Banning books in schools (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    9,530
    Reaction score
    11,516
    Age
    47
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread
    =========================

    On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.

    Particularly books for children and teens.

    Why else would people like me spend so much time and energy writing them?

    Why else would censors spend so much time and energy trying to keep them out of kids’ hands?

    In a country where the average adult is reading fewer and fewer books, it’s a surprise to find Americans arguing so much about them.

    In this election year, parents and politicians — so many politicians — are jumping into the fray to say how powerful books can be.

    Granted, politicians often make what I do sound like witchcraft, but I take this as a compliment.

    I’ll admit, one of my first thoughts about the current wildfire of attempted censorship was: How quaint.

    Conservatives seemed to be dusting off their playbook from 1958, when the only way our stories could get to kids was through schools and libraries.

    While both are still crucial sanctuaries for readers, they’re hardly the only options. Plenty of booksellers supply titles that are taken off school shelves.

    And words can be very widely shared free of charge on social media and the rest of the internet. If you take my book off a shelf, you keep it away from that shelf, but you hardly keep it away from readers.

    As censorship wars have raged in so many communities, damaging the lives of countless teachers, librarians, parents and children, it’s begun to feel less and less quaint.

    This is not your father’s book censorship…..

    Here’s something I never thought I’d be nostalgic for: sincere censors. When my first novel, “Boy Meets Boy,” was published in 2003, it was immediately the subject of many challenges, some of which kept the book from ever getting on a shelf in the first place.

    At the time, a challenge usually meant one parent trying to get a book pulled from a school or a library, going through a formal process.

    I often reminded myself to try to find some sympathy for these parents; yes, they were wrong, and their desire to control what other people in the community got to read was wrong — but more often than not, the challenge was coming from fear of a changing world, a genuine (if incorrect) belief that being gay would lead kids straight to ruination and hell, and/or the misbegotten notion that if all the books that challenged the (homophobic, racist) status quo went away, then the status quo would remain intact.

    It was, in some ways, as personal to them as it was to those of us on the other side of the challenge.

    And nine times out of 10, the book would remain on the shelf.

    It’s not like that now. What I’ve come to believe, as I’ve talked to authors and librarians and teachers, is that attacks are less and less about the actual books.

    We’re being used as targets in a much larger proxy war.

    The goal of that war isn’t just to curtail intellectual freedom but to eviscerate the public education system in this country.

    Censors are scorching the earth, without care for how many kids get burned.

    Racism and homophobia are still very much present, but it’s also a power grab, a money grab. The goal for many is a for-profit, more authoritarian and much less diverse culture, one in which truth is whatever you’re told it is, your identity is determined by its acceptability and the past is a lie that the future is forced to emulate.

    The politicians who holler and post and draw up their lists of “harmful” books aren’t actually scared of our books.

    They are using our books to scare people.

     
    Last edited:
    1686498715890.png


    1686498805915.png



    Sad part is that it would have been very easy for the elementary and middle school librarians to simply say, "I didn't read the book before I shelved it, there's no way I have time to read every book. I shelved it because it won the Alex Award, and I always shelve those books. Now that its content has been brought to my attenction, I'm removing it and donating it to the nearest public library for whoever wants to read it (or I gave it to the high school and told that librarian that students would need some guidance).

    Instead, every little thing has to be the Battle of the Century, rather than the left ever, ever admitting a mistake.

    Thanks for highlighting the thing I already highlighted as well as the thing we all know already. Do you know whether this book was available in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group? Also, do you know if anyone made the book available without reading and vetting it first?
     
    I've seen snark in every one of your posts I read today. Announcing to people you're going to *SNIP* their posts seems snarky and passive aggressive. You don't have to tell people you're not quoting everything they wrote. We all understand selective quoting and responses.

    You do more than simply disagree with people.
    If you're honestly that sensitive, LA - LA, I don't think our conversations will be very productive. Not to worry, most your your questions and points have already been answered.

    Post 88 answers your question about how my opt out/opt in idea would work. It is very similar to the opt in/opt out for kids images being used in media and would require very little additional time or resources. Far less than school board shouting matches, and protracted litigation.

    Libraries cannot be "inclusive of all people," there are too many people and too many books. They must be and are selective. One of the tools they use to select books is the Alex Award. In the case of "Lawn Boy" that system led to an inappropriate book being selected. A simply "Oops! Fixed that," would have saved a lot of back and forth.

    I'm sure many, many more books have "heterosexual content" than "homosexual content." I'm not concerned that "Lawn Boy" has homosexual characters, I'm concerned about how explicit it is. If the narrator in that book were female and she remembered fondly how the man she is having coffee with is the boy whose penis she fondled and sucked in fourth grade, I wouldn't be any less concerned. I wouldn't want my young daughter reading that and thinking that this is the way to make friends. I sure would not want my young son reading that and thinking that this should be his expectation of girls.

    No, people should not avoid books because other people want to ban them. It isn't about banning, "Lawn Boy" is available on Amazon, which makes it far from banned, but rather available to anyone with a gift card all over the world, with no age check or parental control. Not putting it on the middle school library shelf =/= "banning."
     
    Thanks for highlighting the thing I already highlighted as well as the thing we all know already. Do you know whether this book was available in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group? Also, do you know if anyone made the book available without reading and vetting it first?
    Before I go running off to find the stories for you, suppose I find evidence that the book was available school libraries? Would that make you say, OK, those librarians made a mistake?

    I cannot "prove" that librarians stocked the book without reading it. Common sense tells me that librarians cannot read every book they put on their shelf, time would not allow it. Based on the description by the Alex Award:

    Lawn Boy, By Jonathan Evison, Published by Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, a division of Workman Publishing. Twenty-something Mike Muñoz is passionate about the art of landscaping--a fresh cut lawn and a creative topiary. Caught between taking care of his mother and brother and trying to strike out on his own, Mike is not-so-patiently waiting for a lucky break. His struggle is familiar and heartbreaking, and it’s impossible not to root for him as he chases the elusive American Dream.


    I see nothing that would tip a librarian off that this book should be vetted. That's why the whole debate is so silly. Let the librarians simply admit their mistake, and move on.
     
    Before I go running off to find the stories for you, suppose I find evidence that the book was available school libraries? Would that make you say, OK, those librarians made a mistake?

    I cannot "prove" that librarians stocked the book without reading it. Common sense tells me that librarians cannot read every book they put on their shelf, time would not allow it. Based on the description by the Alex Award:

    Lawn Boy, By Jonathan Evison, Published by Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, a division of Workman Publishing. Twenty-something Mike Muñoz is passionate about the art of landscaping--a fresh cut lawn and a creative topiary. Caught between taking care of his mother and brother and trying to strike out on his own, Mike is not-so-patiently waiting for a lucky break. His struggle is familiar and heartbreaking, and it’s impossible not to root for him as he chases the elusive American Dream.

    I see nothing that would tip a librarian off that this book should be vetted. That's why the whole debate is so silly. Let the librarians simply admit their mistake, and move on.

    I am not supposing anything. That's why I asked for proof of your claim. Do you have any?
     
    I am not supposing anything. That's why I asked for proof of your claim. Do you have any?
    I really feel you should answer my question first. But, I'm curious to see your reaction, so:


    1686502024516.png



    FAIRFAX, Va. (7News) — A Fairfax County mom, who recently requested that two books be removed from a high school library, is offended after a county library displayed those two books next to the Bible. The display has since been removed.





    One book is “Lawn Boy” a novel by Jonathan Evison, which describes a sexual encounter between two fourth grade boys.

    The other book is titled “Gender Queer: A memoir” by Maia Kobabe. The work is a collection of narrative drawings known as a graphic novel. The book contains drawings of two characters having gay sex.



    The book is Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison. At a September 9 school board meeting a parent described the content as depraved and likened some passages to pedophilia. Leander ISD says the book is not taught in any classroom and is only available to some students through the campus library.

    We're talking about "Lawn Boy," but "Gender Queer" is perhaps even more inappropriate for school libraries. The characters in "Gender Queer" are high school age, but that book has explicit illustrations of oral sex, trans on male, and male on male.

    My question is why are these explicit books that librarians insist must have shelf space, and even prominent displays, exclusively homosexual? If kids "need" explicit homosexual material, why do they not also "need" explicit heterosexual material?

    Another question specifically for you: Does it give you pause that you did not know that this book was indeed on school library shelves? You falsely accused me of not having read the book, yet you have not informed yourself about the facts of the controversy. Will you learn from this and up your game?
     
    Last edited:
    I really feel you should answer my question first. But, I'm curious to see your reaction, so:


    Let's see: two books with sexual content, vs a book with incest, murder, mass murder, genocide, child rape, child murder, daughter pimping, misogyny, pro-slavery, bigotry, racism, human sacrifice...

    I don't know. I am conflicted :hihi:
     
    Yes. I know a few librarians and I know they bust their arses to do what is right for their patrons, especially trying to nurture a love of reading in young people and- yes- being there to help them find the right book to answer any questions they have on any topic.
    I think that is true of most librarians. Most school librarians in particular are subjected to heavy propaganda about "banned books." The American Library Association defines a banned book to include books that are "challenged" meaning that a parent or anyone else objected to it being in a library. By giving such books a place of honor, it claims that being objected to is a reason to read a book. Being offensive is therefore a virtue.

    Which is strange coming from the left, who have spent my adult life insisting on shutting down speech that offended them, and curating long lists of offensive words, phrases and beliefs to be eliminated from public discourse.
    Clarify: an adult has sex with a child in the book, or the narrator reflects on an incident when he was a child and experimented with someone his own age?
    You should really read it. An adult narrator sits having coffee with another adult. The narrator remembers fondly when they were in fourth grade and the narrator fondled and sucked the other boy's penis.
    Do you believe the bible should be 100% banned from being taught in schools?
    I disagree with it being taught in public schools.
    How old were you when you learned about the truly heinous stuff, and did it turn you off of Christianity?
    No. I never saw that stuff until I was in high school. Even then, I only heard about it. Like most kids raised in a Baptist family, I learned about the bible from what adults told me. I don't know how familiar you are with the King Jimmy version, but it's not exactly easy reading for a child.

    You mean there's an appropriate time to learn that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the angels, and Lot tried to compromise by asking them to rape his daughters instead. But the plot twist, where the daughters rape Lot instead? Whew! Never saw that coming.

    Here is the KJV version, followed by the NIV which is more readable by 21st century folk:

    Jimmy:

    30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

    31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

    32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

    33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

    34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

    35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

    36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.


    NIV:

    30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”

    33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.



    Notice the word "penis" does not appear? Did his daughters fondle and suck his penis to get him erect before raping him? We don't know, because the bible was not explicit. The praise "lay with him" will mean nothing to a child who has not been given explicit instruction in sex.

    Here is the "Lawn Boy" version of a description of a sexual encounter:

    1686506659065.png

    One of the great ironies of these debates is that parents have shown up to board meetings and been silenced for reading aloud passages from books that the school board insists be made available to children.



    Anyone who thinks this book should be anywhere near children or a school has no leg to stand on when it comes to what is or is not appropriate for libraries.
    As I said, the Christians I know use children's books to teach children. Not adult books make to look like children's books by putting them on display at a children's library.

    Suppose a school did put the bible on prominent display at a school library and a parent who objected to Lawn Boy also objected to the bible for its sexual content. Suppose the school board said, "oh, but it's important for students to learn about Christ, the risen savior!" Would you believe that school had an agenda?
     
    1686498715890.png


    1686498805915.png



    Sad part is that it would have been very easy for the elementary and middle school librarians to simply say, "I didn't read the book before I shelved it, there's no way I have time to read every book. I shelved it because it won the Alex Award, and I always shelve those books. Now that its content has been brought to my attenction, I'm removing it and donating it to the nearest public library for whoever wants to read it (or I gave it to the high school and told that librarian that students would need some guidance).

    Instead, every little thing has to be the Battle of the Century, rather than the left ever, ever admitting a mistake.
    You admitted yourself this book wasn’t in your middle school library. Do you have any proof at all that this book was offered indiscriminately to elementary or even middle school children? In more than one place? Care to share how you even heard about this book? My guess is that the vast majority of librarians are handling these books appropriately, as they have done for decades. What proof do you have that they are not? It’s time to come clean and tell us where you are getting your ideas about these things.

    Edit after looking at your latest post: it seems to me that these books were in high school libraries, were they not? Also, your example of a library highlighting banned books was a public library, right? They decided to highlight books that were banned from local schools.

    Also the charge made by one woman was that Lawn Boy contained pedophilia, which seems to be false. Your Washington Times story repeats that falsehood.
     
    Last edited:
    I really feel you should answer my question first. But, I'm curious to see your reaction, so:

    No, I really shouldn't have answered you first, because there was no point in addressing something without details.


    1686502024516.png



    FAIRFAX, Va. (7News) — A Fairfax County mom, who recently requested that two books be removed from a high school library, is offended after a county library displayed those two books next to the Bible. The display has since been removed.





    One book is “Lawn Boy” a novel by Jonathan Evison, which describes a sexual encounter between two fourth grade boys.

    The other book is titled “Gender Queer: A memoir” by Maia Kobabe. The work is a collection of narrative drawings known as a graphic novel. The book contains drawings of two characters having gay sex.



    The book is Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison. At a September 9 school board meeting a parent described the content as depraved and likened some passages to pedophilia. Leander ISD says the book is not taught in any classroom and is only available to some students through the campus library.

    Most of these stories are talking about high school libraries, including one where it's only available to certain junior and senior classes. If you want to discuss whether it's appropriate for middle school, that's a discussion worth having. I would like to read the book myself because from what I am seeing, nothing in it is inappropriate for high school students. Uncomfortable, sure, but things that speak to real experiences for a lot of people. It is also mentioned in at least one of these cases that a panel reviewed Lawn Boy for inappropriate content, so it clearly wasn't stocked based on an award.

    We're talking about "Lawn Boy," but "Gender Queer" is perhaps even more inappropriate for school libraries. The characters in "Gender Queer" are high school age, but that book has explicit illustrations of oral sex, trans on male, and male on male.

    You understand that just because a book is in a library, not everyone is going to check it out or read it, right? That it's a resource there for people who need and want to use it, right? If so, you can see where people might relate to a book like Lawn Boy or Gender Queer, right?

    My question is why are these explicit books that librarians insist must have shelf space, and even prominent displays, exclusively homosexual? If kids "need" explicit homosexual material, why do they not also "need" explicit heterosexual material?

    Kids are inundated every day with examples of heterosexual relationships. It feels like all of the arguments against these books are severely short-sighted.

    Another question specifically for you: Does it give you pause that you did not know that this book was indeed on school library shelves? You falsely accused me of not having read the book, yet you have not informed yourself about the facts of the controversy.

    I have informed myself. I am aware that the books were on some school library shelves. The point of asking you to post it is so we can all see the evidence for the claim you made.

    Will you learn from this and up your game?

    I thought you weren't snarky anymore. To be totally honest, the way you carry yourself on here is laughable. Your bio says you are 61, but you come across like a 14-year-old.
     
    You admitted yourself this book wasn’t in your middle school library. Do you have any proof at all that this book was offered indiscriminately to elementary or even middle school children? In more than one place? Care to share how you even heard about this book? My guess is that the vast majority of librarians are handling these books appropriately, as they have done for decades. What proof do you have that they are not? It’s time to come clean and tell us where you are getting your ideas about these things.
    This is why I asked you what your reaction would be if I showed you evidence that the books were in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group. I knew when you refused to answer that if I showed you exactly what you asked for, you would move the goalposts.

    So, what will you say if I show you evidence that the book was available to elementary or middle schoolers? If you will just move the goalposts again, why should I bother?

    Edit after looking at your latest post: it seems to me that these books were in high school libraries, were they not? Also, your example of a library highlighting banned books was a public library, right? They decided to highlight books that were banned from local schools.
    Not "banned" books, but books that were "challenged," per the ALA. Don't you find that illogical that a book is promoted because it offended people. Not because of its literary merit, or educational value. The fact that it offended people is more important than those things.
    Also the charge made by one woman was that Lawn Boy contained pedophilia, which seems to be false. Your Washington Times story repeats that falsehood.
    It depends on how you define "pedophilia," in relation to literature. If you think that no written words can contain pedophilia, that is an argument you could make.

    I think a better way to put it would be that some written works can appeal to pedophilia rather than "contain" pedophilia.

    I showed you two passages of explicit descriptions of children having sex. The book "Gender Queer" has explicit drawings of two underage characters having oral sex, and a drawing of an underage boy performing oral sex on a grown man. I could not show those pictures on this forum, but they were in school library books.

    What adult would be interested in that other than a pedophile? What adult would insist that children have a chance to read a book that normalizes child sex other than a pedophile?
     
    Last edited:
    I think that is true of most librarians. Most school librarians in particular are subjected to heavy propaganda about "banned books." The American Library Association defines a banned book to include books that are "challenged" meaning that a parent or anyone else objected to it being in a library. By giving such books a place of honor, it claims that being objected to is a reason to read a book. Being offensive is therefore a virtue.

    Which is strange coming from the left, who have spent my adult life insisting on shutting down speech that offended them, and curating long lists of offensive words, phrases and beliefs to be eliminated from public discourse.

    This is a lot of words to say nothing of any substance or value.

    You should really read it. An adult narrator sits having coffee with another adult. The narrator remembers fondly when they were in fourth grade and the narrator fondled and sucked the other boy's penis.

    I would like to read it if I get the chance. It doesn't seem to necessarily speak to my experience, but learning how other people or groups of people) experience life is how we grow to understand one another.

    I disagree with it being taught in public schools.

    Excellent. I knew we could find some common ground.

    No. I never saw that stuff until I was in high school. Even then, I only heard about it. Like most kids raised in a Baptist family, I learned about the bible from what adults told me.

    You are so close to getting the point here. One day you may actually realize how problematic this is.

    I don't know how familiar you are with the King Jimmy version, but it's not exactly easy reading for a child.

    KJV is what I grew up with. So many -est and -eth verbs. It's a slog.

    Notice the word "penis" does not appear? Did his daughters fondle and suck his penis to get him erect before raping him? We don't know, because the bible was not explicit. The praise "lay with him" will mean nothing to a child who has not been given explicit instruction in sex.

    So scenes of incestuous rape are ok as long as they soften the language?

    Here is the "Lawn Boy" version of a description of a sexual encounter:

    The biggest difference between the Bible (which you approve of in a general sense) and Lawn Boy (which you don't) is that the Bible engages in euphemisms to hide it's shocking obscenities.

    As I said, the Christians I know use children's books to teach children. Not adult books make to look like children's books by putting them on display at a children's library.

    Suppose a school did put the bible on prominent display at a school library and a parent who objected to Lawn Boy also objected to the bible for its sexual content. Suppose the school board said, "oh, but it's important for students to learn about Christ, the risen savior!" Would you believe that school had an agenda?

    Yes. If they said that high school students can choose an elective course in world religion, though, that would be fine. Just like making these books available to high school students is fine, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
     
    This is why I asked you what your reaction would be if I showed you evidence that the books were in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group. I knew when you refused to answer that if I showed you exactly what you asked for, you would move the goalposts.

    That was me, not MT15, and I addressed that.
     
    Sack:

    1. You never asked me that, or if you did, I missed it. It doesn’t matter to me where the book is in the school. I am not moving the goalposts, you are doing that. My guess is you have no examples of these books being offered to middle school or elementary school kids. If they were, that would be inappropriate for that age group, IMO. You seemed to infer it was made available to younger students yet all your sources are talking about high schools.

    2. Your idea of scanning books for checkout sending an automatic email to parents doesn‘t sound cheap or easy to me, it sounds like code would have to be written, and parents would have to be communicated with multiple times in order to implement this system. Even then, there won’t be an instant answer from parents, so does the book go back on the shelf at that point? Librarians IMO don’t have time to set books aside and wait for a email response. Plus, we have already seen that people who have been radicalized in this subject won’t be mollified by your system. They will quickly move on to public libraries just as the radical woman in Fairfax did.

    3. Your ideas about pedophilia are a bit weird. I do not think an adult character reminiscing about a youthful sexual encounter is appealing to pedophiles. Especially when it’s not any more explicit that what you have quoted.
     
    No, I really shouldn't have answered you first, because there was no point in addressing something without details.



    Most of these stories are talking about high school libraries, including one where it's only available to certain junior and senior classes. If you want to discuss whether it's appropriate for middle school, that's a discussion worth having. I would like to read the book myself because from what I am seeing, nothing in it is inappropriate for high school students. Uncomfortable, sure, but things that speak to real experiences for a lot of people. It is also mentioned in at least one of these cases that a panel reviewed Lawn Boy for inappropriate content, so it clearly wasn't stocked based on an award.
    This is why I asked you what your reaction would be if I showed you evidence that the books were in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group. I knew when you refused to answer that if I showed you exactly what you asked for, you would move the goalposts.

    So, what will you say if I show you evidence that the book was available to elementary or middle schoolers? Will you admit that it doesn't belong there? Or will you then demand proof that it was read aloud by pre-K students?

    If you will just move the goalposts again, why should I bother?
    You understand that just because a book is in a library, not everyone is going to check it out or read it, right? That it's a resource there for people who need and want to use it, right? If so, you can see where people might relate to a book like Lawn Boy or Gender Queer, right?
    Yes, they could relate to it just as easily without the explicit descriptions and pictures. More people can relate to a book about a kid who experimented sexually with a person of the opposite sex and remembers it as an adult. But such explicitness would be neither needed, nor appropriate.

    Do you think that it is important to have books like "Lawn Boy" and "Gender Queer" available to help kids feel comfortable with feelings of attraction to the same sex, or feelings of being non-binary?
    Kids are inundated every day with examples of heterosexual relationships. It feels like all of the arguments against these books are severely short-sighted.
    Show me some examples of heterosexual relationships between underage boys and girls that are as explicit as the homosexual descriptions in "Lawn Boy" and "Gender Queer." You might want to read those books before you look for similar heterosexual books. Then find the school libraries that are stocking the boy/girl versions.

    Kids today are certainly inundated with examples of homosexual relationships and trans people.

    Funny, though . . . I don't see a lot of trans relationships. It seems that "transwomen" appeal to neither gay or straight men. Or at least few of them care to be seen in public with the Dylan Mulvaney's of the world.
    I have informed myself. I am aware that the books were on some school library shelves. The point of asking you to post it is so we can all see the evidence for the claim you made.
    That makes no sense for you to insist on evidence for something that you already knew to be true. Unless you were just hoping to stall the debate.
    I thought you weren't snarky anymore. To be totally honest, the way you carry yourself on here is laughable. Your bio says you are 61, but you come across like a 14-year-old.
    I agree that last sentence was snarky. I believe I said that I was working on being less snarky, not that I never am. If you don't like snark, you may want to avoid that "wild goose strategy" you used on me. Stunts like that tend to bring out the snark.

    You are welcome to have whatever opinion you like about me. You just are not welcome to have whatever facts you make up.
     
    Suppose a school did put the bible on prominent display at a school library and a parent who objected to Lawn Boy also objected to the bible for its sexual content. Suppose the school board said, "oh, but it's important for students to learn about Christ, the risen savior!" Would you believe that school had an agenda?
    Yet another feeble attempt at a "gotcha!". Sexuality and Jesus are not equivalent. Sex is what makes us, what we are, how we continue as a species. Jesus is an ancient myth, which only survives because of indoctrination, as in a school board saying students need to know Jesus, because they don't, but they do need to know about sexuality, and not feel ostracized because they have very human feelings.
     
    I would like to read it if I get the chance. It doesn't seem to necessarily speak to my experience, but learning how other people or groups of people) experience life is how we grow to understand one another.
    Here's your chance:

    Amazon product ASIN B07BSTZ1RN
    Excellent. I knew we could find some common ground.

    You are so close to getting the point here. One day you may actually realize how problematic this is.
    One day you may tell me why you think it is problematic. No rush at all, though.
    KJV is what I grew up with. So many -est and -eth verbs. It's a slog.

    So scenes of incestuous rape are ok as long as they soften the language?
    Yes, if it is a legit part of the plot, and not meant to sexually arouse. In fact if it is meant to sexually arouse, it's still fine. Just not for kids.

    If "Lawn Boy" had said something like, "As I was watching Doug drink his coffee, I remembered when fooled around at church camp," I wouldn't object. If it was as is and not in schools I would not object.

    If you read the book, most of it is a typical leftist "businessmen are evil" propaganda piece. But the author knew what he was doing putting in the kid sex. The name of the character who has his dick sucked by the fourth grader is "Doug Goble." These literary types think they're clever, alright.
    The biggest difference between the Bible (which you approve of in a general sense) and Lawn Boy (which you don't) is that the Bible engages in euphemisms to hide it's shocking obscenities.
    Is the child gay sex in Lawn Boy a shocking obsenity to you? I don't find it so, just its explicitness and it's promoting to children by librarians. Which I still believe was a misunderstanding. The Alex Award description says nothing about sex. Whoever gave it the award probably is a left-leaning English major who liked the idea of real estate mogul as evil jerk. The smart people in college take engineering and business.
    Yes. If they said that high school students can choose an elective course in world religion, though, that would be fine. Just like making these books available to high school students is fine, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.
    I'd sooner see all that left out of public schools.

    Problem with including the bible in a study of all religions is that parents could take that to imply that all religions are equal. Under the U.S. system "all religions are equal" should be the official stance of any government organization. But that's not the stance of anyone in a particular religion. They all believe that theirs is "the one."

    My home state of Texas is bad about getting around that by pretending that kids run Christian clubs, and the adults only "sponsor" them. In my middle school, two teachers sponsor the students and they recruit this years' 7th graders to be next years student leaders of the club, so they perpetuate the fiction. They bribe the kids to attend with donuts on Thursday morning.

    Nothing particularly horrible about that. But then they act surprised when atheists and Satan worshippers demand and get a club of their own.
     
    Sack:

    1. You never asked me that, or if you did, I missed it. It doesn’t matter to me where the book is in the school. I am not moving the goalposts, you are doing that. My guess is you have no examples of these books being offered to middle school or elementary school kids. If they were, that would be inappropriate for that age group, IMO. You seemed to infer it was made available to younger students yet all your sources are talking about high schools.
    You asked me for proof it was in school libraries. I gave you that proof, and you asked for proof it was in middle school and elementary libraries. That is a textbook example of moving the goal posts.

    2. Your idea of scanning books for checkout sending an automatic email to parents doesn‘t sound cheap or easy to me, it sounds like code would have to be written, and parents would have to be communicated with multiple times in order to implement this system.
    Correct, but only for parents who opt into it. Most parents are very trusting of school libraries and if they don't keep stepping on their own feet with this "Gender Queer" type stuff, that will continue.
    Even then, there won’t be an instant answer from parents, so does the book go back on the shelf at that point? Librarians IMO don’t have time to set books aside and wait for a email response.
    So librarians just have to make explicitly sexual books available to kids because the dont' have time not to? If that's true, they need to be more careful about what books they shelf. Your objections are specious. You don't believe that it won't work, you don't want it to work because you prefer parents be silent about what their kids are given access to.
    Plus, we have already seen that people who have been radicalized in this subject won’t be mollified by your system. They will quickly move on to public libraries just as the radical woman in Fairfax did.
    Maybe so, but that's them not me. Again, if the libraries had been more thoughtful, or would just freaking admit their mistake which surprised even the author of the book, parents would not be so radicalized. Best way to radicalize people who disagree with those in power is for those in power to silence them, or refuse to listen to their concerns.
    3. Your ideas about pedophilia are a bit weird.
    Would you be more comfortable with the phrase "Minor Attraction?"
    I do not think an adult character reminiscing about a youthful sexual encounter is appealing to pedophiles. Especially when it’s not any more explicit that what you have quoted.
    Maybe not. I'm not an expert on what appeals to pedophiles.

    Pedophiles would obviously have a strong motivation to want child sex normalized to children.
     
    @MT15,

    I seem to be mixing up you and @cuddlemonkey on that moving the goalposts thingie. That's a hazard of being apparently one of the few non-liberals on the board. I have no problem with that, but it leads to me having almost the same debate on the same thread with more than one poster, which can be confusing.

    To avoid more confusion, I'll flip a coin. Heads, I keep debating you. Tails, I keep debating cuddlemonkey. *flips* Tails it is.

    Sorry, MT15, but at least get the last word.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom