simpson's catalogues. I'm sure the US must have had them, but I have no idea what their names were.
But I'll tell you this -- if the government knew how Canadian boys were looking at those books, they'd have had a mass apoplexy!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Democrats.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Americans.
When all your parties are doing it and there is no legal way that a minority could fight this "moral panic" then you have an all American problem.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I don't recall them attempting to ban LGBT books, drag shows, non-christian religious displays, mandate school prayer and pledges, etc.
Enlighten me, then.
What is the Democratic Party's agenda? Besides LGBT and abortion (which are sex-related topics)?
Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse.
More Florida news:
www.cbsnews.com
The last part about anonymous sources being considered "presumptively false" would pretty much put the kibosh on whistleblowing.
Florida bill would make it defamation to accuse someone of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia
The bill, introduced in the Florida Senate on Friday, would make it easier for one person to sue another for defamation.
www.cbsnews.com
The last part about anonymous sources being considered "presumptively false" would pretty much put the kibosh on whistleblowing.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
Yikes... When literal encyclopedias and dictionaries become the enemy. Reminds me of Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia. It's pretty entertaining to take any topic at all from Wikipedia, no matter how innocuous, and to compare it to the Conservapedia counterpart. Here's what Wikipedia says about vestigiality
en.m.wikipedia.org
Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species.[1] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful, but if the lack of the feature provides no advantage, and its presence provides no disadvantage, the feature may not be phased out by natural selection and persist across species.
Boring, but factual and straight to the point. This is what Conservapedia has to say on "vestigial structures"
www.conservapedia.com
Vestigial structures are structures or organs that have been claimed by evolutionists as evolutionary "leftovers", that are no longer functional or have ceased to be used for their "original" function, and this has been used as evidence for evolution, as God would not have created useless structures and organs.[1]
Vestigial structures do not exist, and constitute fake news by atheists. The list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999,[1] as functions have been found for such organs. Moreover, the claims of vestigial organs or structures are not a scientific argument, but a false theological one.[2]
Wikipedia has work to do if they want to compete with "fake news by atheists"
Vestigiality - Wikipedia
Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species.[1] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful, but if the lack of the feature provides no advantage, and its presence provides no disadvantage, the feature may not be phased out by natural selection and persist across species.
Boring, but factual and straight to the point. This is what Conservapedia has to say on "vestigial structures"
Vestigial structures - Conservapedia
Vestigial structures are structures or organs that have been claimed by evolutionists as evolutionary "leftovers", that are no longer functional or have ceased to be used for their "original" function, and this has been used as evidence for evolution, as God would not have created useless structures and organs.[1]
Vestigial structures do not exist, and constitute fake news by atheists. The list of supposedly vestigial organs in humans has gone from 180 in 1890 to none in 1999,[1] as functions have been found for such organs. Moreover, the claims of vestigial organs or structures are not a scientific argument, but a false theological one.[2]
Wikipedia has work to do if they want to compete with "fake news by atheists"
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
The problem here is that was 2/3 years ago and after the public outcry and a 15 member review committee none were banned. Old news.WOW!
Just like the Democrats!
Seriously though it's actually a two party problem. Not just Republicans playing the nanny state.
When It Comes to Banning Books, Both Right and Left Are Guilty
The truth is, there is a moral panic on both sides when it comes to books.www.newsweek.com
Here's more current news from September last year.
California bans book bans
What's your purpose here....Enlighten me, then.
What is the Democratic Party's agenda? Besides LGBT and abortion (which are sex-related topics)?
Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse.
To defend banning books, dictionaries, & encyclopedias?
Or just to defend Republicans by attacking Democrats?
If the former, then OK.
If the latter, start your own thread.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
It's not the sex they're defending, it's the right to equal treatment for the LGBTQ community and women's right to bodily autonomy.Enlighten me, then.
What is the Democratic Party's agenda? Besides LGBT and abortion (which are sex-related topics)?
Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse.
Will any of them even notice?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
We could use the same "logic" and ask "What is the Republican Party's agenda? Besides opposing LGBT rights and reproductive right's (which are sex-related topics)? The democrats are trying to defend the rights and freedoms (there's their agenda) of women and those who are LGBT, while the republicans oppose their rights and freedoms due to conservative Christian views on sex.Enlighten me, then.
What is the Democratic Party's agenda? Besides LGBT and abortion (which are sex-related topics)?
Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse.
Here's some more info, as per your request: Party Platform - Democrats
Do you not understand how to use google? Do some research before making bizarre,, nonsensical presumptions about America or it's politics.
Well...We could use the same "logic" and ask "What is the Republican Party's agenda? Besides opposing LGBT rights and reproductive right's (which are sex-related topics)? The democrats are trying to defend the rights and freedoms (there's their agenda) of women and those who are LGBT, while the republicans oppose their rights and freedoms due to conservative Christian views on sex.
Here's some more info, as per your request: Party Platform - Democrats
Do you not understand how to use google? Do some research before making bizarre,, nonsensical presumptions about America or it's politics.
that platform sounds very good. But the only candidate who speaks of universal healthcare is RFK and I am going to endorse him.
RFK Jr for president.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
I don't care who you endorse. But you were just shown our platform. That means we have all or most of us have agreed with everything on it. I know I do. And any positive plug for a Democrat will be fine. It's too bad you're not a US citizen.Well...
that platform sounds very good. But the only candidate who speaks of universal healthcare is RFK and I am going to endorse him.
RFK Jr for president.
My point is that in Florida people ban such books because the Dems are obsessed with sex books, and do anything to make children read them.
I only endorse serious politicians. Like Sanders or Gabbard, or Kennedy.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Well...
that platform sounds very good. But the only candidate who speaks of universal healthcare is RFK and I am going to endorse him.
RFK Jr for president.
“Covid-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” - RFK jr.