Man Arrested for Causing Trans Anxiety

[durangodawood]

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?

The main purpose of the UN is a forum for all nations.

 

[Belk]

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.

I fully support your right to do so. Contra wise I don't think you should be able to limit what other people feel is appropriate subject for their children.

 

[rturner76]

They're not spouting Nazi ideology, bigotry, homophobic beliefs, or hatemongering - they're just being accused of it. Just being a conservative Christian automatically comes with those labels these days depending on the crowd. Look at the pressure on the Church to stay silent about sin and go with the secular flow.

In some ways it is required to go with the secular flow when it comes to civil rights laws. Nowadays, homosexuality and trans are protected classes from my understanding. Unless it is clergy, we aren't allowed to discriminate against them according to secular law.

I think many evangelicals do spout homophobia but I wouldn't put them in the category of hate mongers or Nazis for the most part though there are some that are, I think the majority are not so extreme.

 

[Belk]

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?

<Looks at modern Neo Nazi Movement>

Looks like that is already happening. Do I want that in schools? No. There certainly needs to be a limit in the school. That said, do I want children taught to be able to look at Hitler from an objective place and make their own determination as to the points he makes? Absolutely. We need to teach kids how to evaluate information and come to conclusions based on evidence.

There has to be proper understanding on some issues or they don't need to be taught at all.

"Proper understanding" I find problematic as a phrasing. I agree there are some areas that we should not be teaching and leaving it to the parents. I just wish more parents were involved in learning like you obviously were.

 

[BPPLEE]

I fully support your right to do so. Contra wise I don't think you should be able to limit what other people feel is appropriate subject for their children.

I'm not able to. People can teach their own children anything they want. There is debate about whether some things are an appropriate subject for young children in public schools. I think parents should have a role in deciding and not be left with no option but to allow for what " the experts" have decided is appropriate.

 

[BPPLEE]

<Looks at modern Neo Nazi Movement>

Looks like that is already happening. Do I want that in schools? No. There certainly needs to be a limit in the school. That said, do I want children taught to be able to look at Hitler from an objective place and make their own determination as to the points he makes? Absolutely. We need to teach kids how to evaluate information and come to conclusions based on evidence.



"Proper understanding" I find problematic as a phrasing. I agree there are some areas that we should not be teaching and leaving it to the parents. I just wish more parents were involved in learning like you obviously were.

I was on the board at the private school. Parents were more involved there than in the public schools. My wife is a teacher and the lack of help from parents is a big issue.

 

[Belk]

I'm not able to. People can teach their own children anything they want. There is debate about whether some things are an appropriate subject for young children in public schools. I think parents should have a role in deciding and not be left with no option but to allow for what " the experts" have decided is appropriate.

I think parents should be able to opt out but they should not be able to have tyranny of the majority.

 

[Belk]

I was on the board at the private school. Parents were more involved there than in the public schools. My wife is a teacher and the lack of help from parents is a big issue.

My sister is a teacher as well and she agrees. To many parents do not work with their kids on education.

 

[BPPLEE]

I think parents should be able to opt out but they should not be able to have tyranny of the majority.

Or be subjected to tyranny by the minority

 

[SilverBear]

I'm not calling anyone out. I'm saying children are not ready to learn about such things until they are in the 5th grade. About 10 years old. That's not young enough for you? I wouldn't want to explain to a four year old that there are men who have sex with men or even that men and women have sex or anything about sex.

Fortunately no one is doing that. Why would you think discussions about orientation and identity are about sex?

 

[BPPLEE]

.

 

[SilverBear]

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.

in the last few weeks Florida school districts have adopted many anti LGBT policies. Educators are now required to out lgbt students not just to their parents but to the entire school and their parents. This of course puts kids in danger of abuse and violence in school and at home.

Educators married to a same gendered partner have been ordered to remove any and all photographs indicating they are married, they are also restricted form saying they are married. No such restrictions exist for straight teachers

 

[RDKirk]

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:

The Declaration of Independence was a political manifesto intended to rouse the rabble. They walked a whole lot of that rhetoric back when they actually sat down to create a working government. The DOI is important national history, but it's not the document that the US government is based upon.

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.

Getting all the colonies aboard was the prime directive of the Constitution as well. That's even why the Bill of Rights was necessary...colonies like Rhode Island would not ratify the Constitution without it.

Rights were clearly secondary in the writing of the Constitution, because women were not given the right to vote, and slavery was maintained even though at one point all the colonies except South Carolina had agreed to abolish it (at least eventually). But Abolition was not so important that they would insist on it at the cost of bringing all the colonies into the Union.

So, no, it's not any different from accepting Communists into the UN. Rights were secondary in both cases.

 

[BPPLEE]

in the last few weeks Florida school districts have adopted many anti LGBT policies. Educators are now required to out lgbt students not just to their parents but to the entire school and their parents. This of course puts kids in danger of abuse and violence in school and at home.

Educators married to a same gendered partner have been ordered to remove any and all photographs indicating they are married, they are also restricted form saying they are married. No such restrictions exist for straight teachers

Links? Citations?

 

[Belk]

Or be subjected to tyranny by the minority

Agreed. We should try to avoid both.

 

[ozso]

In some ways it is required to go with the secular flow when it comes to civil rights laws. Nowadays, homosexuality and trans are protected classes from my understanding. Unless it is clergy, we aren't allowed to discriminate against them according to secular law.

I think many evangelicals do spout homophobia but I wouldn't put them in the category of hate mongers or Nazis for the most part though there are some that are, I think the majority are not so extreme.

The Bible told us not to discriminate long before anti-discrimination laws were written. We're all sinners and all are welcome. Prostitutes for example attended the first churches. That doesn't mean the church condones sin and it certainly doesn't mean the church promotes sin by flying LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) flags. Recognizing two men having a sexual relationship aka sodomy as sin is not "homophobia". That's a word that was invented to try getting people to accept what God calls an abomination as acceptable.

 

[durangodawood]

The Declaration of Independence was a political manifesto intended to rouse the rabble. They walked a whole lot of that rhetoric back when they actually sat down to create a working government. The DOI is important national history, but it's not the document that the US government is based upon.

I thought you were specifically referring to the DoI in its specific enumeration of the reasons for going independent - focusing on taxation w/o representation.

Getting all the colonies aboard was the prime directive of the Constitution as well. That's even why the Bill of Rights was necessary...colonies like Rhode Island would not ratify the Constitution without it.

Rights were clearly secondary in the writing of the Constitution, because women were not given the right to vote, and slavery was maintained even though at one point all the colonies except South Carolina had agreed to abolish it (at least eventually). But Abolition was not so important that they would insist on it at the cost of bringing all the colonies into the Union.

So, no, it's not any different from accepting Communists into the UN. Rights were secondary in both cases.

You are describing a nihilistic version of the founding of the USA. That the motivating values could have been anything so long as everyone was on board.

 

[rjs330]

For power in congress. Not for anything that would advance freedom.

Correct, now why do you think the other states did not want them counted as a full person for the census?

 

[rjs330]

No, the left is not attacking it. Understanding it differently then you do and wanting to make changes is not an attack. We get to have our ideas heard as well no matter how much you rant and rave against it.

No they are attacking it. That's why there are so many calls from the left to get rid of certain amendments and a lot of calls to move on from it all together. That is not understanding it differently. That's trying to get rid of it.

 

[Belk]

No they are attacking it. That's why there are so many calls from the left to get rid of certain amendments and a lot of calls to move on from it all together. That is not understanding it differently. That's trying to get rid of it.

No, it is not. The whole idea is the constitution can be changed. That is why they are called amendments. It is built into the system and just like the amendments outlawing slavery and allowing alcohol it should always be allowable to discuss possible improvements. The document is not written in stone and changing things is not an attack.