User

Let's be honest here. She put her dog down because it was aggressive. It tried to bite her, was aggressive, and had killed her neighbor's chickens. You and others dishonestly framed this as if she shot it just because she didn't like it or it didn't hunt well enough for her.

Well, sounds like you are not going to be honest now. Not that you have not been circling the drain in this area, but this is just outright blatantly dishonest. Like, in this discussion I have already said I support sex education explicitly and even outlined the basics of what it should focus on. So, sitting here saying that it sounds like I am dead set that kids should not have sex education is just a lie. I don't think you are used to arguing with someone who can focus on the merits of what you say and pick them apart. The more I do, the more you veer to this kind of dishonesty and frankly, asinine rhetoric... Ron Jeremy? really? You are not being serious. Where did I say anything about being outraged at people comfortable with their own sexuality? Seriously... just a lame straw man argument now. Let me point out again, it is you who wants to impose your views on people here... impose your brand of sexual morality on them, impose your political symbolism on them. Not just people, but kids.

Seeing that they are the foremost authority on what is or is not constitutional, their edicts are the determination. Now, you can certainly disagree and think they got it wrong, but the reality is that it is, in fact, unconstitutional. It's funny that you argue that the Constitution has not changed. That was their point. Roe v. Wade was the change; it never existed when the Constitution was written. So... let's do the math: the Constitution without Roe V Wade has existed longer than with it.

It is not silly to say it was unconstitutional, it is simply a statement of fact: Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Please tell us exactly which part you think was based on an absurd foundation of religious dogma. It was also a 6 to 3 ruling, it was not just Alitos opinion.

I never said "sexual intercourse" or "sexual activity." The comment was just sex. That is what the CDC chart was on. I never said anything about "puritanical values," but you are catching on to my point, which is that yes, we should stick to the facts, not YOUR twisted values, or that we send kids to school to learn about how to give blow jobs. Like I said, the Pride flag is meant to brow beat others into 100% acceptance and you are here pushing it. No wonder why you support it. You want to push your political views onto others in the classroom and label them as "intolerant" if they don't go along with you.

Good. We need MAD. Biden has unleashed his DOJ to target political enemies. Time to repay the favor so you can all understand how it works.

Which Republicans said that? How many? The Bill you are touting had no chance of passing either. Yes, you have a real habit now of running away from discussions when the questions get too difficult and the arguments too inconvenient for you.

I am not interested in your bigoted views on religion. They no more pronounce everyone else as wrong than does the LGBTQ mafia anyone that doesn't 100% tote their beliefs, like a man being a woman just because he feels that way. The point though, is that for all the reasons you don't like the Christian flag, this is exactly why classrooms should be free from shoving political viewpoints on them, like the Pride flag. The only difference here is that you don't seem to care how others feel about it, but want us all to respect your bigoted feelings about how bad the Christian flag would be. You are also reading a lot into that Pro-Life flag. Here is what it means: "While simple, the design of the Pro-Life Flag is highly symbolic of the pro-life message. It stresses “Love them both.” Do you not love them both?! https://www.prolifeflag.com/the-flag So, your answer to their being bombarded to unhealthy sexual content is to bombard them with more. I don't think so. I do not agree that you can have healthy sexual relationships outside of marriage, especially for children, and especially not with strap on dildos... You completely ignored my comment on YOU are wanting to push YOUR sexual values onto these kids, which is exactly what I oppose and why it should be basic factual information. Values are subjective and clearly ours do not align. You also glossed right over this one:

Were you not in the other thread on this subject? Oh yeah, you were! So, why are you repeating the same arguments already had before? Since you seem to have forgotten what I said previously: And here was the last comment in that thread you never responded to:

Neither was my response only in regards to Gaza either.

This same bad argument has been hashed out here already. It is no secret as to what changed... its that Biden has allowed our border to become a crisis and refuses to enforce our laws. Republicans were quite clear back in early 2023 that their support for more funding for Ukraine was contingent on more support for Border controls in our own country.

The Christian flag is no more exclusive than the Pride flag is. To your argument, it would symbolize support and safety for Christian students... Again, the Pro Life flag would be a symbol of support and safety... Watch, I can assert the same thing! The Christian and Pro-Life flag is not a zero-sum game. The only message it connotes is that of friendliness, and acceptance. It does not connote superiority or dominance. You do not tolerate and accept Christains? People who are Pro-Life?! You don't want equality for Christians?! I am not sure where you live, if it is Canada or something, but this has been a pretty contentious issue here in the States for the past year and has been all over the news. I did not think I had to prove it to you when it was fairly self-evident and easy to find. Even then... this is still a discussion on the merits of such, and the requisite knowledge is not required to form your own thoughts on such having a place there or not... as you are now proving to beat around the bush to justify it and down play it. We are not talking about sex education. We are talking about putting this material in the library for students to browse and have access to. Yes, it certainly is little more than smut and pornographic in nature. Its a graphic novel depicting one boy giving another boy a blow job on his strap on dildo. It is not the schools job to try to expose kids to even more sexual content because you think they may be exposed to some outside of school. If you wish to expose your kids to LGBTQ porn/smut, more power to you. The issue here is what all kids are being exposed to. No, not all teens are having sex. Those numbers are declining and less than half do. At least by the last CDC numbers I looked at. Healthy sexual relationships happen in marriage in committed relationships. You are now pushing your warped values on what constitutes a healthy sexual relationship here. Sexual education should be limited to the concepts of the basics of what is safe, rape (yes and no), birth control, and the consequences that result from it.

Israel withdrew from Gaza almost 20 years ago. The world has poured billions upon billions of dollars of support into Gaza under Hamas elected leadership and the squandered it on tunnels to wage a war of terror against Israel instead of building up their own people. No one was stealing their land, and your accusation was one of ethnic cleansing and apartheid, not rehashing the long-running dispute over Israeli settlements.

Not wrong. How is Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing? How is it an apartheid?

Of course the Pride flag is controversial. You might see it as a symbol as safety and support, but it is obviously more than that. It is a symbol representing the entire movement in many regards, including support for not just students, but the ideology. It is a political promotion in a classroom. The classroom can be inviting and welcoming without such symbols. Would you be OK with the Christian flag in the classroom? How about the Pro-Life Flag? Yes, as I already said in my response, that book is in classrooms: "As for the book... the political left in America has been pushing that smut into the K-12 classrooms and demanding it stay when folks on the right discovered it among many other LGBTQ smut books the left has been putting in their schools. " No, it is not merely a part of sexual education. They put the book in the school library for students to read. What grade is it appropriate for children to read about strap on dildo sucking and other gay sex fetishes? One of these books the left is putting in schools is a guide on how to use anal butt plugs and the gay hook up site. Because we need anyone in K-12 to learn about that? No. That is smut doesn't belong in any K-12 school.

Well, I am giving you every opportunity to be clear with my questions. You could start by answering them more directly. I keep rehashing because, just like now, you are not doing so. I have no need to keep beating a dead horse though, since you are not going to. I think I get your position, even though I can't quite get you to define it more specifically.

It is not racism because it is art though. Racism would be producing Braveheart and refusing to hire any black writers, black stage hands, black people to help with production, black people to help with editing... that is racism. Hiring white people to play what would otherwise be white people in real life is just that. Not sure if you have really answered the question yet. So, are you saying you want the market to punish what they disapprove of regarding racism in a restaurant or that there should be laws and regulations and rights that prevent a restaurant from only hiring and serving white people?

You completely ignored my question, but maybe we are getting to the point here. Is it that the issue is that you can make a movie that obviously casts black people in the lead roles because that is what the movie is about? I do not disagree with that. Fairly obvious if you are making a movie like Braveheart, you are not going to cast an all Japanese cast... but would have an all white cast. My point is to test the boundaries of your position here, if it was more of the above or that you outright think it is fine to be racist or at least that the laws should allow for folks to be racist in their business, and then to allow for the people to decide how to interact with or consume anything from that business.

Are you arguing for a more purely libertarian response to enforcing standards against racism? That it is just fine if a private business decides only to hire white people, openly saying black people need not apply and that black people are not allowed to eat there? That the market place can choose how to respond, that if folks don't like that business doing that, then they can go to another?

LOL... why ask me questions in the same post you claim to block me in? You said: "Arguing with me is fruitless, I am only here to play the opposite side." That is something a dishonest person, a liar, does. You pretend to be something you are not and claim things you know are not true. Also, I am just fine with being blocked. It allows me to refute whatever stupid crap you assert and not have to waste my time with the dishonest responses.

So... you are admitting to being a liar here. You could have left it at that. Maybe put that in your signature or something.

An LGBTQ flag being flown, in the classroom. Not sure what you mean by attacks, but it is certainly contentious that folks on the left are turning classrooms into their political soap boxes to push this leftist agenda onto kids and not unreasonable for folks to disagree and be upset by it.

There is no ethnic cleansing or apartheid.

First, I am no puppy. Yes, I did say that about Israel and you simply said "Incorrect" I was not incorrect. First you said: "Israel never declared itself a country." Now you try to change your argument as if you did not: "Israel did declare itself a state, once it was given the territory. The Israeli knesset then made the official declaration, as they had to." The reasoning behind their doing so or the methodology that allowed them to doesn't change the fact I asserted from being true or your absurd attempt to simply claim such a fact was not true. Whether or not I acknowledge there are two sides was never a point of our discussion, you never got me to do anything "now" as if I was not before.

Well, it is silly and convoluted to conflate the pride flag with this particular book. They are two separate things. Neither belong in the classroom in K-12 education. The classroom is not a teacher's personal political soapbox where they are free to hang whatever advertisements or support they wish, nor should they. As for the book... the political left in America has been pushing that smut into the K-12 classrooms and demanding it stay when folks on the right discovered it among many other LGBTQ smut books the left has been putting in their schools. You can have LGBTQ books, fiction, and other writings by LGBTQ folks without the constant need to sexualize it all... Well, unless I missed it, the discussion here was not about merely living with folks whose morals disgust us, it is whether or not they get to push their crap onto all the kids in a classroom.