Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

They wore wigs, so no...

SI

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I think, after having homeschooled, and gone through some of the topics, it really just means, Reading, Writing and 'rithmatic. Just like you would have gotten in the farmhouse on the prairie with a decided religious focus and without all that black stuff in there. You know....classical.

but they didn't say that so that can't possibly be inferred. What is in the legislation, y'know the four corners of the page. Anything but that you can't draw conclusions from, not in court, not with your coworkers, not really anyone...you can only take things at face value on paper...if you see someone say it on YouTube or on the news that does not apply to anything, ever, really.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

What is a classical education? Do you learn about Bach and Mozart?

It means your kid won't get a good job anywhere outside of Florida because companies know their educational system is trash.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but they didn't say that so that can't possibly be inferred. What is in the legislation, y'know the four corners of the page. Anything but that you can't draw conclusions from, not in court, not with your coworkers, not really anyone...you can only take things at face value on paper...if you see someone say it on YouTube or on the news that does not apply to anything, ever, really.

I am really happy that there were pages and pages dedicated to this discussion so that we're all completely on the same page with what it all means. It's worth so much more since we were able to really boil it all down without getting caught up in all the innuendo, that was clearly misplaced.

[Flasch186]

Clearly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sterlingice]

But did someone address trivial question 4, paragraph 3, subsection Alpha back on post 15? If not, we cannot move forward on this Gantt chart of understanding.

It is simply not possible to sum an idea up in simple terms or continue a conversation without first refuting every single dissension, answering every sea lion request, or chasing every tangent to its furthest conclusion, no matter how trivial it may be to the overall point.

If you don't do that, everything else you say is null and void. After all, that's how conversations work with real humans in the real world.

SI

[Edward64]

Although somewhat inaccurate portrayal of my positions, I am glad you bros are trying to be more detailed, accurate, taking into account scale and context, but without jumping to conclusions, portraying your opinions as facts, or exaggerating.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Can't wait until the FL book bannings over sexual content eliminate the Bible for it's various transgressions.

Bible ban? School district reviewing the religious text after parent’s request
One parent in Utah is attempting it. However, after a fair and thorough review process, it will be found to be well within the rules.

“We don’t jump to conclusions, we go through the entire process. We don’t blow off one request because we think it’s silly,” Williams stated.

I mean, after all, that sounds like the quote of a man who hasn't already made up his mind.

SI

[RainMaker]

Kansas lawmaers just overrode a veto on a bill that calls for genital inspections of all student-athletes. Starting to think these folks maybe just want to look at kids naked.

[cuervo72]

To follow up with a link on that:

Transgender student athlete ban on the books in Kansas, following three years of GOP campaigning – The Lawrence Times

“He came in gloating, and it’s wrong,” Ruiz said in an interview after the vote. “This is all about wins and losses for them. This is a win for them. They don’t care what kind of a win it is. They don’t care about the unintended consequences. They don’t care that trans kids have a target on their back.”

Bans participation from kindergarten through college. And yeah, the inspection thing. You know that's not going to be used to harass. (Wonder how many black girls will be called to be checked vs white girls?

Other Republicans in the House said the ban was needed, despite no evidence that transgender athletes are impacting women’s sports in Kansas.

I can't verify the number, but one tweet claimed "A total of two student athletes of the 109,402 students registered in Kansas school activities identify as transgender." Huge problem, this.

[GrantDawg]

This is a welcome surprise. This doesn't bode well for these laws. Then again, it could just be a legal blip.

BREAKING: Supreme Court lets transgender girl remain on middle-school track team. Justices Alito, Thomas dissent. It's the first time the court has acted on a wave of new state restrictions on athletic participation.

— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) April 6, 2023

[NobodyHere]

So is this an actual decision or is it just some kind of stay?

[NobodyHere]

It was just a stay

Supreme Court sides with 12-year-old transgender girl fighting West Virginia's sports ban

[Edward64]

I like this compromise. I think Biden is saying in vast majority of sports, it doesn't matter if there is a transgender student participating in either sex. But in select & highly competitive ones, acknowledge there may need to be some restrictions set.

But his proposed rule is pretty vague (purposely so I think) and I'm sure there'll be challenges and fine-tuning.

Title IX: Biden proposes rule for transgender student athletes that allows for some restrictions, opposes categorical bans | CNN Politics

The Biden administration proposed Thursday a new federal rule change that would allow for schools to enforce some restrictions on transgender student athletes, but opposes policies that “categorically” ban those students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender.

“The proposed rule would establish that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are,” according to a public notice from the US Department of Education.

“The proposed rule also recognizes that in some instances, particularly in competitive high school and college athletic environments, some schools may adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation,” it continued.

“For older students, especially at the high school and college level, the Department expects that sex-related criteria that limit participation of some transgender students may be permitted, in some cases, when they enable the school to achieve an important educational objective, such as fairness in competition, and meet the proposed regulation’s other requirements,” according to a summary of the proposed rule.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like this compromise. I think Biden is saying in vast majority of sports, it doesn't matter if there is a transgender student participating in either sex. But in select & highly competitive ones, acknowledge there may need to be some restrictions set.

But his proposed rule is pretty vague (purposely so I think) and I'm sure there'll be challenges and fine-tuning.

Title IX: Biden proposes rule for transgender student athletes that allows for some restrictions, opposes categorical bans | CNN Politics

I think the only ones who are going to like this bill are the lawyers who will earn millions litigating this in court.

[Edward64]

Probably true, but there were going to be lawsuits anyway

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Kansas lawmaers just overrode a veto on a bill that calls for genital inspections of all student-athletes. Starting to think these folks maybe just want to look at kids naked.

The only reason we can't accuse GOP politicians of grooming is because they just go straight to assault.

Edit: or cover it up, like Jim Jordan.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Title IX: Biden proposes rule for transgender student athletes that allows for some restrictions, opposes categorical bans | CNN Politics

Fuck Joe Biden. This is basically preventing the overtly oppressive state laws while allowing for every individual school with a trans athlete to ban them as people under vague "fairness" bullshit.

My perception and expectation is that this will do nothing to help trans people but will get most of the folks in the middle to stop caring.

[sterlingice]

Ron DeSantis is luring Supreme Court conservatives to overturn major precedent.

Despite long-standing Supreme Court precedent directing that the proposal is unconstitutional, Florida legislators this month are seeking to broaden the death penalty to non-homicide crimes. The proposal has Gov. Ron DeSantis’ full support. On Tuesday, the Florida Senate Rules Committee is expected to vote on the bill, which is the bill’s last committee stop before the floor.

Specifically, the bill seeks to broaden the death penalty to sexual battery crimes against children. The bill plainly contradicts the court’s 2008 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, which held that punishing a defendant with death when the crime does not intentionally cause the victim’s death violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court of just 15 years ago clearly forbade what Florida is now trying to do. Florida legislators say “that’s the point.” Their goal is to provide the Supreme Court with the opportunity to review Kennedy, at which point both Gov. DeSantis and Florida legislators are confident the court, “in its current iteration,” would overturn Kennedy. Emphasizing the perceived ideological changes on the court since 2008, state Sen. Jonathan Martin (the Senate bill’s sponsor) argued that Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in Kennedy—joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas—opened the door to this legislation. In light of Alito’s dissent and the current court’s “ideological framework,” Sen. Martin believes that the “new” court would “be in favor” of this legislation. Similarly, state Rep. Jessica Baker (the House bill’s sponsor) said she “welcome[s]” a constitutional challenge and is “hopeful” the court would “recede” from its “improperly decided” opinion in Kennedy.

Florida's legislature is intentionally passing a law to get the Supreme Court to allow the death penalty for non-murder cases, specifically child sexual assault cases. They even said the intent was to challenge the Supreme Court to overturn previous precedent, even though that wasn't specifically written in the law. So, maybe, just maybe - even if something isn't written into the law, there might be some other motivations behind it. And, gee, with all the noise around prosecuting gay and trans people as being sexual deviants and endangering children, I wonder what the aim of this could possibly be? Because I think waiting until the state actively starts killing people is a bit too late.

SI

[Flasch186]

Stop

Where do you see it printed on the four corners of the page?

/sarcasm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

While defending his bill in Florida that would ban drag and pride events, @VoteRandyFine said that "if it means erasing a community, because [LGBTQ people] have to target children, then damn right we outta do it."

This is one of the most bigoted statements I've ever heard. pic.twitter.com/MBSFlwjtBc

— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) April 12, 2023

[Flasch186]

Smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HerRealName]

In Missouri...

The video👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/Yfx0JAu2Vj

— Jess Piper (@piper4missouri) April 12, 2023

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

In Missouri...

Anyone surprised? This is the final end game. Girls married off at 12, and being subservient to a man their whole life. They would put her in a burqa if they could.

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Anyone surprised? This is the final end game. Girls married off at 12, and being subservient to a man their whole life. They would put her in a burqa if they could.

It's really getting weird how many people keep saying how grown up my 13 year old daughter looks. It's mainly from women 30 and older, but I also think it's almost a defense mechanism... like they're trying to share a secret message with me or her. But they're also almost all very conservative women, so it almost feels like theres even more meaning of don't let her tramp around their husbands.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

While defending his bill in Florida that would ban drag and pride events, @VoteRandyFine said that "if it means erasing a community, because [LGBTQ people] have to target children, then damn right we outta do it."

This is one of the most bigoted statements I've ever heard. pic.twitter.com/MBSFlwjtBc
— Alejandra Caraballo (@Esqueer_) April 12, 2023

I haven't kept a random tally on conversations in this thread from years ago (and don't plan on it) but where exactly did we have the expectations of timelines for state-level and state-sanctioned genocides?

SI

[Flasch186]

After attacks on 3rd grade teachers or it doesn’t exist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost Econ]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

In Missouri...

The video👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/Yfx0JAu2Vj

— Jess Piper (@piper4missouri) April 12, 2023

Them still being married isn't the winning argument he thinks it is. I can't imagine the amount of courage it would take to leave someone who has been abusing you since you were a child and who almost certainly has made you reliant on them for survival.

[PilotMan]

Well I'm sure glad the intentions were sussed out that this was only for thing kids and not some overarching plan to deny, ignore, and punish and LGBTQ people.

[larrymcg421]

Florida expands so-called 'Don't Say Gay' rules through 12th grade

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Florida expands so-called 'Don't Say Gay' rules through 12th grade

So as a gay man who would be teaching African-American history, its totally safe for me to teach in Florida right?

[sterlingice]

Hey, remember that long time ago when we had one or more posters vociferously defending this law because they were totally trying to parrot numerous bullshit line of reasoning about this law? Like how it wasn't appropriate to talk about sexuality with third graders and feigning ignorance about Florida's intent to make this for all students? Or pretending that because it doesn't mention homosexuality specifically, it definitely didn't target the LGBT community? And that because none of the future laws and intent were spelled out on the four corners of the pages, we definitely couldn't infer where this would go, despite past actions of said legislators?

It's almost as if that when you argue point by point, breaking them down into tiny near-meaningless points, devoid of any context, you can rhetorically get away with using silly arguments like "yeah, this is all about teaching sex to third graders". But if you used any modicum of holistic examination, looking at the whole picture, something like that withers under any reasonable scrutiny.

You might even predict this would expand to a much larger target audience of, say, all school children, where said bullshit reasoning wouldn't apply. Or predict how the state might start expanding other laws to target the LGBT community. Or even try to increase the punishments for unjust laws targeting this community.

Boy, those were good times, all that long long, checks notes, less than a year ago. It's a good thing we live in a world where all of those other things aren't in flight or already in place.

SI

[Flasch186]

Be careful

You might get suspended for exposing truth and calling it out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Atocep]

You guys are going way overboard on this. Someone just needs to sue and get it overturned.

[Edward64]

Happy to continue if you want. Doubt it though, am used to your periodic man baby pot shots. But you may surprise me.

Let me know.

[sterlingice]

/New news enacting many of the things other posters were warning about over the past year/

/Curious silence with regards to any of that/

But, hey, let's go discuss the stuff from last year that's the law has swiftly moved beyond using some unclear mix of Robert's Rules of Order mixed with personal debate rules

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

/New news enacting many of the things other posters were warning about over the past year/

/Curious silence with regards to any of that/

But, hey, let's go discuss the stuff from last year that's the law has swiftly moved beyond using some unclear mix of Robert's Rules of Order mixed with personal debate rules

SI

As I believe you have reading comprehension issues in prior exchanges, why don't you specifically call me out and quote me (so I know you haven't made up anything) that you believe is the gotcha. This will give me the opportunity to respond.

Shouldn't be too difficult, it's all in this thread so easy enough to find.

[cuervo72]

Montana: https://wapo.st/40u5PIe

"Our Caucus is calling for the immediate censure of transgender Rep. Zooey Zephyr after his threatening and deeply concerning comments on the House floor earlier today. #mtpol"

[sterlingice]

As I've said before, no, I'm not wading through 7 pages of pedantic nonsense to argue on a super granular bullet point by bullet point basis. Whereas, I assume, you think this is the best way to discuss anything - I believe it's because it allows you to abstract each individual point away from the central purpose and remove all context and meaning from them.

If you were really interested in having a good faith discussion on the actual ramifications of this bill or other bills that are being passed in tandem, you would have done it already. You would have been the person pasting the links in this thread about the news stories of the other bills or updates to this one. No, you're not responsible for posting every news link on the board - but you seem to enjoy doing it and you posted a number of other links and posts over the last week but, strangely, none in this thread that you've been very personally invested in. You, the person who set up this thread, and who set up his argument way back on post 2 and repeatedly mentioned that this was for third graders or K-3 five (!) different times in the few paragraphs setting up your argument, making it a foundational part of said argument - you'd think you'd want to take a swing at how changing a key pillar changes the entire argument.

If you want to clarify which points are incorrect in a way that you see fit, you're welcome to it. You seem to think I want to play some verbal bullet point "gotcha" game when I, and most others in this thread, feel you've made your position abundantly clear. If this really mattered to you, you could try to re-clarify your position without telling everyone "re-read the entire thread". I get that there's a level of complexity to this discussion but it's also long ago lost the forest for the trees and, again, as above - all context is lost. But instead, when discussion of the topic is met with calling someone a man baby who can't read rather, it seems like this is more sport than actual debate for you.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As I've said before, no, I'm not wading through 7 pages of pedantic nonsense to argue on a super granular bullet point by bullet point basis. Whereas, I assume, you think this is the best way to discuss anything - I believe it's because it allows you to abstract each individual point away from the central purpose and remove all context and meaning from them.

What you call pedantic is laying out establishing specific discussion topic, definitions & assumptions, and summarization of positions vs exaggerated statements, non-relevant tangents etc. Always good to level set.

If you were really interested in having a good faith discussion on the actual ramifications of this bill or other bills that are being passed in tandem, you would have done it already. You would have been the person pasting the links in this thread about the news stories of the other bills or updates to this one. No, you're not responsible for posting every news link on the board - but you seem to enjoy doing it and you posted a number of other links and posts over the last week but, strangely, none in this thread that you've been very personally invested in.

It's funny that I don't see you or your partner having good faith in these discussions with me either. So why should I have good faith discussions with you? I submit as evidence that you and your partners comments/responses about me or my postings are very often filled with sarcasm. Is that in good faith?

I submit that miami_fan discusses with me in good faith. We obviously disagree more than we agree, but our exchanges are a pretty good back & forth banter, with quotes & links. There is sarcasm but the content outweighs it.

There's plenty of evidence I don't shy about from posting on these topics, just read the thread.

You, the person who set up this thread, and who set up his argument way back on post 2 and repeatedly mentioned that this was for third graders or K-3 five (!) different times in the few paragraphs setting up your argument, making it a foundational part of said argument - you'd think you'd want to take a swing at how changing a key pillar changes the entire argument.

As evidence, you are pointing out that I'm not having a good faith discussion because I did not bring up Larry's article which was published yesterday at 5:25pm? Let's be a little reasonable here, give me at least a 24 hour turnaround period. Or just ask me for my opinion (nicely) in case it didn't pop up on my Google newsfeed.

If you want to clarify which points are incorrect in a way that you see fit, you're welcome to it. You seem to think I want to play some verbal bullet point "gotcha" game when I, and most others in this thread, feel you've made your position abundantly clear. If this really mattered to you, you could try to re-clarify your position without telling everyone "re-read the entire thread".

It's pretty evident to me that you do want to play the "gotcha" game. But you just want to state the gotchas, you don't want to defend it.

I get that there's a level of complexity to this discussion but it's also long ago lost the forest for the trees and, again, as above - all context is lost.

This is fair. I freely admit that I do tend to get into the weeds, I'm a detailed person (as is required in my profession). And you are right sometimes context gets lost.

On the other hand, sometimes general, overarching, and/or exaggerated statements are made. And to understand them better, you need to get into the weeds.

If I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick the details.

But instead, when discussion of the topic is met with calling someone a man baby who can't read rather, it seems like this is more sport than actual debate for you.

Yes, man baby, reading comprehension, and let me add oblivious hypocrisy.

I've repeatedly said I will not initiate but if you attack, are sarcastic with me etc. I will respond in kind (that's what you have to do with bullies). So if you don't like being called a man baby or a drama queen, don't engage me with your sarcastic wit. Weird, you can dish it out but complain when someone dishes back at you.

*****

I'll restate my offer below.

As I believe you have reading comprehension issues in prior exchanges, why don't you specifically call me out and quote me (so I know you haven't made up anything) that you believe is the gotcha. This will give me the opportunity to respond.

Shouldn't be too difficult, it's all in this thread so easy enough to find.

Prove to me that you can have a good faith (and serious) discussion with me without your witty sarcasm ... or not, doesn't really matter to me.

[Flasch186]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Butter]

I really can't believe most of you still engage in arguments with Edward here

Classic alt-right playbook, "I'm just asking questions", "cite me some examples" BS.

Dressed up in someone attempting to at least act like they are trying to have a serious discussion, but they're really not. They've no interest in it. Baiting so that they can go high five their buddies elsewhere about how they've once again "owned the libs" or made you crazy.

I mean, we've been hearing for well over a decade now DON'T FEED THE TROLL, so just stop. Don't feed him or any of the others on here that are not trying to have a good faith discussion. There is no other side. There are no circumstances in which this is acceptable.

So just. stop.

I don't read much here any more, and there is a HUGE reason why.

[bhlloy]

+1. One person has basically ruined the board for multiple long term posters, and the mods attitude seems to be that they will crack down on the people who argue with him when they get pushed over the edge. Ho hum, but if we bemoan the death of the site we should at least acknowledge one of the major reasons why.

But even with that being said, if you are still trying to have a good faith argument with him at this point, more fool you to be honest.

[Edward64]

Perfectly okay not engaging with anyone that doesn't engage with me. No big deal, don't need to waste my time on extremists and/or those that have reading comprehension.

But if you do engage with me and mischaracterize my position, I'll challenge you back. Pretty simple.

BTW, you should try leaving this forum. Maybe some moderates will come back.

[GrantDawg]

"Can't we all just get along? Or have we forgotten the words of the Reverend King?"

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Not going to go so far as to say he is wrecking the board but I have all but stopped engaging in his ridiculous bad faith argument and certainly don't read the posts of the people who still choose to.

[Flasch186]

Hence my statements about reclaiming my energy from energy vampires, not just in here but in real life too. Also why my posts are short and to the point and do not engage in the energy suck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

If Edward really gave a shit about the board or anyone here he'd actually work at it. Instead his only interest seems to be talking to himself in multiple threads, and copying and pasting things he loves from reddit.

There's nothing there except a desire to hear himself talk and then tell everyone else they they aren't useful enough to have a conversation with unless they inflate his ego first. He's not one for self reflection.

[stevew]

Define self reflection though

[sterlingice]

It's funny, Flasch - you and I have gotten into some pretty good arguments before. But I guess we're all buddy, buddy partners now, bullying unsuspecting, innocent posters

SI