Library Idiocy

[paradox]

Really? I don't think that you read that article. I am sure that you did not understand it.

If you're so good in reading my mind then tell me which portion I did not understand?

How much needs doing? Homosexuality is a natural and normal variation in human sexuality. This is based on scientific research.

- Homosexuality - Wikipedia

Sorry but wikipedia is not authoritative source, beside that it is known to contain misinformation and subjective content especially in politically motivated areas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you're so good in reading my mind then tell me which portion I did not understand?


Sorry but wikipedia is not authoritative source, beside that it is known to contain misinformation and subjective content especially in politically motivated areas.

The article as a whole since it does not support your claim.

Of course gay people were the ones that lobbied the most strongly for this. It only makes sense that the people falsely accused were the first to step up to the plate to defend themselves. They had to convince the DSM that they were not mentally ill. You tried to claim that it was only due to gay activists that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. They played a role, but the reason it was removed was because the vast majority of psychiatrists realized that they were right. And the article that you linked shows that.

If you think that that article supports your bogus claim you are very much mistaken.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but wikipedia is not authoritative source, beside that it is known to contain misinformation and subjective content especially in politically motivated areas.

LMAO! All sources have "misinformation" at times. But studies, and not just the studies of Wikipedia, have shown it to be a highly reliable source. The reason that it is is that anyone who qualifies can edit it. Qualifying is not that difficult, but it takes more effort than the average troll cares to spend to become a contributor. And people that post false information are punished. One can lose one's right to edit, Since it takes a bit of effort to earn that right people tend not to want to throw that right away.

I have generally found that those that have nothing at all to support their views are those that are most likely to attack Wikipedia. Your one article refuted your own claims. As I said, you either did not read it or you did not understand it. So far you have nothing, which only supports my claim about deniers of Wikipedia.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why do some believe there is an obligation to fund things one does not desire? It isn't censorship to say "I'm not going to pay for that."

 

[Secret Chief]

Sorry but wikipedia is not authoritative source, beside that it is known to contain misinformation and subjective content especially in politically motivated areas.

Fair enough.

"homosexuality ... common expression of human sexuality"

- homosexuality | Meaning, History, & Facts

"homosexuality exists in many animal species"

- Homosexuality in nature explained - PsychMechanics

"Is homosexuality natural? Yes."

- Is Homosexuality Natural? Yes. So is male lactation.

Britannica, Psychmechanics, Scientific American. Would you like a longer list?
What authoritative sources have you got?

 

[Truth in love]

There's a difference between pornography and a book that mentions LGBT themes.

This:https://www.amazon.com/My-Two-Moms-..._5?keywords=my+two+moms&qid=1659894744&sr=8-5 or this: https://www.amazon.com/My-Two-Moms-..._1?keywords=my+two+moms&qid=1659894784&sr=8-1 are not pornography. Hustler or Playboy would be pornographic material.

There are probably many cheap romance novels(from a heterosexual point of view) within that library that would border on being pornographic. Do you think they'd kick up a stink about those, too?

I don’t think any of it should be publicly funded or made available to children. ( I can’t speak to any double standards beyond knowing it is a real possibility).

your point is valid it may not be porn, not all of it is. However books which are offensive to the tax base are going to have problems. This is a core fail of making everything public.

 

[paradox]

I find lots of things disgusting that other people don't. I find eating jellyfish to be disgusting, but millions of Asians are fine with it. I don't demand they don't eat it in front of me. I just avoid it myself.

Surely you can find a better comparison than food, we are talking about flavors of sexuality, do you for example find pedophilia disgusting and if so would you consider allowing books about pedophilia in public library, this wouldn't abuse or harm anyone?

Are you sure? How about if we told the black community that books about them could not be included in the public library? Then why treat LGBTQ people differently? It is certainly abusive to be told that "books about your kind should not be seen by the public,"

Sorry but I'm not racist and definitely don't hold opinion that homosexuals should be treated in a racist way.
I did say that I find these books disgusting but it's only only that, these books also encourage young people to read them, but we know kids and young people don't develop personality until grown up.

Morality is excluded in all kinds of law-making. It pretty much never comes up when dealing with transportation infrastructure, for instance, or fiduciary laws for financial institutions.

Aren't laws that prohibit murder, pedophilia, torture etc. judged based on moral principles? don't these examples have all immoral behavior in common?

But even where you think it ought to be included, be damned sure it is MORALITY you are talking about. You see, the law does not deem being gay to be immoral. So to include that consideration in laws would be nothing more than codifying some people's personal opinions. And that would make for very bad law, indeed.

Did I say that being gay is immoral? you took this out of context in regard to previous posts.
My point about morality is that it is essential criteria in decision making in regards to laws but it is not the only criteria.

 

[SomeRandom]

I don’t think any of it should be publicly funded or made available to children. ( I can’t speak to any double standards beyond knowing it is a real possibility).

your point is valid it may not be porn, not all of it is. However books which are offensive to the tax base are going to have problems. This is a core fail of making everything public.

I mean in fairness, kids growing up on the internet these days don’t need a public library to encounter such ahem “problematic books.”

I suspect they encounter far worse on a daily basis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jamestown has a small population of 8,618. They can decide for themselves what books are appropriate for their own community.

Sounds great, until the community decides you're a witch who must die.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

US library defunded after refusing to censor LGBTQ authors: ‘We will not ban the books’

Entire library in a small town in MI has been defunded over an LGBTQ book, that was aimed at adults.

Legitimately in a Culture War at this point, and it's pathetic.

Sieg heil!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

your point is valid it may not be porn, not all of it is. However books which are offensive to the tax base are going to have problems. This is a core fail of making everything public.

So can we purge the Bible and all related texts from the shelves? Many consider it inappropriate for children, after all, and it's written in its own words that it wants very many of us dead.
The citizens just need to grow the hell up and accept opposing viewpoints and beliefs as the norm and a way of life, not the exception.

 

[Truth in love]

I mean in fairness, kids growing up on the internet these days don’t need a public library to encounter such ahem “problematic books.”

I suspect they encounter far worse on a daily basis.

yeah there is a lot of info out there of all sorts. The big question is what does the government pay to provide to them (and in some cases by passing parents)

 

[SomeRandom]

Surely you can find a better comparison than food, we are talking about flavors of sexuality, do you for example find pedophilia disgusting and if so would you consider allowing books about pedophilia in public library, this wouldn't abuse or harm anyone?

Ahem did you conveniently forget about Lolita? The book that is quite literally about a pedophile!
It’s also considered one of the best written English novels of the last 50 years or so. And is considered a classical text of modern literature.
You gonna ban classical literature now?

How about Romeo and Juliette?
That involves child predation by today’s standards. Romeo is roughly 14-17 depending on who you ask and even in the context of the play itself is more sexually experienced. Juliette meanwhile is like 12-14, depending on who you ask. And far less experienced and indeed very naive.
If it were written today, Romeo would likely be arrested for sexually abusing a minor.
You gonna argue that libraries ban Shakespeare of all people now?

Sorry but I'm not racist and definitely don't hold opinion that homosexuals should be treated in a racist way.
I did say that I find these books disgusting but it's only only that, these books also encourage young people to read them, but we know kids and young people don't develop personality until grown up.

And if it helps them understand themselves, what’s the harm exactly?

I swear folks seem terrified that youngsters will become more informed.
Do people fear kids seeing through their lies or something?

Aren't laws that prohibit murder, pedophilia, torture etc. judged based on moral principles? don't these examples have all immoral behavior in common?

Those all cause demonstrable harm, which we can even study. No morality needed to conclude that, really.
No modern reputable scientific study has concluded the same for homosexuality however.

Did I say that being gay is immoral? you took this out of context in regard to previous posts.
My point about morality is that it is essential criteria in decision making in regards to laws but it is not the only criteria.

I don’t think so. Secular countries base their laws upon what it deems to be harmful to society. Because it can’t accurately reflect the morality of every single person in society. That’s just reality.
Sometimes laws change. For better or worse. It’s always a work in progress.

 

[Truth in love]

So can we purge the Bible and all related texts from the shelves? Many consider it inappropriate for children, after all, and it's written in its own words that it wants very many of us dead.

That’s quite the straw man there. I don’t think libraries are a valid function of government. So I guess the best answer to your question is that it should be private and provide content based on an agreed upon system.

 

[SomeRandom]

yeah there is a lot of info out there of all sorts. The big question is what does the government pay to provide to them (and in some cases by passing parents)

Not sure.
But in a free society information should ideally be….well freely given honestly. I mean right?
An uneducated society is one that is easily controlled, after all

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The big question is what does the government pay to provide to them (and in some cases by passing parents)

When I was in high school we bypassed our parents on our own. One student didn't even try to hide it when he tried to hand in a permission form to watch whatever movie on the same day it was handed out.

 

[paradox]

The article as a whole since it does not support your claim.

Of course gay people were the ones that lobbied the most strongly for this. It only makes sense that the people falsely accused were the first to step up to the plate to defend themselves. They had to convince the DSM that they were not mentally ill. You tried to claim that it was only due to gay activists that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. They played a role, but the reason it was removed was because the vast majority of psychiatrists realized that they were right. And the article that you linked shows that.

If you think that that article supports your bogus claim you are very much mistaken.

I see you're talking about the article on how they got their rights, I posted it only because it is undeniable fact that gay protests are what made homosexuality to go out of code 302.

I've re-read the article and can't find what you're quoting so I suppose you have other sources but regardless it goes against you and LGBT protest, you said "It only makes sense that the people falsely accused were the first to step up to the plate to defend themselves" which means even if that's true then obviously diagnosis should have remained because false accusations are not reason for removal of homosexuality from sexual deviation but rather falsely accused should have been declared not "mentaly ill".
I'm quoting "mentally ill" because mental illenss can be either psychotic or non psychotic and homosexuality is non psychotic.

But then did you really read my other link which details what the diagnosis is about?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That’s quite the straw man there. I don’t think libraries are a valid function of government. So I guess the best answer to your question is that it should be private and provide content based on an agreed upon system.

They serve a great and tremendous service to the community. To say they aren't a valid function of the government is to deny the invaluable services libraries provide to the communities, and the Constitutionally the government is charged with promoting the general welfare of the public. If you think books are all a library does you haven't spent much time in them and don't know much about their operations and all the services they provide. Myself, right now I don't have a functioning printer at home so in addition to books the library is a cheap place to get necessary things printed.
And I still say that people need to grow the hell up and make it a point to read a book of opposing viewpoints that discusses a topic where one of those sides is really going to **** them off.

 

[SomeRandom]

When I was in high school we bypassed our parents on our own. One student didn't even try to hide it when he tried to hand in a permission form to watch whatever movie on the same day it was handed out.

Lmao what a legend!!!
I remember my history teacher catching a guy who forged his parents signature on his report card.
She seemed more upset at the fact that it wasn’t even a good forgery lol

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you're talking about the article on how they got their rights, I posted it only because it is undeniable fact that gay protests are what made homosexuality to go out of code 302.

I've re-read the article and can't find what you're quoting so I suppose you have other sources but regardless it goes against you and LGBT protest, you said "It only makes sense that the people falsely accused were the first to step up to the plate to defend themselves" which means even if that's true then obviously diagnosis should have remained because false accusations are not reason for removal of homosexuality from sexual deviation but rather falsely accused should have been declared not "mentaly ill".
I'm quoting "mentally ill" because mental illenss can be either psychotic or non psychotic and homosexuality is non psychotic.

But then did you really read my other link which details what the diagnosis is about?

This was our claim:

"The only reason it was removed is because of gay activists demanding it to be removed:"

You linked that article specifically to support that claim, but that article refuted it.