Book with pictures of graphic gay sex technique approved for k-12 in BC.

[OftenWrong]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I don't have a problem with gay marriage per se - I could understand the argument of people back in the day and why they were unhappy with it,

I always thought it had to do with creating an incentive for people to have families. In other words, to make babies and raise them in a family.

You can't make babies if everyone is gay, for example. So the reality or normal way people are made and raised is the family, and by changing the definition of marriage it loses that specific social focus. The emphasis or direction of society goes elsewhere.

Of course, as a legal argument gay marriage is every bit as valid as "normal" marriage.  

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your point of view is valid, but only as valid as those of parents who ostensibly want those books in the library, on that level.
2. You don't know what motivates most people, even the people themselves don't know sometimes.
3. Yeah, well there's the rub.  If you want a dictatorship there's currently a PM who has expressed admiration for them - he's your guy.

Look - when there is NO TRUST - no trust between individuals, or between groups - then you need WRITTEN AND ENFORCED agreements in the form of policies.  Your input to those things is contingent on your ability to engage with a process without losing your marbles and declaring everyone involved as a cultural Marxist or whatever.  

The bureaucrats are more willing to listen to calm people, live and learn.

I know you’re trying to take the measured, reasonable perspective, but I maintain my criticism of your positions as too complaisant and mushy.

I wasn’t ascribing motives to people except to say that most people are tolerant of others’ behaviour unless they perceive it as harmful and offensive to others.  Yes some people are passionately for or against LGBTQ+ rights, but those are the edges of the bell curve.

I would say that many mainstream voters are seeing harm in gender ideology and same sex orientation celebration when kids are being affirmed in identities that have physical and psychological consequences or when a parent’s ability to pass on strong and healthy gender behaviours and values is being undermined.

What if people don’t believe that one can change one’s gender identity from the biological one?

What if one’s religious or other beliefs run counter to the idea of homosexual lifestyles and/or marriage?

People are entitled to their beliefs.

The problem is that small committees pushed through or drafted legislation that wasn’t fully considered or explained to the public and that didn’t have historical precedent.

Sometimes what looks like progress is actually damaging to individuals and the social fabric. We just don’t always see it right away.

There’s room for compromise on some issues, but for others people will agree to disagree.  Pushing one side of of an argument that’s so easily contested and that so many people oppose, and claiming human rights that are new and that in some cases trounce on other long established human rights, is a recipe for division.  

Edited July 25, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I always thought it had to do with creating an incentive for people to have families. In other words, to make babies and raise them in a family.

You can't make babies if everyone is gay, for example. So the reality or normal way people are made and raised is the family, and by changing the definition of marriage it loses that specific social focus. The emphasis or direction of society goes elsewhere.

Of course, as a legal argument gay marriage is every bit as valid as "normal" marriage.  

Well some felt that way, certainly there were arguments that it was an attempt to erode the family dynamic.  But regardless of the specific subtleties it could be said that many heteros considered marriage to be something really special and important and very serious, and they felt that by broadening the definition like that something was being taken away from them and it devalued the meaning of it.

And fair enough - if the meaning is very important to you then changing it is going to bother you. Just like how the first nations consider some names and some places to be 'sacred' where the rest of us are like "it's a F*cking tree, what are you getting worked up about".   To them it matters. And to many people 'Marriage' mattes.   But that debate is done now

And yes without a doubt from a legal point of view there's no difference and two people who build a life together should have the same legal protections absolutely regardless of sexuality.

 

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I have to admit, because of how ridiculous I find it, to a suspicion that there is more to the story.

I think there's actually a lot less to it but you wouldn't know it if all you did was listen to the right wingnut's culture warriors depictions.

Here's Australia's take on it

In early April, the ACB gave Gender Queer an "unrestricted classification" but with "consumer advice" of "M (Mature) — Not Recommended for Readers Under 15 Years".[79][80] The consumer advice does not constitute a legal restriction on its sale or availability. Classification Board Director Fiona Jolly said, "within the context of the publication, the treatment of themes is not high in impact or offensive," and, "the treatment of sex and nudity is also not high in impact and is not exploitative, offensive, gratuitous or very detailed."[79][8]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Queer

I note the Surrey school board has given parents the option to pull their kids out of school so it's not like anyone is talking about subjecting kids to this.

Edited July 25, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I think there's actually a lot less to it but you wouldn't know it if all you did was listen to the right wingnut's culture warriors depictions

 

And this is the standard tactic from the left -  we can't actually disagree so mock them for thinking it's imporant.

"It's just hard core gay porn being given to pre-teens by schools - why are you getting upset over it? No biggie".

In fact - wasn't it YOU eyeball who demanded proof that schools are allowing books that made gay sex etc look 'fun'?

If sexually explicit gay porn is fine with you - where do you draw the line? if  at teacher actually demonstrates on a student would you finally agree that they've gone over  a line?  Or will that also be "just the rightwingnut culture warriors complaining"?

 
These are children for Eff's sake.   What does it take for you to put aside your ideology and give a crap about them?

[eyeball]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

These are children for Eff's sake.   What does it take for you to put aside your ideology and give a crap about them?

All it takes is a little cursory examination of the silly over-exaggerated hyperbolic crap you're giving. You don't have to ban books or wage an ideological war to give a crap.

Get a grip.

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All it takes is a little cursory examination of the silly over-exaggerated hyperbolic crap you're giving. You don't have to ban books or wage an ideological war to give a crap.

So basically as long as you're able to lie to yourself about it you're good.   Well there you go

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So basically as long as you're able to lie to yourself about it you're good.   Well there you go

...lie. ? 

Your reaction when they told you Santa wasn't real must have been a defining moment that you never recovered from.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

 

I note the Surrey school board has given parents the option to pull their kids out of school so it's not like anyone is talking about subjecting kids to this.

 

 

I don't think a parent should have to pull their kid out of school so they don't see people performing oral sex.

Understand, I support the message.  I just don't think you need such explicit material to pass it on to kids.

That's why I made the point earlier, that I suspect that those who would include books as explicit as this in the curriculum do not do so with students in mind.  I think it's more to score ideological points.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Disagree. Not all adult views are valid. Not all adult content should be permissible in a library for little kids.

But those parent who want that can go out and buy the book for their kid themselves.

So your point of view is MORE valid than those of other parents ? That's what I mean...

I'm talking about process here - do you see any other way to address divergent levels of permissibility from parents ?  I know your opinion and I share it, but other than voicing your opinion there's nothing to be done.

[Moonbox]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I made the point earlier, that I suspect that those who would include books as explicit as this in the curriculum do not do so with students in mind.  I think it's more to score ideological points.

This is how I see it too - just an ideological provocation and a complete departure from common sense.  
 

Let’s be real for a moment too, and consider how many teenagers are going check this book out with serious intentions rather than just to giggle at the penises.  

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

You can't have a written policy for everything, even in a highly polarized environment.  A basic standard of common sense is required and "there's no written policy" is a poor excuse for not exercising judgement.  

The culture wars have two sides, after all.  

I'm not proposing anything change here, just restating how things need to work.  You can't have a written policy for everything but you can have clarity of understanding if it's simple and written down.

For example, you say 'exercising judgement' but that's entirely subjective based on the judgement of the person(s) deciding.  If we delegate those decisions then that person is accountable.

It shouldn't be a war, but it might be a contest and a contest needs a referee - that everybody can begrudgingly accept.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Your point of view is valid, but only as valid as those of parents who ostensibly want those books in the library, on that level.

What % of actual, biological parents do you think want to have those books on the shelf? 

1% or less imo.

It's an orders-of-magnitude leap from:

1) gay basher, to

2) hates gays but would never beat them up, still likes legislation that's openly anti-gay, to

3) ok with homosexuals, supports gay marriage and other rights, but uncomfortable seeing dudes make out, to

4) completely comfortable with seeing all forms of adult sexuality, and outspoken/ardent advocate for gay rights, to

5) wants children to have access to graphic sex at the elementary school level.

 

I honestly don't even think that number 5 is along is along the same curve. I think that there are a LOT of gay people who completely draw the line at #4, and don't consider #5 to be a part of the growth/tolerance curve. 

I can understand that gay people would be comfortable with literature that has gay couples in it, and which normalizes feelings of attraction between members of the same sex, just like I've been comfortable all my life reading books about the prince rescuing the princess and living happily ever after. Gays want kids to see a gay version of a happy couple like that once in a while and I get it.

I really don't think that they want their kids to see Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh blowing each other any more than I want them to see a cheerleader getting banged by a quarterback. It's a totally different type of sexuality imo, when adults want young kids to be exposed to graphic sexuality. Only pedos want small kids to see graphic sex. 

I think that there are a lot of people in the gay community who don't want a P for pedophilia mixed into the gay community initialism (LGBTQ2...). 

Edited July 25, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Moonbox]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not proposing anything change here, just restating how things need to work.  You can't have a written policy for everything but you can have clarity of understanding if it's simple and written down.

This sounds like equivocating.  You can't have a written policy for everything, but you can only have clarity if it's written down?  

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For example, you say 'exercising judgement' but that's entirely subjective based on the judgement of the person(s) deciding.  If we delegate those decisions then that person is accountable.

I would argue that keeping pornography (cartoon or otherwise) out of school libraries isn't very subjective at all.  To be clear, I don't actually care that it's there or if my kids saw it.  I do, however, understand why other parents (probably most?) wouldn't, and I don't really see how/why this needs to be part of the education system.  

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. This sounds like equivocating.  You can't have a written policy for everything, but you can only have clarity if it's written down?  

2. I would argue that keeping pornography (cartoon or otherwise) out of school libraries isn't very subjective at all. 

3. To be clear, I don't actually care that it's there or if my kids saw it.  I do, however, understand why other parents (probably most?) wouldn't, and I don't really see how/why this needs to be part of the education system.  

1. "it" being what is necessary for everyone to understand... such as how books are approved.  Right now we have people protesting Trudeau because of everything.  If people want to voice concerns they don't know how right now and that's a problem.

2. And yet it clearly is because SOMEBODY decide it's ok.  You either have a decision maker/makers working on behalf of the public or you have people deciding directly.  

3. The nature of the response indicates to me that people have no idea how this happens.  As such, it's no longer time for people to individually say that they agree/disagree but rather for people to set the process right so we can all know exactly who is responsible and ask them to explain or retract the decision.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

I don't really see how/why this needs to be part of the education system.

I see it as another brick in the wall against the sort of over the top reaction on display in this thread by the usual irrational suspects.

I'm quite certain it's only their kids who might be harmed by this and they're free to pull them out of public school - the father the better for everyone's sake.

[Moonbox]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I see it as another brick in the wall against the sort of over the top reaction on display in this thread by the usual irrational suspects.

I think your viewpoint is a pot-meet-kettle sort of situation.  Not everything the socially conservative say is wrong or unfair, and your dismissing the reasonable cases as over-the-top just showcases how unreasonable the other side often is.  

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "it" being what is necessary for everyone to understand... such as how books are approved.  Right now we have people protesting Trudeau because of everything.  If people want to voice concerns they don't know how right now and that's a problem.

We don't care to, don't need to and shouldn't be expected to understand the decision making processes of our public sector bureaucracies.  We can make our voices heard when we are unhappy with the results, and it's up to them to listen (or not listen) and deal with the consequences.  

This is a similar, though not nearly as absurd, situation as the Kayla Lemieux debacle.  Your suggestion that we need written guidelines and rules to avoid every ridiculous case that might come up is (IMO) overly fussy and out of touch.  Not stocking porno cartoons (gay or otherwise) in a school library is a pretty low bar for common sense, and when even these end up being contentious issues we are both fueling the counter-culture movement and lending it credibility.  

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

1. We don't care to, don't need to and shouldn't be expected to understand the decision making processes of our public sector bureaucracies.  We can make our voices heard when we are unhappy with the results, and it's up to them to listen (or not listen) and deal with the consequences.  

2. Your suggestion that we need written guidelines and rules to avoid every ridiculous case...

3. Not stocking porno cartoons (gay or otherwise) in a school library is a pretty low bar for common sense, 

1. Ok but that's one view, and this view also assumes that we understand said process - which is what I am saying, ie. clarify it and post it for all to understand.
2. You inferred that, and did so incorrectly.
3. Clearly somebody in power disagrees with you.  Do you know who ?  I doubt it.  If you did then we would have a way forward, ie. ask someone to justify the decision.  

[Moonbox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok but that's one view, and this view also assumes that we understand said process - which is what I am saying, ie. clarify it and post it for all to understand.

Understand the process?  For complaining about what's going on in schools?  It's not rocket science, and there are many different ways to do it.  

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

2. You inferred that, and did so incorrectly.

How so?  You've made the same argument in both this, and in the Kayla Lemieux case, where somehow a lack of guidelines/procedure is the problem, rather than the ridiculous fringe-cases themselves.  

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

3. Clearly somebody in power disagrees with you. 

No kidding?  

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Do you know who ?  I doubt it.  If you did then we would have a way forward, ie. ask someone to justify the decision.  

How does a name change anything?  Do you think the school boards are going to give out his/her name to the general population, so that the circus has a specific target to focus on? 

They can try to justify the decision if they want, and I'd love to hear how you'd try to justify cartoons showing dudes sucking each other off is reasonable school-library material.  

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

1. Understand the process?  For complaining about what's going on in schools? 

2. It's not rocket science, and there are many different ways to do it.  

3. You've made the same argument in both this, and in the Kayla Lemieux case, where somehow a lack of guidelines/procedure is the problem, rather than the ridiculous fringe-cases themselves.  

4. No kidding?  

5. How does a name change anything?  Do you think the school boards are going to give out his/her name to the general population, so that the circus has a specific target to focus on? 

6.  I'd love to hear how you'd try to justify cartoons showing dudes sucking each other off is reasonable school-library material.  

1. Yes.
2. Need I remind you that silica packets are marked with DO NOT EAT.  It's the public we are dealing with here.
3. I am not saying that lack of process and clarity IS the problem but it can help us solve the problem as best we can ... more quickly.
4. Right.  So the fallacy that subjectivity isn't an issue is proven incorrect, sorry.  That's all I'm saying and yes I know it's basic and you already know this also.
5. That's what they get paid for... and they make north of $200K I would bet... It's somebody who needs a higher profile now that they're on the hot seat.  They need to be accountable.
6. You'd LOVE to hear that ?  Well since you are such a quality poster, I LOVE helping you, which I did here by using my old friend GOOGLE:

Here's a justification that was used in Hudson, Ohio.  And please remember that I agree with your assessment on this.  For me, the underlying public process is what needs to be fixed in order to reduce noise on such contentious issues.  So I am posting this to answer your question only.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2022/03/05/hudson-committee-says-gender-queer-can-stay-school-library-shelf/9322969002/
 

Quote

Why was 'Gender Queer' allowed by committee members?

Farnsworth said he read "Gender Queer" and spoke to all seven members of the committee before he made his decision. He noted all but one of the committee members felt strongly about keeping the book in the library collection.

"While the committee expressed concerns regarding the sexual content contained in the book, they also recognized that the book contained educational value in that it provides students who may be struggling with their own gender identity with unique perspective and support," Farnsworth said.

Hudson:Results of reviews of Hudson textbook, library book procedures expected soon

He noted the district will add resource information to the inside cover of the book designed to help students who may be dealing with gender identity issues.

The district will also provide information to parents on how they can access their child's library account for students who are under the age of 18, according to Farnsworth.

"This will allow parents the opportunity to monitor and discuss materials their children check out from our school libraries," Farnsworth said.

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

...lie. ? 

Your reaction when they told you Santa wasn't real must have been a defining moment that you never recovered from.

 

LOL sure kid -    This from the guy who didn't know how we get a prime minister

 

[Moonbox]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I am not saying that lack of process and clarity IS the problem but it can help us solve the problem as best we can ... more quickly.

But only for that specific case, and not for other unrelated but equally ridiculous situations.  The lack of specific rules on dress and how to deal with teachers insisting on wearing size Z prosthetic breasts to class provided little/no insight on whether porno comics were appropriate in the school library, for example. 

School boards need to remember who their stakeholders are, and also to be empowered to deal with this sort of absurd nonsense quickly rather than get cowed by bureaucracy and litigation.  

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. That's what they get paid for... and they make north of $200K I would bet... It's somebody who needs a higher profile now that they're on the hot seat.  They need to be accountable.

Okay, sure, but then we're probably talking about the School Board trustees, right?  Elected trustees should be abolished in Ontario like they have in other provinces IMO.  As you said, we need to put DO NOT EAT labels on Silica packets, so why are we asking voters to educate themselves on school board trustees (most of whom don't even run election campaigns and many of whom don't even have websites).  

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. You'd LOVE to hear that ?  Well since you are such a quality poster, I LOVE helping you, which I did here by using my old friend GOOGLE:

I guess what I was more interested in was a justification that made sense, rather than the out-of-touch naval-gazing of bureaucratic committee members.   

[OftenWrong]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So your point of view is MORE valid than those of other parents ? That's what I mean...

I'm talking about process here - do you see any other way to address divergent levels of permissibility from parents ?  I know your opinion and I share it, but other than voicing your opinion there's nothing to be done.

As stated, they have the right to buy it for themselves.

Public school being a provider for all sorts of cultures, liberal, conservative, athiest, religious must all be accommodated. 

In other words the state has no right to go there even if it thinks it would be good for canadians. It is not milticulturalism.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

In other words the state has no right to go there even if it thinks it would be good for canadians. It is not milticulturalism.

Agreed.  For multiculturalism to work the state has to focus on only common and core beilefs that apply to everyone, then the various groups bring their own culture out and share it.  It is not a universally held belief that children should be consuming gay porn or that men putting their penises into other men should be promoted to children.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

 

In other words the state has no right to go there even if it thinks it would be good for canadians. It is not milticulturalism.

The state has no right?  Well that's new.  Why not?