The Republican Utopia

[Archy1221]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

What about Mom and Mom....or Dad and Dad?

What about it? Saying mom and mom went to the grocery store or went to the beach isn’t really teaching kids about sex or discussing sex now is it? 

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What about it? Saying mom and mom went to the grocery store or went to the beach isn’t really teaching kids about sex or discussing sex now is it? 

What if a kid says..."Wait....can you explain that because that's not like my family?"

 

Are they allowed to have books in the classroom where there is a family with two moms or two dads?

[Scarlet]

Putin loving, democracy squashing Orban is the keynote speaker?  But the Republican Party doesn't have an authoritarian loving cancer in it's midst. 

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Scarlet said:

Putin loving, democracy squashing Orban is the keynote speaker?  But the Republican Party doesn't have an authoritarian loving cancer in it's midst. 

What?  Republicans are holding a convention in Hungary?

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

What?  Republicans are holding a convention in Hungary?

 

The party that sent eight members to Moscow to celebrate the 4th of July with Putin?

 

Seems plausible.

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

What if a kid says..."Wait....can you explain that because that's not like my family?"

“Well littleredbuster, why don’t you ask your parents about that tonight.  I’m sure they can explain things for you”.  Didn’t seem to hard 

 

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Are they allowed to have books in the classroom where there is a family with two moms or two dads?

I guess we will find out soon enough.  

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

I guess we will find out soon enough.  

And, if the law says absolutely not....is that OK?

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, if the law says absolutely not....is that OK?

Does the law say that because I don’t think it does

[knapplc]

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And, if the law says absolutely not....is that OK?

 

That's the trick. It doesn't have to say anything, implicitly or explicitly. It's written quite vaguely on purpose.

 

That won't stop people from suing school districts. Which will cost the districts money, which the bill is designed to do.

 

The whole point of it is to chill speech. And the genius is, the State isn't the one suing, so it's not a 1st Amendment violation.

[BigRedBuster]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Does the law say that because I don’t think it does

Your previous answer was, we will find out. 
 

so, would you be against the law then?

 

it doesn’t spell out what is allowed and what isn’t. 

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Your previous answer was, we will find out. 
 

so, would you be against the law then?

 

it doesn’t spell out what is allowed and what isn’t. 

We will find out if/when when someone tries to ban a book you described under pretenses of the law which starts in June

 

No, because the law doesn’t describe what you said in your question.  It doesn’t ban a book because it has two dads 

[Enhance]

Objectively speaking, the legislation has some incredibly ambiguous writing. Before the law passed they had to change part of the wording from "discussion" of the topics to "instruction," but the final law still doesn't define "instruction," what is "age appropriate" or what is "developmentally appropriate."

 

All of this is likely going to be parsed out through a ton of litigation. By the way the law is written, you could be in violation for saying any number of things we might typically consider innocuous.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

We will find out if/when when someone tries to ban a book you described under pretenses of the law which starts in June

 

No, because the law doesn’t describe what you said in your question.  It doesn’t ban a book because it has two dads 

When that lawsuit happens, which side will you support?

[Enhance]

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

When that lawsuit happens, which side will you support?

I think the real question is whether or not he (or others) have a problem with a book with two dads being in a school in question. I think that's more telling of where a person stands on the issue.

 

Because the easy answer here would be "I support fair application of the law," which doesn't really say much of anything other than the obvious.

 

It is absolutely possible someone is going to argue the following: if instruction is equivalent to giving knowledge, and if we give/gain knowledge through reading books, then perhaps we could argue that reading = instruction. In which case...

 

[Lorewarn]

23 minutes ago, Enhance said:

By the way the law is written, you could be in violation for saying any number of things we might typically consider innocuous.

 

And by the way the rule is written, runningbacks commit targeting violations more than defensive backs do. But we all know the real reason the rule is there, and we all know that it will be enforced one way and ignored the other.