Florida Now Banning Dictionaries & Encyclopedias

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The complaints I suspect were less than legitimate and more of convenience or fear: Parents complaining about sexuality in books are either unwilling to address these issues in their household and want their children to remain ignorant or they are scared by fearmongering politicians weaponizing buzzwords like "woke," "agendas," and, what's that new one? "Transing"?

Or maybe like myself they teach about sexuality at home and don't think it should be taught at school.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or maybe like myself they teach about sexuality at home and don't think it should be taught at school.

Hardly anyone does teach their kids about sex.
And again, dictionaries and encyclopedias aren't pornograohic or sexual.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Hardly anyone does teach their kids about sex.

Many do.

And again, dictionaries and encyclopedias aren't pornograohic or sexual.

I never said they were.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many do.

Very few. Only about 25% according to a human sexuality textbook (Human Sexuality, King).
And you didn't say they're pornographic, but you mentioned sexuality regarding dictionaries being removed for apparently being pornographic.

 

[Father Heathen]

You state as a fact that they aren't pornographic even though you don't say you've seen the ones in question. And your statement is contrary to those of the Library staff that determined they could be. Implying you know better than the Library staff even though you haven't even seen them and they have seen them and they have a duty to determine correctly whether they are. If those encyclopedias and dictionaries are not pornographic then the Library staff is at fault for removing them, no one else. And children need to be protected from incompetent or nefarious librarians. More than some made up rightwing "boogie man" of yours.

FFS... pornographic encyclopedias and dictionaries? Really? Some fundie prudes might think an anatomical diagram is "pornographic", but such a view doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and has no place in education.

The only "boogie man" is the collection of books that are targeted by a conservative lead witch hunt.

 

[Father Heathen]

What is the price of a child's damaged psyche?

Where is the evidence that any of these books "damaged a child's psyche"?

 

[Father Heathen]

Au contraire. I am only questioning those librarians who would do the things I described. Most librarians are conscientious. However you are putting all Librarians above reproach as if they are all angels incapable of every suffering from human foibles or bad motives. Save your faux indignation. It is sad.

No. What you're doing is grasping for straws out of futile desperation in a feeble attempt the defend the actions of dopey scumbags who hate LGBT and liberty.

 

[Shaul]

Doubtful.

There is similar legislation already in place, which the new legislation expands upon ...


The Individual Freedom Act, commonly known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and abbreviated to the Stop WOKE Act, is a Florida state law which regulates the content of instruction and training in schools and workplaces. Among other provisions, it prohibits instruction that individuals share responsibility for others' past actions by virtue of their race, sex or national origin.[1] After passing both chambers of the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature along party lines, it was signed by Governor Ron DeSantis on April 22, 2022, and entered into effect July 1 the same year.[2]



This law just takes the last one to new levels (of stupid).

• "Part of the legislation, known as HB 1069, "expands parental rights in education by prohibiting classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in Pre-K through 8th grade," according to the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R)."

In your post #136 you suggested they wouldn't do this without this new law. In my post #137 I explained people already were before this law. Now you move on past this point without even acknowledging you are wrong.
The new law expands parental rights but it reduces (actually eliminates) the ability of students and residents to object to materials.

 

[Shaul]

No. What you're doing is grasping for straws out of futile desperation in a feeble attempt the defend the actions of dopey scumbags who hate LGBT and liberty.

So you can't defend your arguments so you resort to ad hominem attacks in the end.

 

[Father Heathen]

So you can't defend your arguments

Actually, I've done so with ease.

so you resort to ad hominem attacks in the end.

But is it really an hominem to point out that someone's defense of something is a weak, desperate scramble?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Very few. Only about 25% according to a human sexuality textbook (Human Sexuality, King).
And you didn't say they're pornographic, but you mentioned sexuality regarding dictionaries being removed for apparently being pornographic.

I never advocated removing dictionaries.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In your post #136 you suggested they wouldn't do this without this new law. In my post #137 I explained people already were before this law. Now you move on past this point without even acknowledging you are wrong.

I've pointed out twice now that the new law is just a further expansion of the previous law.

The new law expands parental rights but it reduces (actually eliminates) the ability of students and residents to object to materials.

So? Parents can and are objecting.

 

[Shaul]

FFS... pornographic encyclopedias and dictionaries? Really? Some fundie prudes might think an anatomical diagram is "pornographic", but such a view doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and has no place in education.

The only "boogie man" is the collection of books that are targeted by a conservative lead witch hunt.

If you doubt it, why don't you take it up with the Library staff that think they might be?

 

[Shaul]

Where is the evidence that any of these books "damaged a child's psyche"?

The evidence is that states have laws against exposing children, who are developmentally not capable of handling such materials, to pornography. But the better question is, why are you so willing to risk damaging children's psyche with pornographic materials?

 

[Shaul]

I've pointed out twice now that the new law is just a further expansion of the previous law.

But it isn't. It makes several significant changes. It eliminates who can file an objection and the manner in which such objections are handled. So you are wrong to "point out" something that isn't true.

So? Parents can and are objecting.

The "so" is that outsiders (random residents) cannot make objections as they could before. That is a quite significant difference. One you want to ignore, for some reason.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you doubt it, why don't you take it up with the Library staff that think they might be?

"If you don't like students not paying their loans, why don't you take it up with the students?"

 

[Father Heathen]

The evidence is that states have laws against exposing children, who are developmentally not capable of handling such materials, to pornography. But the better question is, why are you so willing to risk damaging children's psyche with pornographic materials?

Some people consider The Statue of David to be "pornographic", which is absolutely absurd. Do you think The Statue of David magically causes damage to children's psyche? I think teaching children to be ashamed of the human body is far more psychologically damaging.

Spoiler: Avert your eyes from that peepee!

 

[Shaul]

"If you don't like students not paying their loans, why don't you take it up with the students?"

I would if any student owed me money. But I haven't lent any money as student loans. But if anyone wants me to pay off a loan, through the public treasury, I have nothing to do with, they can pound sand.

 

[Shaul]

Some people consider The Statue of David to be "pornographic", which is absolutely absurd. Do you think The Statue of David magically causes damage to children's psyche? I think teaching children to be ashamed of the human body is far more psychologically damaging.

Spoiler: Avert your eyes from that peepee!

I think you should read the actual Florida statutes. Then you might understand the real issues.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The evidence is that states have laws against exposing children, who are developmentally not capable of handling such materials, to pornography. But the better question is, why are you so willing to risk damaging children's psyche with pornographic materials?

Um, that's not evidence that any of these books "damaged a child's psyche,"
And in your second sentence you just doubled down on your claim.