On 9/22/2024 4:57 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sat Aug 3 09:31:22 2024 Catrike Ryder wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2024 08:22:20 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 8/3/2024 5:13 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 8/2/2024 3:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/2/2024 1:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 8/1/2024 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/1/2024 4:00 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/28/2024 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/28/2024 10:53 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/28/2024 10:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/28/2024 6:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/27/2024 8:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/27/2024 6:19 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 7/26/2024 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/26/2024 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/26/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/25/2024 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/25/2024 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Purposely irritating others is fun to
people who are childish and obnoxious. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And yet, autos with political candidate
stickers are common.
Interesting viewpoint. So expressing approval >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a candidate in an election is childish >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and obnoxious? Really?
I see many more right wing examples than left >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wing examples. And when it comes to obscene >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples, it's not even close.
"> I see many more right wing examples"
That's because you take offense at them and
blithely disregard the left wing stickers.
Perfectly normal response BTW, nothing wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that but see it as it is.
I know what confirmation bias is, thank you. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppose this fine side point could be settled
by actual counts. You know, data.
But the fundamental point is that candidate
stickers are not necessarily intended to
irritate others, as you implied. Most are
intended to express support for a candidate,
just as similar ones saying "Vote for the
[police, or fire, school or library] levy."
And they've been ruled a first amendment right. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excellent analysis.
Now just extend your argument one Amendment
further...
ok. how about SCOTUS has repeated ruled the right
to free speech is not absolute. Let's extend that
to the 2nd amendment.
Personally I think they are wrong on both counts
but that hasn't stopped them from either.
except when it comes to banning books in school
libraries....You're fine with that, but you're not
fine with banning guns in schools. Gee I wonder how
many kids have died over the years from reading
Catcher in the Rye?
You conflated limits on prurient materials to minor
children in State funded facilities with 'book
banning'. Utterly different things.
No, it isn't. Book banning is book banning regardless
of the motive or source of funding for the materials.
Nice try at defection, especially considering much of
the books being banned in school libraries aren't
'prurient' by even the loosest definition of
'prurient'. Books with discussions on slavery and
experiences of racism are hardly prurient, yet you
have made no distinction between those and books
depicting graphic sex.
You mistake my position.? I oppose ideological book
censorship and have been carping about the loss of
Huckleberry Finn to younger generations for decades.
[People who haven't actually read it get incensed at
certain words out of context while ignoring that it is
among the most beautifully, powerfully crafted anti
racism works ever.]
I could not phrase it better than this:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/reading.jpg
That said, normalizing sexual deviance to preteens is
different in kind.
That's funny becasue every time I've mentioned actual
works of literature being lumped in with bans on
sexually graphic material, you respond with a shrug, if
any response at all.
If I recall you only mentioned Catcher in the Rye (a
work I have not read) which is $1.63 up to anyone as of
this morning:
I also mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird and The
Kiterunner, to reiterate, you respond with a shrug, if
any response at all.
Happy to help with that.
To Kill a Mockingbird is available only to a select few.
That is, people with 99 cents to spend:
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=to+kill++mockingbird&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
I am unfamiliar with The Kiterunner but is actually valued
more highly. $1 to anyone, 24x7:
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=the+kiterunner&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
Whatever ban you refer to seems to be ineffective so far.
Ah, I see, so your response to banning books from school
libraries is to just go buy the book - IOW, a shrug. Gee,
Andrew, why bother having school libraries at all? You don't
seem to grasp the slippery slope of the bans being extended
to public libraries.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/attempts-to-ban-books-are-at-an-all-time-high-these-librarians-are-fighting-back
Of course, if you were a true libertarian you would be
against any publicly funded library. oh, wait...Public
libraries don't cost anyone anything:
"I Went to the Library, Where Books Are Free" - Glenn Beck.
So let's keep banning books. It's not like censoring speech
is unconstitutional or anything.
I have my beefs with various curricula and library policy
but they are granular and local. I've mentioned before the
loss to young people of never having read Huckleberry Finn,
for example, among other valuable but lost works.
But such are the normal vicissitudes of a culturally divided
citizenry expressed in their local venues. A worse
situation would be something like France, where all policy
is centralized, the natural end point of having a Federal
Education Department.
I have no problem with the people who establish and fund the library
having a say in what sits on the shelves of that libary.
I don't even know what this discussion is about?
That's because you don't have the mental capacity to lucidly and
rationally discuss free speech issues.
Apparently Flunky is arguing with everyone about nothing.
evidently tommy is too stupid to follow a very clearly defined discussion
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
