SectionC3

Hoax. Hoax. And a misquote on your end. There is no desperation. I also never said that Pokémon or whatever is part of that bunch of dudes. If you’re going to group yourself with those inspired by the possibly gay frog and the possibly gay toad, so be it. But that’s on you.

One where the difference between there and their is taught.

And this is the point. A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad. America 2023. Gotta love it.

Turns out you’re a cancel culture guy, too. Interesting.

This is where we disagree. You think a ban has to be universal. I recognize the reality that a ban can apply to certain places. (Dogs are banned from the grocery store. Guns are banned in movie theaters. Christians are banned from Mecca.) My view is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition (dictionary.com, for what it’s worth), which does not contain the universality component you wish to project.

It’s Potter Stewart’s game. Google him. If you get Internet in that van down by the river.

I don’t even know what the stalemate is. You’re playing some semantical game about “ban.” You disagree with Noah Webster with respect to the definition of the word. Fine. Maybe you have a problem with linguists. Whatever. Beyond that, I have no clue what you’re talking about. You have a point on the semantics of it. Perhaps what should have been said is exposing the genitals of every child who wishes to compete or to attempt to compete in interscholastic sports. A smaller universe of those who must submit to an inspection of their junk, to be sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that said inspection is really, really messed up.

Define “the left.”

I don’t get your point. If you’re asking whether I believe pornography should be banned from publicly-funded K-12 schools and from public libraries, the answer is an emphatic yes. If you’re trying to get into some sort of semantics game, unfortunately for you I don’t find that sufficiently amusing at the moment to participate. Maybe later, maybe tomorrow. But semantics just isn’t funny enough for me right now. And yet you didn’t publish your definition.

The definition is used appropriately. If you disagree, then I suggest doing such things as picking up empty cans (not Bud Light cans, of course), or holding a bake sale to raise funds sufficient to purchase a dictionary. A garage sale may also satisfy this purpose.

You and Tipper Gore might have more in common than you think. This particular difference is a MAGA issue.

We disagree on the dictionary definition of ban. For yours to work, you’d have to fire up the DeLorean, get a timely lightning strike, and get Noah Webster on board before he takes his dirt nap. As to your other point, I’m not the guy looking to ban, so it’s not my list to make. But I believe my answer lies in other posts. A restriction, like a prohibition? Which *gasp* is a ban.

That’s sort of the point. Nobody disputes that something like a playboy magazine shouldn’t appear in a public or school library. Nobody. It’s when we get into the removal of non-explicit material covering certain subject areas that I have a problem. If MAGA wants to say that children shouldn’t have access to explicit materials, and wants to define “explicit” as pornographic, then I’d be on board. (Defining “pornographic” is its own nettlesome issue, but that’s sort of a “know it when you see it” thing.) But MAGA hasn’t framed its complaint as such. Again to my anecdotal interpretation, the issue doesn’t rest simply with explicit materials, but with a wider swath of literature and thought that is not explicit and which respect to which MAGA simply disagrees. That is not my America.

Sorry, but it’s a ban. Plain and simple. You want to prevent literature that you deem to consider an objectionable or disagreeable topic from appearing in a public or school library. That’s unamerican, and it’s a ban.

Burning is hyperbolic. Funny, and illustrative, but hyperbolic. No doubt about it. Banning is a fair characterization, though. And, as long as we’re on the topic, in terms of things that people should “quit” saying, I’d start with the demonization of anyone who doesn’t agree with MAGA. Child molester, pedophile, communist, etc. I’ve been called (anonymously) a lot of nasty things on this board. I couldn’t care less about it. It also happens in real life. There it’s a little more concerning. There’s definitely room for linguistic moderation on both sides. But I’d start with the really nasty stuff first and then get into the more semantical disputes.

Interesting. We’re going to play the semantics game. Ban is synonymous with prohibit. MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries. If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct. But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.

So what? Who cares. They have the right to have their say. If you don’t like it, then that’s on you. Bud Light is the perfect example. Bud Light has a right to put whomever or whatever it wants (so long as it is not explicit) on its packaging. You have the right to break the habit and not drink Bud Light because you don’t like the packaging. That’s how things work here. But burning books or banning books because the literature talks about gay characters or articulates the point that Native Americans, not Chris Columbus, “discovered” North America . . . It’s an unamerican viewpoint. Plain and simple.

I don’t think anyone disputes or should dispute that children should not have access to sexually explicit materials. The problem with MAGA is that it doesn’t know what it wants to burn, and that, to my sort of anecdotal interpretation, it has indicated that it would prefer to burn such things are non-explicit literature that that involves gay or questioning characters (the frog and the toad from earlier, for example) or views of American history inconsistent with MAGA beliefs (e.g., with respect to slavery, or the “discovery” of North America).

You misread the post. Which is not really a surprise, sadly.

I think what’s really happening here is that moderate, intelligent people (like BillsTime) are saying that we shouldn’t have sexually explicit materials in school. We should not, however, ban literature based on point of view, or opinion, or topic area, simply because a portion of the population disagrees with the non-explicit subject matter. It’s not a difficult concept. Unless you’re MAGA.

Seriously. Usually that guy just writes a bunch of marginally comprehensible gibberish. His most recent post is more deluded and desperate than normal. These people are all tied up in knots - accusing each other of sharing child porn, worried about junk checks for children. It’s sick. Where’s Chris Farley when you need him? Hopefully not in that van by the river. Now his pal Bills Fan NC is sharing more of what Mr. Chris Farley previously characterized as child porn. Our lonely eyes tun to you, Mr. Chris Farley, for comment on this turn of events.

It is not for every sport. But if you want to have a junk check before a child plays a sport like bowling, or golf, or tennis, or swimming, or track, that’s on you. And, you’ve overlooked the point that the physical is not conducted immediately before competition. Between the time of the physical and the time of the competition something with respect to the examinee’s condition could change. So your junk check position really is that you think that junk should be examined before each competition. Sick. Very sick.

This is nonsensical. Even for you. That’s saying something.

Interesting. MAGA begins to unwittingly turn on itself. Chris Farley has accused that other guy of sharing child porn. Outstanding. Let’s see MAGA wiggle out of this one.

What I say is that you’re into some pretty lurid stuff. I also say that I’m still waiting for a response to the point that you’re pro-junk check before kids play high school sports. Sick. But that’s MAGA for you.