Weetywill

I'm at a loss that the primary issue is the parents behavior and their political affiliation, not the fact that the book had those vulgar illustrations in the school library. And the lack of concern of how it got there.

I'm not assuming there is a political relevance. I used them as an example to your posts that give the impression that it is only angry magaphiles that go to school board meeting or object to the material in question. I had to make a note that there were Muslium parents there as well because I'm sure you wouldn't, and did not until I pointed it out.

I see what you are saying. I think what happens sometimes is that the parents that actually do associate LGBTQ with child abuse' (dumb ignorant imbeciles) are discussed more in some media. So it seems like all these parents think the same thing. Or there is many parents that do , and I do not think that is the case. I can't speak for everyone and this is my own experience, the parents I've talked to do not associate child abuse exclusively to LBGTQ. It's been known for a while now about the abuse of the Catholic Church and their cover up. It has been addressed to some point at least. This topic is some what newer. Discussing one problem doesn't mean that the other problem is being ignored. Just because we treat the kidneys, doesn't mean we do not care about the liver type idea. If parents or anyone objects to LGBTQ then that's their prerogative. If they want to teach their children that is against their morals and/or religion, then unfortunately, that's their right. They also look ridiculous whether they see that or not. However, teaching hate or discrimination is not acceptable ever. And I still think the post was a deflect LOL.

Who are these "American Nazis"? Please do cite some sources for that. I definitely do not accept child abuse from anyone, so it would be helpful for you to clarify.

We are not talking about "far right Christian Conservatives" o the religion of any of the parents. In particular, Dearborn, the original video posted to this thread, has Muslium parents there as well. So it's not just "far-right Christian conservatives" who take issue with inappropriate illicit sexual material being available to children. Now you are talking about MTG? Who has nothing to to do with with the topic. So more deflection. Might I add, Ilhan Omar still has her job despite her blatant anti-semitism and semi- terrorist group sympathizing.....

Sure. Discuss away. I was referring to the change of tone in reporting for this person now that they discovered he is non binary. If they were a straight man, I would expect your tone would be different. I pick up that it has changed since your first post about it that seemed to be more concerned with his grandpa's political status. Headlines had more emphasis on it being a gay club, possible hate crime etc. If you look back 4 days ago. Now you will notice that his non binary status, even the fact it was a gay club are no longer emphasis since the discovery that he's non binary. Are you suggesting that he really isn't non binary and that his defense lawyers are claiming he is for a defense strategy?

Good point! Fair enough! I enjoy your comments as always.

Yes. This shooter has had a tragic childhood now right? Now that we know he is non binary. Now we see empathy. Would you have such empathy if he was a sraight man who is Republican, not just his grandpa? Something tells me no. How the propagandic rhetoric has changed........ Now he's a victim of his families political beliefs, so we should give him empathy. Give me a break!

Where in there does it say his grandpa's mom's sister voted Republican once? Did whatever you read tell you that this person is non binary? Probably not........

Yes. However they do not need to see Mediaograohic material or illicit sexual or violent material either. Especially when they need to consider what you mentioned above. I'm not talking about everything that involves sex or the reality of violence. Just the inappropriate material. Like what I mentioned in Lawn Boy and the book referencing the ejaculation.

That is false. CRT is not about slavery. It is a theory of how race may influence our institutions. And it is a theory. https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-race-theory/Basic-tenets-of-critical-race-theory Some take issue with how slavery is taught. However this is not the topic of the thread.

Of course. I agree with everything you say! I think high school students can handle allot more than some give credit for. If there is context and a function with a meaning involving sex acts. No problem. I think especially for myself, the school should be there place where they do not have to be exposed or have access to sexually illicit material. We know they can be exposed everywhere else. Can't school be the one place? Also in this political environment, there is a disconnect of word definitions and meanings. Mediaographhy may be to some but not others. No agreed definition. I think a good way is to explain the context then read the questionable material out loud in the committee meeting or otherwise. If the adults in the room are uncomfortable or are prevented from reading the excerpt (as we have seen), then that a good starting point.

Well said!!

So you do not believe illustrations of ejaculated and urination into a person's mouth is Mediaographic? Do you think a man reminiscing about a sexial experience he had as a child with another child and provided a description of his "little salamander swelling up with blood in between my finger", Law Boy.... No. Nothing inappropriate there? Both books were found in school libraries.

Deflection. Everyone knows that child sexual abuse happens. Unfortunately everywhere. School church etc. I find protecting children is more successful when ee discuss how to prevent it, not throw around who did what and focus on where it happened. This is an obvious deflection and not the topic of the thread. Another attempt to try and cast conservatives in a bad light, as conservatives are considered mostly Christian.