Man Arrested for Causing Trans Anxiety

[Belk]

Common sense

Sorry no. "Common sense" is just short hand for "in my opinion". I'm still going to go with the opinion of the experts. I know to little on the subject to be guided by my own ignorance.

 

[BPPLEE]

The objections go beyond that, to things like just showing a same sex couple in the same way we've always shown hetero couples in age appropriate media.

I don't think that was what the law in Florida was about. There has been a lot of exaggeration about what it covers. If I didn't want my kid exposed to those things I would just work another job or excessive overtime like I did before to put my son through private school. That option is still open just like changing the channel on the television if there is something you don't want your children to watch. They will learn about all these things soon enough and make their own decisions when they are old enough.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think that was what the law in Florida was about. There has been a lot of exaggeration about what it covers. If I didn't want my kid exposed to those things I would just work another job or excessive overtime like I did before to put my son through private school. That option is still open just like changing the channel on the television if there is something you don't want your children to watch. They will learn about all these things soon enough and make their own decisions when they are old enough.

The law is vague enough that it could easily be interpreted to cover what I mentioned.

Thats the point: to not be explicit about whats banned, but just create at atmosphere of uncertainty and legal threat that will smother any representation of gay people.

 

[BPPLEE]

Sorry no. "Common sense" is just short hand for "in my opinion". I'm still going to go with the opinion of the experts. I know to little on the subject to be guided by my own ignorance.

I know how to raise my own children. What everyone else does with theirs is their business. I had to work a lot to put my son through private school and I would do the same again if the public school is teaching something I don't agree with. I did it for his safety but I would do it for other reasons if I had to make that choice. He ultimately grew up and made his own decisions. He is a lot more liberal than I am.

 

[BPPLEE]

That, I think, is the crux of the issue. People wish to control information to ensure "proper" understanding. I see it on both sides of the aisle and I think it damaging to society as a whole. Freedom, especially freedom of thought, is scary so we try to limit and channel it.

What if we teach little kids about Hitler from an ambiguous point of view? Given freedom of thought some might decide he was right. Is that the kind of freedom you want? There has to be proper understanding on some issues or they don't need to be taught at all.

 

[RDKirk]

Carano was fired. And comedy has always been the one bastion of freedom for inappropriate irreverent and irresponsibility. And now they are being cancelled too.

Authoritarianism of the LGBTQ ideology.

Let's not get away from the OP. The OP was about government action, not the action of private employers. Private employers have always been able to fire employees who persist in public behavior connected to their employment that is uncomplimentary to the public persona of the company.

For instance, out in the Twitterverse there is a young black woman model citing racism as the reason she's been fired from a lucrative modeling contract after she posted a series of extremely exposing images on Twitter. IMO, the company was within its rights to do so, just as Disney was in its rights to fire Carano.

But those are private companies, and the Bill of Rights has never been operational over private companies. We're talking about government action here.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[BPPLEE]

Let's not get away from the OP. The OP was about government action, not the action of private employers. Private employers have always been able to fire employees who persist in public behavior connected to their employment that is

For instance, out in the Twitterverse there is a young black woman model citing racism as the reason she's been fired from a lucrative modeling contract after she posted a series of extremely exposing images on Twitter. IMO, the company was within its rights to do so, just as Disney was in its rights to fire Carano.

But those are private companies, and the Bill of Rights has never been operational over private companies. We're talking about government action here.

Seems like there was a similar thing going on years ago when actors were denied work because of their (suspected) political beliefs.

 

[RDKirk]

but all this is true. the Constitution institutionalized slavery and it actually says black people are not fully human or worth the same as a human being.

Wrong.

The constitution did not say anything about the humanity of slaves.

It said that for the purpose of establishing Congressional representation, the number of enslaved persons would count only 3/5ths that of free persons. In free states, black people would be counted equally as white people. For that matter, even in slave states, what freedmen they had would be counted equally with white people.

In fact, the position of slaveholders was that slaves should be fully counted, so that slaveholding states would have more power in Congress and more presidential electors. The position of Abolitionists was that slaves should not be counted at all, which would have reduced the power of slaveholding states in Congress.

The interests of black people would have been better served if there had been no compromise and slaves had not been counted at all.

 

[RDKirk]

.

 

[RDKirk]

Seems like there was a similar thing going on years ago when actors were denied work because of their (suspected) political beliefs.

And it was legal.

 

[RDKirk]

The US Constitution accounting for people who are not free?

What kind of respectable arrangement does that???

Its despicable.

Kinda similar to the UN permitting Communist countries as members.

 

[BPPLEE]

And it was legal.

Yes. But most people regard McCarthyism in a bad light.

 

[durangodawood]

Kinda similar to the UN permitting Communist countries as members.

I dont think its comparable. The point of the UN is a forum for all nations.

The point of the USA is ostensibly a form of government in objection to tyranny. Yet theres the accounting for tyranny, right there in the founding document.

 

[BPPLEE]

I dont think its comparable. The point of the UN is a forum for all nations.

The point of the USA is ostensibly a form of government in objection to tyranny. Yet theres the accounting for tyranny, right there in the founding document.

Which they ultimately corrected by amending the constitution. Good thing there was a process in place to remedy the situation.

 

[durangodawood]

...The interests of black people would have been better served if there had been no compromise and slaves had not been counted at all.

Which is even more ironic.

The constitution:
1. allowed for slavery
2. allowed for slaves to count as quasi people only for political power to ensure the preservation of slavery.

 

[RDKirk]

I dont think its comparable. The point of the UN is a forum for all nations.

The point of the USA is ostensibly a form of government in objection to tyranny. Yet theres the accounting for tyranny, right there in the founding document.

The point of the USA was specifically to create a form of federal government in which taxation would require representation of the taxed. That was what they were calling "tyranny" in the Declaration of Independence.

They wrote a constitution that was acceptable to all states, so that all states would accept membership...which is the same thing that happened with the UN.

 

[RDKirk]

Which is even more ironic.

The constitution:
1. allowed for slavery
2. allowed for slaves to count as quasi people only for political power to ensure the preservation of slavery.

If the Constitution had not allowed for slavery then, there would have been a slave-holding Confederacy half a century earlier...without a war.

The young US government--much smaller--would probably then have lost the War of 1812. That doesn't mean it would have returned to British rule, but it does mean it would have remained a weak nation between Canada and the Confederacy, hindered at sea by the British and probably too weak to extend westward (probably would not have made the Louisiana Purchase if the Confederacy had already existed).

 

[durangodawood]

The point of the USA was specifically to create a form of federal government in which taxation would require representation of the taxed. That was what they were calling "tyranny" in the Declaration of Independence.

Thats completely wrong, at least according the the actual text of the DoI, below. They invoked anti-tyranny principles that go way above and beyond just taxation w/o representation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

...

...They wrote a constitution that was acceptable to all states, so that all states would accept membership...which is the same thing that happened with the UN.

Yes, but the ostensible principles behind the 2 institutions are totally different. UN: everyone at the table is the prime directive. Rights etc are important but secondary.

 

[BPPLEE]

Thats completely wrong, at least according the the actual text of the DoI, below. They invoked anti-tyranny principles that go way above and beyond just taxation w/o representation:

...

Yes, but the ostensible principles behind the 2 institutions are totally different. UN: everyone at the table is the prime directive. Rights etc is important but secondary.

Modern slavery is a multibillion-dollar industry with just the forced labor aspect generating US$150 billion each year.[122] The Global Slavery Index (2018) estimated that roughly 40.3 million individuals are currently caught in modern slavery, with 71% of those being female, and 1 in 4 being children.[123][124] As of 2018, the countries with the most slaves were: India (8 million),[125] China (3.86 million), Pakistan (3.19 million), North Korea (2.64 million), Nigeria (1.39 million), Indonesia (1.22 million), Democratic Republic of the Congo (1 million), Russia (794,000) and the Philippines (784,000).[126]

Are these UN members?