'Challenges our authority': School board in Florida bans book about book bans

[wing2000]

My parents stopped going to the library with me when I was about 12. The only reason they went with me so long is that they wanted to get books out too.

Same here.

My parents trusted me to make the right choices by age 12.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back.

-CryptoLUtheran

You came in swinging and all I had to do to scare you off was not flinch.

Doesn't that make you feel lousy?

 

[Zaha Torte]

You're just going to ignore how you already exposed your motivation?

The motivations behind "these activists" is to have the conversation when it is age-appropriate and necessary because the parents may not be well-informed enough or motivated enough to do it.

That isn't what you said before.

In Post #119 you said, "It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it."

You and other activists are not trying to pick up any "slack" that parents are supposedly leaving - but to install your morality on students before the parents do.

This is why the activists are pushing to introduce the race and "gender" ideologies as early as possible.

And I am having difficulty seeing when any conversation about these topics is ever necessary between a teacher and my child.

Children reach sexual maturity gradually, just as they mature in all other ways.

Parents are more aware of this than anyone.

Which is why you should leave some more sensitive topics to the parents.

There is no magical period of sexual innocence which continues until puberty when the child's sexuality turns on like a light.

Explain this to me - because it sounds like you are saying that children do not experience any period of "sexual innocence".

It sounds like you are claiming that children always have a sexuality and that it should be a topic of discussion in the classroom.

Forcing that period on them is a form of indoctrination.

You believe that parents who want to preserve their children's innocence are forcing something on them?

What does that say about the teachers that keep wanting to talk about race and "gender"?

By the time a child is in the sixth grade, many of his fellow students will already be sexually active, even if only to the point of masturbation; some of the girls will be menstruating and there will already be kids who think they're going to be gay or trans and they talk to each other about it.

That is part of growing up and having friends.

It only gets weird when adults who are not the children's parents start talking about the sexuality of their children and the sexual acts they commit.

If you refuse to explain to your kids what these things are, beyond that they are evil and we should pretend they don't happen, that's a form of indoctrination as well.

First and foremost - parents and guardians are the only adults who can "indoctrinate" or teach beliefs (such as morality) to their children.

If you want to indoctrinate children - have your own. The students in the classroom are there to receive an education - not to be indoctrinated.

Second - you assume that because I don't want you talking to my children about their sexuality or the sex acts they may be committing - that does not mean that I am not having those conversations with them.

Why do you feel the need to trivialize my position as a parent by claiming that I am somehow too ill-equipped, ignorant or lazy to prepare my children for these things?

Why are you so convinced that teachers are the best candidates for that kind of discussion with my children?

My children already know about these things - and they know that they are not what God would have for His children - and I am confident that they will act responsibly and appropriately.

That being said - teachers should not be having discussions about these things with their students or trying to introduce LGBT nonsense in the classroom.

I am very surprised that you decided to continue talking after you exposed your hand before - goes to show that our schools aren't teaching shame and accountability.

 

[Bradskii]

So, if I cannot find a certain book in a particular library - it was "banned"?

You literally said that if a book was banned then calling it book banning was dishonest. That's like saying that if you go out hunting ducks then calling it duck hunting is dishonest.

 

[Bradskii]

You and other activists are not trying to pick up any "slack" that parents are supposedly leaving - but to install your morality on students before the parents do.

I thought you were just going to tell your kids not to read those sort of books. What happened?

 

[A2SG]

The motivation behind these activists is to have those "difficult conversation" with your children before you do - so they can install their morality in them.

Yeah, I know. Fortunately, my kid knows better than to listen to these moralistic busybodies.

This is why they try to expose younger and younger children to inappropriate content - to force those conversations.

You know, this argument would carry a lot more weight if you had actual evidence to show this to actually be the case. Say, identify one person who specifically claims to be doing this, for that reason.

Otherwise, well, I can't be sure you didn't just make it all up. Frankly, it sounds made up.

Because, from where I'm sitting, the only people trying to force any agenda on anyone is the moralistic busybodies trying to ban books that conflict with their agenda. And they've admitted it themselves.

-- A2SG, what's so wrong about "teaching rebellion of school board authority" anyway....

 

[Zaha Torte]

You literally said that if a book was banned then calling it book banning was dishonest. That's like saying that if you go out hunting ducks then calling it duck hunting is dishonest.

Yes - the claim is dishonest.

If you cannot hunt ducks in a wildlife preserve - that does not mean that the government has banned duck hunting - just hunt them somewhere else.

Just like if public schools decide not to include certain books - that does not mean that the government has banned said books - just go find them and read them somewhere else.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I thought you were just going to tell your kids not to read those sort of books. What happened?

Read Post #119. That is what happened. I referenced it in my post - so I don't know how you missed it.

 

[Bradskii]

Just like if public schools decide not to include certain books

By, as you said, banning them.

- that does not mean that the government has banned said books...

No. Because, as you said, it would be the local public school.

 

[Bradskii]

Read Post #119. That is what happened. I referenced it in my post - so I don't know how you missed it.

What, they bring a book home and you don't check to see what they're reading? I'm afraid that then becomes your fault.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Yeah, I know. Fortunately, my kid knows better than to listen to these moralistic busybodies.

You believe that not wanting certain topics to be discussed is the same as installing morality?

You know, this argument would carry a lot more weight if you had actual evidence to show this to actually be the case. Say, identify one person who specifically claims to be doing this, for that reason.

Otherwise, well, I can't be sure you didn't just make it all up. Frankly, it sounds made up.

Because, from where I'm sitting, the only people trying to force any agenda on anyone is the moralistic busybodies trying to ban books that conflict with their agenda. And they've admitted it themselves.

-- A2SG, what's so wrong about "teaching rebellion of school board authority" anyway....

I understand that you might be unfamiliar with things like the internet or TikTok - where teachers and administrators openly discuss their goals and motivations for indoctrinating their students with CRT and "gender" ideology.

You should look up "LibsofTikTok" on Youtube - because they find all these videos that these adults post online and make compilation videos and repost them - so people can see for themselves.

Also many people are trying to introduce talks about sexuality earlier and earlier - as early as Kindergarten - possibly younger.

The case for starting sex education in kindergarten

In the Netherlands, the approach, known as “comprehensive sex education,” starts as early as age 4. You'll never hear an explicit reference to sex in a kindergarten class. The goal is bigger than that. It’s about having open, honest conversations about love and relationships.

www.pbs.org

Experts: Sex Education Should Begin in Kindergarten

First-of-its-kind research shows sex education yields positive outcomes beyond STD and pregnancy prevention

www.montclair.edu

 

[Zaha Torte]

By, as you said, banning them.

No. Because, as you said, it would be the local public school.

Public schools are government organizations.

Any claim that a book being banned from the public-school library stops a child from reading said book is false.

 

[Zaha Torte]

What, they bring a book home and you don't check to see what they're reading? I'm afraid that then becomes your fault.

There is an expectation that parents have that their children are not being introduced to graphic sexual content at school.

You should actually read Post #119 and my response to it in Post #127.

 

[Bradskii]

Public schools are government organizations.

Individually run. You said the government banned them. They didn't. I think Biden has more important things to worry about that checking to see what your kids are reading. We leave that to librarians and parents.

Any claim that a book being banned from the public-school library stops a child from reading said book is false.

Hey, so it is. Has somebody made that claim? What an idiot. But I'm glad that you still recognise that books are being banned (aka book banning).

 

[Bradskii]

There is an expectation that parents have that their children are not being introduced to graphic sexual content at school.

The kid is going to bring the book home. Discuss it with him or her there. Or, if you want to be proactive about it, tell your kid that you want to know what book he intends taking out of the library a day in advance. Or if you really want to go full bore then get a list of books from the library and tell your kid which ones are verboten.

Other parents, in each case, can decide what's best for their children without you dictating what's available to them.

 

[A2SG]

You believe that not wanting certain topics to be discussed is the same as installing morality?

Yes, censorship is a form of imposing one's own morality on others. Especially when censoring comes from a moralistic stance.

I understand that you might be unfamiliar with things like the internet or TikTok - where teachers and administrators openly discuss their goals and motivations for indoctrinating their students with CRT and "gender" ideology.

Out of curiosity, do they specifically call it "indoctrinating", or are these educators trying to educate?

You should look up "LibsofTikTok" on Youtube - because they find all these videos that these adults post online and make compilation videos and repost them - so people can see for themselves.

Also many people are trying to introduce talks about sexuality earlier and earlier - as early as Kindergarten - possibly younger.

The case for starting sex education in kindergarten

In the Netherlands, the approach, known as “comprehensive sex education,” starts as early as age 4. You'll never hear an explicit reference to sex in a kindergarten class. The goal is bigger than that. It’s about having open, honest conversations about love and relationships.

www.pbs.org

Experts: Sex Education Should Begin in Kindergarten

First-of-its-kind research shows sex education yields positive outcomes beyond STD and pregnancy prevention

www.montclair.edu

But your claim was that they were trying to "expose younger and younger children to inappropriate content". What's inappropriate about sex education? Neither of the articles you posted provided any content I'd consider inappropriate.

Y'see, my objection is with people deciding what is or isn't appropriate for me. I make that call myself, thank you very much. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with discussing sexuality with kids, especially if they've started to become curious about it, as young kids often are.

Is this just a case of you finding something to be inappropriate, so you're advocating for limiting exposure to it for others?

-- A2SG, you're not one of those moralistic busybodies, are you?

 

[BCP1928]

You're just going to ignore how you already exposed your motivation?

That isn't what you said before.

In Post #119 you said, "It's not necessarily offensive to children--that's not the problem. The problem is that they might read it before someone tells them that they are supposed to be offended by it."

Right. Most of the material is innocuous, and students wouldn't know it was offensive unless someone told them so.

You and other activists are not trying to pick up any "slack" that parents are supposedly leaving - but to install your morality on students before the parents do.

Nothing to do with morality. You are still free to tell your children that it's sinful.

This is why the activists are pushing to introduce the race and "gender" ideologies as early as possible.

And I am having difficulty seeing when any conversation about these topics is ever necessary between a teacher and my child.

Parents are more aware of this than anyone.

Which is why you should leave some more sensitive topics to the parents.

Explain this to me - because it sounds like you are saying that children do not experience any period of "sexual innocence".

It sounds like you are claiming that children always have a sexuality and that it should be a topic of discussion in the classroom.

You believe that parents who want to preserve their children's innocence are forcing something on them?

Sexual latency as it is generally thought of is Freudian mumbo jumbo, The libido is relatively inactive but there is still sexual development going on. Treating it a time of innocence during which children should not be exposed to any knowledge of sexuality or be having any sexual thoughts sends the message that sex is bad and dangerous and sexual thoughts are wicked.

What does that say about the teachers that keep wanting to talk about race and "gender"?

That is part of growing up and having friends.

It only gets weird when adults who are not the children's parents start talking about the sexuality of their children and the sexual acts they commit.

First and foremost - parents and guardians are the only adults who can "indoctrinate" or teach beliefs (such as morality) to their children.

If you want to indoctrinate children - have your own. The students in the classroom are there to receive an education - not to be indoctrinated.

Second - you assume that because I don't want you talking to my children about their sexuality or the sex acts they may be committing - that does not mean that I am not having those conversations with them.

Why do you feel the need to trivialize my position as a parent by claiming that I am somehow too ill-equipped, ignorant or lazy to prepare my children for these things?

Why are you so convinced that teachers are the best candidates for that kind of discussion with my children?

My children already know about these things - and they know that they are not what God would have for His children - and I am confident that they will act responsibly and appropriately.

That being said - teachers should not be having discussions about these things with their students or trying to introduce LGBT nonsense in the classroom.

I am very surprised that you decided to continue talking after you exposed your hand before - goes to show that our schools aren't teaching shame and accountability.

What do you want me to say? That I think your ideas about human sexuality are twisted and sick and have nothing to do with the Gospel of Christ? OK.

 

[KCfromNC]

I have yet to read the book - but from what others have said - I have come to the conclusion that it is dishonest at least.

In what particular ways is the book dishonest? Quotes would be helpful here, at least if the intent is to give the impression that the conclusion is based on anything factual.

Claiming that banning certain books from a public-school library is somehow censorship or "book banning" in general is dishonest.

Banning books isn't book banning? Uh, ok, sure thing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You came in swinging and all I had to do to scare you off was not flinch.

Doesn't that make you feel lousy?

You have a drastically different interpretation of the current situation than I do.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zaha Torte]

Individually run. You said the government banned them. They didn't.

I actually said that the government did not ban any books. I said,

"Just like if public schools decide not to include certain books - that does not mean that the government has banned said books - just go find them and read them somewhere else."

I think Biden has more important things to worry about that checking to see what your kids are reading.

There are levels to government. Not every decision made by the government or government entities comes from the White House.

We leave that to librarians and parents.

And if the library has inappropriate materials the parents should notify the librarian and work to have them removed.

Hey, so it is. Has somebody made that claim? What an idiot.

I'm pretty sure everyone who disagrees with me on this thread has made that claim.

But I'm glad that you still recognise that books are being banned (aka book banning).

People keep informing me that terms are subject to change - such as "gay", "abortion" and "marriage" - and I would now add "book banning" to this list.

All of these terms have been hijacked for political purposes - to confuse people in an attempt to justify immoral actions.

You would like people to associate an inappropriate book containing explicit sexual content being removed from public school libraries with the Nazis burning of books.

You want to claim that those who do not want LGHDTV cult and CRT nonsense forced fed to their children are some kinds of fascist.

Libraries do not contain copies of every book - they cannot contain copies of every book - and we should be protecting our children from highly political or sexual content until they are mature enough to digest that information.

And parents make that determination - not librarians - and certainly not you.

The kid is going to bring the book home. Discuss it with him or her there. Or, if you want to be proactive about it, tell your kid that you want to know what book he intends taking out of the library a day in advance. Or if you really want to go full bore then get a list of books from the library and tell your kid which ones are verboten.

Of course, I like discussing what my children read - and I am interested in their interests - but I will say "No" to everything else.

If I find my children with any inappropriate sexual materials - and I find out that an adult gave it to them - I will try to hold that adult responsible for introducing inappropriate sexual material to my child.

The human mind does not have a delete button - and I do not want my children to become stimulated by images or scenes that they are not yet equipped to handle in any healthy way.

Other parents, in each case, can decide what's best for their children without you dictating what's available to them.

You literally JUST SAID that an idiot would claim that a book being banned from the public-school library somehow stops a child from reading said book - after acting as if no one had made that claim.

Now here you are claiming that unless these books are in the public-school libraries - then they would not be available to these children.

What does that make you?