|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 17, 2024 22:20:20 GMT
Juxtaposing images of a picture book that isn't part of any school curriculum with passages from an adult memoir proves nothing except how far hysterics will go to try to prove their point. How about providing the names of some school districts which are using these books as part of their reading programs? Books that (visually) portray minors giving blowjobs and getting jerked off by adults, or have adults prancing around in S&M gear in front of kids, should exist at all - school library or public. End of story.
Oh, and you can sit down, you big fatty liar.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 17, 2024 23:02:00 GMT
Thanks for providing that clip. The school was at fault for allowing adult-themed material to be readily available to the students. And yeah, the little kid's book with the bondage outfit is tacky trash. But what's needed is better monitoring between the parents and the school systems so that 1. Genuinely offensive material isn't lumped in with sensitive subject matter, and 2. Fascist groups don't get away with using extreme examples to push their bigoted agenda back into the dark ages and foment even more cultural division. Either way is a slippery slope. Frog and Toad are still friends! 🐸🐸
|
|
|
Post by ShadowSouL Likes This on Jan 18, 2024 7:29:33 GMT
Because it has the word "DIC" in the title. I recently had a third-grader helpfully inform me that a book of poems in his classroom was school-inappropriate because it contained a dirty word. He showed me the offensive page; it included a poem written by author Dick King-Smith. I had to explain that that was a man's name; where did the kid learn that word, anyway? Imagine how worse it would have been if the author's name didn't have "-Smith" in it!
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 18, 2024 11:36:22 GMT
Maybe that's the real reason Dick and Jane stories were removed from elementary reading programs; it wasn't just that they were phenomenally boring, but because little children who are way too familiar with slang would be snickering constantly while reading "Go, Dick, go" and "Jane, look at Dick."
Years ago, when I worked in a preschool day care center, a little two-year-old boy who up to then had not been verbal other than baby talk began repeating one particular word while riding a toy horse. Normally the staff would have mentioned to his mother that he'd uttered his first word that day, but announcing that he'd been repeating "F***" over and over while bouncing up and down on the horse didn't seem like such a magical moment. When he kept doing it at home after that, she blamed it on his older sister. Uh-huh.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 18, 2024 13:37:25 GMT
SO its ok to give religious books to kids, regardless of their parents beliefs or lack thereof? Give? That might prove to be an expensive undertaking...
It's ok to have them in the library and to lend them out? Absolutely.
The Bible claims to be true, but contains information that is demonstrably false. How does that not violate your first rule?
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jan 18, 2024 15:00:07 GMT
Give? That might prove to be an expensive undertaking...
It's ok to have them in the library and to lend them out? Absolutely.
The Bible claims to be true, but contains information that is demonstrably false. How does that not violate your first rule? Deliberately deceiving the kids.
The Bible is a very old book. At some point people actually believed the nonsense that was written (well the more gullible still do).
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jan 18, 2024 15:03:40 GMT
The Bible claims to be true, but contains information that is demonstrably false. How does that not violate your first rule? Deliberately deceiving the kids.
The Bible is a very old book. At some point people actually believed the nonsense that was written (well the more gullible still do).
How is putting a book you know is false, that claims to be true is a library not a deliberate deception?
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jan 18, 2024 15:06:40 GMT
The Bible claims to be true, but contains information that is demonstrably false. How does that not violate your first rule? Deliberately deceiving the kids.
The Bible is a very old book. At some point people actually believed the nonsense that was written (well the more gullible still do).
The more gullible are led to believe that they can wake up as the opposite sex but you're for that.
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Jan 18, 2024 15:10:05 GMT
Kids today are exposed to way too much sexually explicit and violent material, but it's not coming from books; it's what available at home. Ask the average under-ten child who Chucky the doll is, and they'll likely know. When I overheard two 2nd-grade children discussing someone named "Pennywise," I had to ask them who that was. They both were able to tell me that it was a child-murdering clown from a Stephen King movie, of course (I'd never seen it, but I guess these kids were big fans). Then there's the video games and the internet porn that's available at home. But parents aren't going to blame themselves. It's always some outside influence, like some friend with "bad" parents, or a school curriculum which dares to teach them such dangerous concepts as "diversity," or a student body consisting of children from different cultures, or books about friendship. What Pennywise is on a movie poster when you look at him? Does he look child friendly to you?
|
|
|
Post by Pippen on Jan 18, 2024 15:12:29 GMT
Years ago, when I worked in a preschool day care center, a little two-year-old boy who up to then had not been verbal other than baby talk began repeating one particular word while riding a toy horse. Normally the staff would have mentioned to his mother that he'd uttered his first word that day, but announcing that he'd been repeating "F***" over and over while bouncing up and down on the horse didn't seem like such a magical moment. When he kept doing it at home after that, she blamed it on his older sister. Uh-huh. Currently "that" word is blazoned across children's T shirts and displayed on signs in the yard . Down the road from me there are several such signs and variations thereof on their kid's front yard playground equipment. A word that used to get the lifebouy soap in the mouth treatment is now common and quite accepted and even encouraged by one segment of the population.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jan 18, 2024 15:21:16 GMT
Thanks for providing that clip. The school was at fault for allowing adult-themed material to be readily available to the students. And yeah, the little kid's book with the bondage outfit is tacky trash. But what's needed is better monitoring between the parents and the school systems so that 1. Genuinely offensive material isn't lumped in with sensitive subject matter, and 2. Fascist groups don't get away with using extreme examples to push their bigoted agenda back into the dark ages and foment even more cultural division. Either way is a slippery slope. Frog and Toad are still friends! 🐸🐸 A ban on books that portray minors giving blow jobs, getting jerked off by adults, or men parading around in S&M gear in front of kids. This shouldn't be this hard to admit and isn't a slippery slope; which is a logical fallacy btw. Took you 10 pages to denounce it and even then you still can't outright denounce the existence of said materials.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 18, 2024 15:30:47 GMT
Naw, it took me ten pages because I'm not on here all day long--you know, life and stuff.
Yes, it is a slippery slope because once one legitimate grievance is addressed, everyone else who claims to have been offended comes shrieking, from either direction.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jan 18, 2024 20:35:51 GMT
Yeah, sure... Having books depicting sexual acts is really necessary to make kids being "mentally healty, functioning human beings"... These Liberals are mentally insane! Those posters getting their knickers in a twist over books "depicting sexual acts" indicate just how hysterical and paranoid they've become. The books available in elementary schools show no such thing; it's all in their suggestible little minds. It's ludicrous how the mere suggestion that two animals depicted as living together in a series of kiddie books can threaten their mindset. Maybe they should actually take a look at these innocent little stories. The books are written on a first-grade level, so they can probably struggle through them. But maybe it's easier to fall for the horror stories about sexually explicit material being shown to schoolchildren being peddled by neo-fascist groups such as "Moms for Liberty." You and your friends are rabid Liberal SJWS who are insane.
You are lying. It has already been proven and shown that those books do countian sexual images!
If you all want to act like pedophiles then go to the police and get jailed!
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jan 18, 2024 20:36:47 GMT
Yeah, sure... Having books depicting sexual acts is really necessary to make kids being "mentally healty, functioning human beings"... These Liberals are mentally insane! None of those books are a part of any curriculum.
They sit on the shelf because nobody notices them.
Then some MAGA bitch finds it and uses it to ban all books that mention lgbtq.
Irrelevant.
Those books were still there and getting banned is the best news ever unless if someone is a rabid SJW.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jan 18, 2024 20:37:58 GMT
Yeah, sure... Having books depicting sexual acts is really necessary to make kids being "mentally healty, functioning human beings"... These Liberals are mentally insane! Frank was a nutty Trumper, but he nailed it when he made his list
-It's not happening.
-It's happening, but not that bad.
I can't for the life of my understand why these people defend this trash, but they do. They ignore it most of the time. Try to turn it around on you when you point this garbage out. "Why are you looking at it?!" Why do they want kids seeing grandpa in S&M gear or looking at drawings of minors having sex? The fuck is wrong with these creeps?
Frank was absolutely hilarious and I hope he comes back!
And his Liberals Cycle List is 100% SPOT ON indeed!
|
|