Social Joy Reid Defends Books with Pedophilia in Public School Librairies

[shockaholic12]

My post is fine. Yours are normally littered with gaslighting and dishonesty and I'm sure you're just about ready to head down that road here.

The rightist argument is that we should not be subjecting underage kids to sexually inappropriate material. I don't need to form an argument around that. No further debate is required. It's pretty gross if you require someone to make a case as to why we should not be subjecting underage minors to sexually inappropriate material. It's common sense and it has been for decades until radical liberals started pushing their creepy agendas on other people's kids.

and the counter would be puberty and predators exists so educate kids to navigate them.

"One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault."

gee yeah nothing we need to give them a heads up about here, they got nothing to worry about.

Many of the books rightist are banning have been in libraries for decades. That is until libraries became the next shiny new thing in never ending identify politics crusade you guys wage.

 

[shockaholic12]

I have zero problems with a gay married couple adopting kids.

There are tons of foster kids and orphans in this country that need a home. Better to be raised by a gay couple than have no parents at all. And they're probably going to try harder as well because it's so hard for a gay couple to adopt. That tells me they really want to be parents.

why would gay couples have to try so much harder than straight couples to adopt?

Sounds like they still face life-changing discrimination and double-standards even in 2024.

Almost as if the "I respect gay people and don't care what they do in their personal lives just don't want my kids reading blah blah" line you hear over and over, including in this thread, is complete bullshit and it's clear a fair portion of society just looks for really any avenue to limit this minority community's rights and to erase their culture and presence as much from society/culture as they can.

They can't control adults but they can kids so here we are. Screeching about a collection of essays in the library and penguin egg rearing behavior in their classrooms.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So now for the what, 3rd time I clarified that when I said "the right", I was referencing whomever on the right that you specifically associate with this "rot". Are you purposefully ignoring that clarification so that you can continue to repeat the same accusation? You don't think THAT is a little dishonest?

No I don't but I accept your clarification nonetheless.

 

[Hog-train]

why would gay couples have to try so much harder than straight couples to adopt?

Sounds like they still face life-changing discrimination and double-standards even in 2024.

I'm comparing gay couples getting kids to any straight couple. Most straight couples just have a kid naturally while gay couples typically adopt.

I feel people that go through all the hoops to adopt probably really want it.

 

[shockaholic12]

You believe anywhere in America a gay couple can adopt a child as easy as a straight couple? If so, how recently did they gain this privilege?

"it's so hard for a gay couple to adopt" I don't know seems like you would have just said it's so hard to adopt if you didn't agree with me.

 

[brothir]

They'll stop being enemies when they stop advocating for children to read about the pleasures of incestual sodomy and books depicting people blowing each other.

You do realize that books have always been banned from school libraries, right? Inappropriate books for minors not being allowed in public school libraries is something that has always been enforced and is not some new thing, despite what the left wing media wants you to believe. Decades have past with basically no one ever arguing about what should and should not be in school libraries because we all agreed that inappropriate material should not be in their libraries. Only lately have left wingers been pushing for overtly sexual material to be in school libraries. Which side do you want to be on?

Schools are not and have never been in the business of teaching morality. There is no morality class, nor morality subject. If a kid misbehaves, they correct them and tell them to treat their classmates with respect. Morality is something that parents teach their kids because we all clearly have different ideas of what is moral and what isn't. I don't think it's moral to give kids access to inappropriate sexual material but a lot of left wingers do. This argument is about the left's version of what they think is moral and they want their version taught to every kid in the public school system.

Yes, I'm well aware that books have been banned historically. Many, many posts I've made in this thread are about that, and that it's wrong. It's completely false that arguments didn't ensue in decades past about what should and shouldn't be banned. It's been a very contentious issue. I want to be on the side that does not ban books.

You're contradicting yourself. Even identifying that a kid is misbehaving is assuming a moral stance. Moreover, allowing a child to read a book isn't a moral stance outside of "children should be able to educate themselves if they want".

 

[mkess101]

No I don't but I accept your clarification nonetheless.

3rd time was the charm I guess.

 

[Confucamus]

You believe anywhere in America a gay couple can adopt a child as easy as a straight couple? If so, how recently did they gain this privilege?

"it's so hard for a gay couple to adopt" I don't know seems like you would have just said it's so hard to adopt if you didn't agree with me.

I happen to have no issues with gay people adopting. As long as the child(ren) are receiving food and housing and are learning good moral values, it shouldn't matter the sexual orientation of the parents. However, you have to understand the reluctance in some areas. It is, more often than not, much more beneficial for children to have a Mom and a Dad raising them.

 

[shockaholic12]

I happen to have no issues with gay people adopting. As long as the child(ren) are receiving food and housing and are learning good moral values, it shouldn't matter the sexual orientation of the parents. However, you have to understand the reluctance in some areas. It is, more often than not, much more beneficial for children to have a Mom and a Dad raising them.

I don't understand the reluctance, outside of it being an opportunity to discriminate against a minority and taking it.

Evidence this is true?

Because when gay couples are allowed to adopt it's shown they, more often than straight couples, receive the kids with the worst behavioral issues, records, the kids who have been in the foster care system the longest, are the oldest, and are the hardest to place with a family. Because they are less judgemental and more willing to take on kids others like straight couples have cast aside.

So there is evidence gay couples already take on more difficult cases in the adoption arena than straight couples are willing and taking on the kids who are left behind by straight couples. Seems like they are already stepping up in ways straight folks don't. That doesn't make them less beneficial that's proof they are beneficial in adoption.

 

[RoastBeast]

You had said that rightists had better arguments, but there are literally no rightist arguments being offered. Personal attacks and restatements of your position are not arguments.

I said inappropriate sexually explicit material should not be in children's school libraries.

You are clearly in opposition of my opinion. State your case as to why inappropriate sexually explicit material needs to be in children's school libraries.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I said inappropriate sexually explicit material should not be in children's school libraries.

That's not an argument. It's just an assertion, and it's a circular one, as everyone on all sides of the issue agrees with it by definition.

You are clearly in opposition of my opinion. State your case as to why inappropriate sexually explicit material needs to be in children's school libraries.

First, do you know what an argument is? Second, I definitely don't think that inappropriate material of any kind should be in school libraries, and no one else does, by definition.

 

[RoastBeast]

and the counter would be puberty and predators exists so educate kids to navigate them.

"One in 9 girls and 1 in 20 boys under the age of 18 experience sexual abuse or assault."

gee yeah nothing we need to give them a heads up about here, they got nothing to worry about.

Many of the books rightist are banning have been in libraries for decades. That is until libraries became the next shiny new thing in never ending identify politics crusade you guys wage.

And the only way to educate them is with books like All Boys Aren't Blue?

He reached his hand down and pulled out my dick. He quickly went to giving me head. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was too. He didn't know I was a virgin and I did my best to act dominant like my favorite porn star.

Please state your case as to why children MUST be educated with this book.

 

[RoastBeast]

Yes, I'm well aware that books have been banned historically. Many, many posts I've made in this thread are about that, and that it's wrong. It's completely false that arguments didn't ensue in decades past about what should and shouldn't be banned. It's been a very contentious issue. I want to be on the side that does not ban books.

You're contradicting yourself. Even identifying that a kid is misbehaving is assuming a moral stance. Moreover, allowing a child to read a book isn't a moral stance outside of "children should be able to educate themselves if they want".

It's not false at all. If there were any arguments about which books should and shouldn't be allowed, they were books about gray areas that we couldn't all agree on. Now the overton window has moved so the new "gray" area (for only liberals, not right wingers, mind you) now involves overtly sexual books. If you think All Boys Aren't Blue should be allowed in school classrooms, then quote my passage from it in the post above and state your argument as to why kids have to read that book.

There is a massive difference in a teacher telling a little asshole kid to be nice to other kids and a teacher having kids read a passage about getting head like your favorite dominant porn star.

 

[RoastBeast]

That's not an argument. It's just an assertion, and it's a circular one, as everyone on all sides of the issue agrees with it by definition.


First, do you know what an argument is? Second, I definitely don't think that inappropriate material of any kind should be in school libraries, and no one else does, by definition.

I'm not going to get involved in your usual off topic pedantic behavior so you can wiggle your way out of your radical stance. I'm talking about the point of the entire thread here. You are clearly in opposition of my opinion so either you are lying and you do think that overtly sexual inappropriate material belongs in children's school libraries or you think this passage is not inappropriate for children.

He reached his hand down and pulled out my dick. He quickly went to giving me head. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was too. He didn't know I was a virgin and I did my best to act dominant like my favorite porn star.

What is it Jack? Are you for or against that book being in school libraries?

 

[shockaholic12]

And the only way to educate them is with books like All Boys Aren't Blue?

He reached his hand down and pulled out my dick. He quickly went to giving me head. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was too. He didn't know I was a virgin and I did my best to act dominant like my favorite porn star.

Please state your case as to why children MUST be educated with this book.

First, let’s address you claiming the status quo of past sexual education in school was sufficiently preparing kids for anything and should continue to be followed. By the time the average class graduates, an average of 22 kids in it will have been sexually assaulted at some point. Past approaches have completely failed and completely ignored the threat kids face. It advocates for burying everyone’s head in the sand and making kids easier victims to protect some conservative sensibilities.

I already did this with this specific passage more than once in this thread.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not going to get involved in your usual off topic pedantic behavior so you can wiggle your way out of your radical stance.

That's never happened, though, has it? You're just kind of a crazy person who doesn't understand that anyone can disagree with you.

I'm talking about the point of the entire thread here. You are clearly in opposition of my opinion so either you are lying and you do think that overtly sexual inappropriate material belongs in children's school libraries or you think this passage is not inappropriate for children.

He reached his hand down and pulled out my dick. He quickly went to giving me head. I just sat back and enjoyed it as I could tell he was too. He didn't know I was a virgin and I did my best to act dominant like my favorite porn star.

What is it Jack? Are you for or against that book being in school libraries?

I disagree that the book as a whole is inappropriate for high schoolers. We've been over this. Further, I think these kinds of decisions are best made by people who we hire to make them, as opposed to political activists who don't care about what's actually best for the students.

 

[RoastBeast]

First, let’s address you claiming the status quo of past sexual education in school was sufficiently preparing kids for anything and should continue to be followed. By the time the average class graduates, an average of 22 kids in it will have been sexually assaulted at some point. Past approaches have completely failed and completely ignored the threat kids face. It advocates for burying everyone’s head in the sand and making kids easier victims to protect some conservative sensibilities.

I already did this with this specific passage more than once in this thread.

How does reading that passage ensure that a child does not get sexually assaulted? I agree that it is a problem but having kids reading sexually inappropriate books is not the best way to educate them and it also does not protect them from pedophiles. The best way to protect from pedophiles is to keep them locked up.

This page is 87 pages long so I can't keep track of every post. How did you address that specific passage?

That's never happened, though, has it? You're just kind of a crazy person who doesn't understand that anyone can disagree with you.


I disagree that the book as a whole is inappropriate for high schoolers. We've been over this. Further, I think these kinds of decisions are best made by people who we hire to make them, as opposed to political activists who don't care about what's actually best for the students.

That's never happened? Your second paragraph there is literally full of it happening.

Your logic is apparently books are allowed to have sexually inappropriate material as long as the book as a whole isn't sexually inappropriate. That's really the argument you want to go with? That's as dumb as shock's "It's only 3 lines out of the whole book!" argument. Who cares if it's 1, 2, 3 or 50 lines? If the book has sexually inappropriate material, it should not be in school libraries. Period.

I don't care who you think should be making these decisions. It means absolutely nothing in the context of this debate and is just another way for you to deflect from your real behavior, which is advocating for sexually inappropriate material to be in school libraries.

We have books with sexually inappropriate material and not only are you okay with them being available to children as long as the school decides it's okay, but you think they should be available to kids as long as only certain passages are sexually explicit and not "the book as a whole".

 

[Islam Imamate]

There is a massive difference in a teacher telling a little asshole kid to be nice to other kids and a teacher having kids read a passage about getting head like your favorite dominant porn star.

Where has that happened?

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's never happened? Your second paragraph there is literally full of it happening.

I mean like in real life.

Your logic is apparently books are allowed to have sexually inappropriate material as long as the book as a whole isn't sexually inappropriate.

No, my view is that context is needed to determine whether books are inappropriate or not. Do you really not get that (one branch of) the argument is about what is appropriate or do you think that lying is a better tactic? I think I need an answer to this before proceeding.

 

[shockaholic12]

How does reading that passage ensure that a child does not get sexually assaulted? I agree that it is a problem but having kids reading sexually inappropriate books is not the best way to educate them and it also does not protect them from pedophiles. The best way to protect from pedophiles is to keep them locked up.

This page is 87 pages long so I can't keep track of every post. How did you address that specific passage?



That's never happened? Your second paragraph there is literally full of it happening.

Your logic is apparently books are allowed to have sexually inappropriate material as long as the book as a whole isn't sexually inappropriate. That's really the argument you want to go with? That's as dumb as shock's "It's only 3 lines out of the whole book!" argument. Who cares if it's 1, 2, 3 or 50 lines? If the book has sexually inappropriate material, it should not be in school libraries. Period.

I don't care who you think should be making these decisions. It means absolutely nothing in the context of this debate and is just another way for you to deflect from your real behavior, which is advocating for sexually inappropriate material to be in school libraries.

We have books with sexually inappropriate material and not only are you okay with them being available to children as long as the school decides it's okay, but you think they should be available to kids as long as only certain passages are sexually explicit and not "the book as a whole".

Well you removed all the context before those few lines where it describes how he consent was manipulated out of an willing kid by a family member so it makes them aware of how peer pressure plays out in real life family scenarios. Then it pretty simply describes the sex act and what it was performed on. It describes the confusion of not consenting to a sensation that is enjoyable and accurately describes where virgins minds go so it’s relatable to kids.

Part of the reason for its tone is the essay is from the POV of a young teen the and language needs to reflect how they would describe things or it’ll be a shitty story that won’t engage kids.

You’re not even debating that past approach to sex ed has produced classes full of child victims.