Book Banning

RQA wrote:

NigelUno wrote:

Were you outraged when he tried to squash free speech?

I have little fear that Elon Musk could "squash" free speech. So not outraged.

To be clear...you are touting Elon Musk as a proponent of free speech for a social media platform, even though he tried to squash free speech on a social media platform.

And also to be clear...that wasn't a question.

Turtleneck wrote:

RQA wrote:

When you're the boss and hire good people slow days are a sign of success.

Or complacency and laziness.

Complacency and laziness generally doesn't lead to success so my version seems more likely.

kingstonlake wrote:Clinging to lies about the results of a free election doesn't mean it was stolen.

Are we talking about the Russian collision of 2016 or the fraudulent WI votes of 2020?

Should both be allowed to be spoken? Or neither? Or just one? If so, which one?

Turtleneck wrote:

Interesting wording. The books have been selected for exclusion, not inclusion. Hence, they are banned.

The average elementary school library has about 1000 books. By your "interesting wording" that means every book outside of the chosen 1000 is banned.

Motown Spartan wrote:The same people that claim guns laws are draconian don't believe that actually book bannings are book bannings. Make it make sense Bob!

Generalize much?

I don't believe that all gun laws are draconian but I also don't think choosing to exclude age inappropriate books from a school library is "banning".

RQA wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:The same people that claim guns laws are draconian don't believe that actually book bannings are book bannings. Make it make sense Bob!

Generalize much?

I don't believe that all gun laws are draconian but I also don't think choosing to exclude age inappropriate books from a school library is "banning".  

Changing the selection of books in the library from decisions by trained educators to parents changes the selection process from "age appropreate" to political.

Having sat through some gd awlful readings of books designed to brainwash children into a belief in Christ before they have the critical facilities to question what is being read to them, as a parent I would say any book with God in it might be considered age inappropriate.

The RussianQuislingAgent is posting his ass off justifying the latest round of GOP attempts to modify/ censor history at K-12 level and public libraries.

In typical GOP fashion he’s clinging to the straw that if it can be purchased somewhere it’s not banned based on the belief everyone can purchase books.

The RussianQuislingAgent uses the same logic on needing a photo ID like a driver’s license to register and then vote. Because of the false logic that nearly all eligible voters should have drivers licenses.

RQA wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Interesting wording. The books have been selected for exclusion, not inclusion. Hence, they are banned.

The average elementary school library has about 1000 books. By your "interesting wording" that means every book outside of the chosen 1000 is banned.

Logic and rhetoric are not strong suits of yours, are they?

There is an extremely obvious difference between a book a library does not possess and a book which a library has explicitly banned.

Surely a successful big shot businessman like yourself can figure that distinction out. You're not in the NFL, right? Were you banned, or did you just not make a team? Are you getting this yet, or do I need to dumb it down even more for you?

RQA wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Interesting wording. The books have been selected for exclusion, not inclusion. Hence, they are banned.

The average elementary school library has about 1000 books. By your "interesting wording" that means every book outside of the chosen 1000 is banned.

What an oddly specific and clearly made up stat. Like, you did not need to make up a number, but you did anyway.

GRR Spartan wrote:blah...blah....blah....

Still waiting for your answers from questions posed in post #12........

Cameron wrote:
There is an extremely obvious difference between a book a library does not possess and a book which a library has explicitly banned.

There really isn't. Each book is not in the library because it was not felt appropriate to have it there for whatever reason. If it is a book that leftists want 8 year olds to read such as Gender Queer, then they call the reason for it not being in the library BANNING!

All the books you guys have listed as being banned are readily available to anyone who wants to read them. Leftists cheapen the meaning of words. Like the accusation RACIST!, book banning will similarly loose its true meaning.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

What an oddly specific and clearly made up stat. Like, you did not need to make up a number, but you did anyway.

It's called research. You should try it sometime.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

What an oddly specific and clearly made up stat. Like, you did not need to make up a number, but you did anyway.

It's called research. You should try it sometime.

I did a quick google, and every number I saw was significantly higher than 1000. Mind providing a source for 1000? I don’t mean that to be a weirdo like some people when they say “link please” I’m genuinely curious.

RQA wrote:

Cameron wrote:
There is an extremely obvious difference between a book a library does not possess and a book which a library has explicitly banned.

There really isn't.   Each book is not in the library because it was not felt appropriate to have it there for whatever reason.     If it is a book that leftists want 8 year olds to read such as Gender Queer, then they call the reason for it not being in the library BANNING!  

All the books you guys have listed as being banned are readily available to anyone who wants to read them.    Leftists cheapen the meaning of words.   Like the accusation RACIST!, book banning will similarly loose its true meaning.  

Because a library doesn't have a certain book does not mean the book was considered inappropriate, and it's foolish to claim otherwise.  Inadequate space and inadequate funding are probably two of the top reasons a library doesn't carry a particular book.  

You try to distort the meanings of words, as you did last week by calling a lie a "disparity".  As for the word "racist", you're only saying it has lost its meaning because it has been used to describe you and many of your favorite people.

To ban is to prohibit.  Being banned from a library means that officials have prohibited the library from carrying it.  It does not mean it's been eliminated from the face of the earth.  Your argument is very silly, and I wish you just enough of an IQ bump to be embarrassed by what you've posted.

Edit: changed "discrepancy" to "disparity" for accuracy. The point remains.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

What an oddly specific and clearly made up stat. Like, you did not need to make up a number, but you did anyway.

It's called research. You should try it sometime.

Considering you seem incapable of doing research, I suspect your recent complaints about the business environment have less to do with Whitmer and Biden and more to do with an unwillingness to work hard in life. You are for sure that person who spends more time blaming others than actually doing the work to be successful. I bet you take a lot of naps. Maybe you're a GreenWay schtick.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

RQA wrote:

There really isn't.   Each book is not in the library because it was not felt appropriate to have it there for whatever reason.     If it is a book that leftists want 8 year olds to read such as Gender Queer, then they call the reason for it not being in the library BANNING!  

All the books you guys have listed as being banned are readily available to anyone who wants to read them.    Leftists cheapen the meaning of words.   Like the accusation RACIST!, book banning will similarly loose its true meaning.  

Because a library doesn't have a certain book does not mean the book was considered inappropriate, and it's foolish to claim otherwise.  Inadequate space and inadequate funding are probably two of the top reasons a library doesn't carry a particular book.  

You try to distort the meanings of words, as you did last week by calling a lie a "discrepancy".  As for the word "racist", you're only saying it has lost its meaning because it has been used to describe you and many of your favorite people.

To ban is to prohibit.  Being banned from a library means that officials have prohibited the library from carrying it.  It does not mean it's been eliminated from the face of the earth.  Your argument is very silly, and I wish you just enough of an IQ bump to be embarrassed by what you've posted.

So the poster is just really, really simple or being intellectually dishonest. I have seen this before. It's no way to go through life.

Turtleneck wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Because a library doesn't have a certain book does not mean the book was considered inappropriate, and it's foolish to claim otherwise.  Inadequate space and inadequate funding are probably two of the top reasons a library doesn't carry a particular book.  

You try to distort the meanings of words, as you did last week by calling a lie a "discrepancy".  As for the word "racist", you're only saying it has lost its meaning because it has been used to describe you and many of your favorite people.

To ban is to prohibit.  Being banned from a library means that officials have prohibited the library from carrying it.  It does not mean it's been eliminated from the face of the earth.  Your argument is very silly, and I wish you just enough of an IQ bump to be embarrassed by what you've posted.

So the poster is just really, really simple or being intellectually dishonest. I have seen this before. It's no way to go through life.

He was statistically the most dishonest poster on the Wells board, and seems intent on capturing the same title here.

I should have known I couldn't possibly dumb it down enough.

Cameron wrote:I should have known I couldn't possibly dumb it down enough.

If the average elementary school library has 1000 books and there are 130,000,000 million books in the world, by RQA's logic each library has sorted through and deemed inappropriate approximately 129,999,000 books. Yeah, that makes sense. So much sense.

Also, the bans are not limited to elementary school classrooms or libraries in the books RQA cited from the database, so even the framing attempts to distort the truth. This is really about our resident authoritarian trying to distract from his love for book banning while simultaneously claiming to be a super-patriotic, nap-taking, freedom-loving American.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I did a quick google, and every number I saw was significantly higher than 1000. Mind providing a source for 1000? I don’t mean that to be a weirdo like some people when they say “link please” I’m genuinely curious.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/teaching-tools/articles/11-essentials-for-a-highly-effective-classroom-library.html

Suggestion here is for a minimum of 750 books or perhaps 30 books per student.

Given those are minimum recommendations about 1000 seemed a reasonable figure.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I did a quick google, and every number I saw was significantly higher than 1000. Mind providing a source for 1000? I don’t mean that to be a weirdo like some people when they say “link please” I’m genuinely curious.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/teaching-tools/articles/11-essentials-for-a-highly-effective-classroom-library.html

Suggestion here is for a minimum of 750 books or perhaps 30 books per student.

Given those are minimum recommendations about 1000 seemed a reasonable figure.

30 books per student and 1000 books is only 33 students in the whole school. Michigan had an average enrollment of 403

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I did a quick google, and every number I saw was significantly higher than 1000. Mind providing a source for 1000? I don’t mean that to be a weirdo like some people when they say “link please” I’m genuinely curious.

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/teaching-tools/articles/11-essentials-for-a-highly-effective-classroom-library.html

Suggestion here is for a minimum of 750 books or perhaps 30 books per student.    

Given those are minimum recommendations about 1000 seemed a reasonable figure.  

That's for a classroom library, not the "average elementary school library".

Your "research" could use some work.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

You try to distort the meanings of words, as you did last week by calling a lie a "discrepancy".

Feel free to revisit this one Pervis. You will only embarrass yourself.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

So the poster is just really, really simple or being intellectually dishonest. I have seen this before. It's no way to go through life.

He was statistically the most dishonest poster on the Wells board, and seems intent on capturing the same title here.

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB. I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse. It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy. I won’t bang my head against a wall. But it’s entertaining to read.

DWags wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

He was statistically the most dishonest poster on the Wells board, and seems intent on capturing the same title here.  

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB.  I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse.  It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy.  I won’t bang my head against a wall.  But it’s entertaining to read.

Stupidy can be entertaining at times. The racism part isn't.

DWags wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

He was statistically the most dishonest poster on the Wells board, and seems intent on capturing the same title here.

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB. I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse. It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy. I won’t bang my head against a wall. But it’s entertaining to read.

I argued against his banning on the other board and wouldn't want him banned here either. I just enjoy pointing out when he strays from the truth.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

DWags wrote:

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB. I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse. It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy. I won’t bang my head against a wall. But it’s entertaining to read.

I argued against his banning on the other board and wouldn't want him banned here either. I just enjoy pointing out when he strays from the truth.

Agree.

kingstonlake wrote: There racism part isn't.

And I refer you back to post #51

RQA wrote:

kingstonlake wrote: There racism part isn't.

And I refer you back to post #51

I really try to limit my interactions with you. I try to avoid racists and racism.

On a related note note, since the Florida state education department rejected math textbooks based on what it deemed as questionable content...

MATH CONCEPTS THE STATE OF FLORIDA FINDS OBJECTIONABLE

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/math-concepts-the-state-of-florida-finds-objectionable

Turtleneck wrote:On a related note note, since the Florida state education department rejected math textbooks based on what it deemed as questionable content...

MATH CONCEPTS THE STATE OF FLORIDA FINDS OBJECTIONABLE

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/math-concepts-the-state-of-florida-finds-objectionable

Well played.

DWags wrote:

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB.  I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse.  It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy.  I won’t bang my head against a wall.  But it’s entertaining to read.

Dwags, do you roll your eyes when kingston calls me a racist evidently simply for being a conservative?   Do you think it's honest discourse to call someone a book banner for thinking Gender Queer doesn't belong in an elementary school? Is it an eye roller when Pervis says I lied by saying he wasn't following something instead of he wasn't interested? (it may have been the other way around).

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I argued against his banning on the other board and wouldn't want him banned here either. I just enjoy pointing out when he strays from the truth.

Banning???

What possibly have I posted here that even merits bringing that up pro or con?

Even funnier bringing it up in a thread on book banning.

RQA wrote:

DWags wrote:

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB.  I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse.  It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy.  I won’t bang my head against a wall.  But it’s entertaining to read.

Dwags, do you roll your eyes when kingston calls me a racist evidently simply for being a conservative?   Do you think it's honest discourse to call someone a book banner for thinking Gender Queer doesn't belong in an elementary school? Is it an eye roller when Pervis says I lied by saying he wasn't following something instead of he wasn't interested? (it may have been the other way around).

Your opinions are always accepted here. That’s not what my post was about. But again, you knew that.

Gender dysphoria typically begins between the ages of 4 and 7 so yes, the term genderqueer absolutely belongs in elementary school along with genderqueer elementary school students.

RQA wrote:

DWags wrote:

All are welcome here. We aren’t TOB.  I read his stuff and roll my eyes as to him ever wanting honest discourse.  It’s everyone’s choice as to whether they want to try with this guy.  I won’t bang my head against a wall.  But it’s entertaining to read.

Dwags, do you roll your eyes when kingston calls me a racist evidently simply for being a conservative?   Do you think it's honest discourse to call someone a book banner for thinking Gender Queer doesn't belong in an elementary school? Is it an eye roller when Pervis says I lied by saying he wasn't following something instead of he wasn't interested? (it may have been the other way around).

Please tell us what it means to be a conservative. A lot of us could and need to learn from you. If possible, since you do so much research, feel free to start with Burke and work forward so we can see how conservatism has evolved or taken on a different shape in the U.S. I assume you have done this research, right?

DWags wrote:

RQA wrote:

Dwags, do you roll your eyes when kingston calls me a racist evidently simply for being a conservative?   Do you think it's honest discourse to call someone a book banner for thinking Gender Queer doesn't belong in an elementary school? Is it an eye roller when Pervis says I lied by saying he wasn't following something instead of he wasn't interested? (it may have been the other way around).

Your opinions are always accepted here. That’s not what my post was about. But again, you knew that.

I thought there were a couple of things your post was about.

I do appreciate your hospitality.

RQA wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I argued against his banning on the other board and wouldn't want him banned here either. I just enjoy pointing out when he strays from the truth.

Banning???

What possibly have I posted here that even merits bringing that up pro or con?

Even funnier bringing it up in a thread on book banning.

If you were banned here, would you argue you weren't really banned because you could post on a different message board?

Motown Spartan wrote:Gender dysphoria typically begins between the ages of 4 and 7 so yes, the term genderqueer absolutely belongs in elementary school along with genderqueer elementary school students.

I have been actually referring to the book Gender Queer: A Memoir not the term genderqueer.

But as you brought it up, I would think K-3 graders should be focused on reading, writing, spelling, math and learning to tie their shoes before moving onto sexuality. If there is concern about gender dysphoria in a particular student that would seem to be an issue for the parents and their chosen doctors to deal with rather than their first grade teacher.

Maybe people could stop posting like a racist. That might help in not being called a racist.

For example: When people say an "obvious racist" mowed white people and a white child down base on race in a parade, did he provide any evidence that it was a racist attack? Or were they just trying to insert their own beliefs into an unknown? I mean, evidence would help.