Do ebooks burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit, too?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Here's a story from a Colorado school board meeting where the material available to the children of a school district was deemed too objectionable to be read by a parent — though it was available to students. I would say that it probably qualifies as objectionable.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...lable-students

I wonder if “The Color Purple” is available. It’s got at least one scene that’s much more potentially objectionable since it doesn’t involve consent of the characters. I read this book in middle school, I think maybe in the 8th grade as part of an English class assigned reading.

But I guess that’s not as bad as a LGBT person doing something like existing

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Because these books usually pass it off as normal and acceptable behavior, whereas those in the Catholic Church (for one) teach that it is a mortal sin (self abuse). Which brings us back to why schools should not be teaching kids "moral values" in contradiction to the parents' religious beliefs. Nor should so-called "neutral" schools be providing such books in their school libraries. It's not neutral.

So have a conversation about how different views exist. Again if your beliefs are so fragile that being exposed to other beliefs shatters them they were never strongly held they were only held by ignorance of any alternative viewpoints.

[DiapDealer]

So in order to remain truly "neutral", these schools need to favor the "masturbation is bad" POV over the "masturbation is a thing" POV?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So in order to remain truly "neutral", these schools need to favor the "masturbation is bad" POV over the "masturbation is a thing" POV?

Yes, this doesn't neutral to me. "Ensure that parents can dominate their children completely, by shaming them for normal, universal behaviour, without them ever being allowed to be exposed to the fact that it is in fact normal, universal human behaviour". Or even that some people consider it to be normal, harmless, healthy universal human behaviour.

I'm fine with public schools teaching that there are a variety of religious views on masturbation, along with teaching that it exists. Just not that there is only one and only one view that can exist.

Why would you object to a high schooler being aware that different viewpoints exist? This is the entire point of education.

Again, parents and guardians don't own their children. They're not property, they're people. And they have a right to developmentally-appropriate, factual sex education. It has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt now that such an approach minimises harm to said children. And they can continue to make up their own minds on what religious approach they want to take forward into their adult lives.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Because these books usually pass it off as normal and acceptable behavior, whereas those in the Catholic Church (for one) teach that it is a mortal sin (self abuse). Which brings us back to why schools should not be teaching kids "moral values" in contradiction to the parents' religious beliefs.

What kids read from a school library is not the same as what teachers teach in the classroom. Please don't conflate these two issues.

Nor should so-called "neutral" schools be providing such books in their school libraries. It's not neutral.

Then don't allow your child to read those books. You don't have a right to impose your moral values on other children by preventing them from reading those books.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

So have a conversation about how different views exist. Again if your beliefs are so fragile that being exposed to other beliefs shatters them they were never strongly held they were only held by ignorance of any alternative viewpoints.

So, would you want public school teachers teaching that masturbation is self abuse and a mortal sin? And that mortal sin (unforgiven) leads to eternal damnation? And would you like to see the school library providing Catholic books and pamphlets saying as much? If not, why not? Are you in favor of censorship?

I've found that most people who oppose censorship usually just oppose censorship when it involves beliefs they personally hold. If it's something they oppose or don't believe in, they don't mind censorship so much.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm fine with public schools teaching that there are a variety of religious views on masturbation, along with teaching that it exists. Just not that there is only one and only one view that can exist.

I'm not fine with it. It's the parent's prerogative to teach their children what moral values they wish them to hold — not the schools'. There are reasons why children are protected by law and there is such a thing as parental rights — it's the assumption that that children are not yet prepared to make these decisions on their own.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I've found that most people who oppose censorship usually just oppose censorship when it involves beliefs they personally hold. If it's something they oppose or don't believe in, they don't mind censorship so much.

My beliefs on censorship hinge on who is doing the censoring. If it's a public entity (ie, public schools), then no censorship. If it's a private entity (ie, private schools), then they can censor all they want and I don't care.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, would you want public school teachers teaching that masturbation is self abuse and a mortal sin? And that mortal sin (unforgiven) leads to eternal damnation? And would you like to see the school library providing Catholic books and pamphlets saying as much? If not, why not? Are you in favor of censorship?

I've found that most people who oppose censorship usually just oppose censorship when it involves beliefs they personally hold. If it's something they oppose or don't believe in, they don't mind censorship so much.

Sure but they must also provide books on Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Satanism, and so on. They must present none of these as factually right over the others. And all must be in a section of the library appropriately titled “Religious Beliefs” or an equivalent that demonstrates they are not inherently right or wrong. All books must be equally available and accessible to the same students.

Where these books and teachings conflict with science, science will be taught as the factual subject.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by rcentros

There are reasons why children are protected by law and there is such a thing as parental rights — it's the assumption that that children are not yet prepared to make these decisions on their own.

That would be kinda hilarious, if it wasn't so scary. How do you propose to stop a teenager from deciding whether or not to masturbate? Do you put CCTV in your kids' rooms? Tie their hands to the bedposts?

There are reasons that parental 'rights' start to become more strongly constrained in the teenage years.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Here's a story from a Colorado school board meeting where the material available to the children of a school district was deemed too objectionable to be read by a parent — though it was available to students. I would say that it probably qualifies as objectionable.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...lable-students

First, the school was called Adams 12, which made me think of this:


But back on track: I've actually read Gender Queer before it became a scapegoat for the world's ills, and I never felt a compelling urge to masturbate once.

Second, the person was reading passages from a book that the library did not have.

At the current time, one copy of ‘Lawn Boy’ is held at one of our high school libraries and ‘Gender Queer’ is not held in any of the school libraries of district-managed schools.

However, I would be perfectly fine with Gender Queer being available in a high school or middle school library. The parents are reading passages out of context, when they would do better to read the whole book and form an actual opinion. I have done so, and if my kid wants to read Gender Queer in a couple of years, I would have no problem letting her do so. I would have no problem if she leafed through it now and saw nudity. I just think the emotions and story would sail over her head.

Thinking Gender Queer is some sort of undercover pornography to groom children seems like the thought process of a diseased mind.

Lastly, about that site. I don't know if it is a place you hang out at regularly or just a link you found to support your opinion. But man, look at some of the comments on that article:

I think if a house or two burned to the ground, the school board might get the message.

Check out the book and burn it

It's not a School, it's a den of PEDOPHILES masquerading as a School, get your children out.

If the washer machine and tampon had not been invented by men, the women would still have satisfaction and desire to run the household. They would be happy.

[ZodWallop]

I'm going to reply to your comment out of order. It is not my intention to change what you were saying:

Originally Posted by rcentros

Which brings us back to why schools should not be teaching kids "moral values" in contradiction to the parents' religious beliefs. Nor should so-called "neutral" schools be providing such books in their school libraries. It's not neutral.

Gender Queer is no more 'about' masturbation* than The Lord of the Rings is about hiking or Of Mice and Men is about raising rabbits. It is a small part of the overall journey.

The book was written to tell Maia Kobabe's story. Not to push an agenda.

Should The Diary of Anne Frank, Uncle Tom's Cabin, Persepolis and Maus also be banned? They are not neutral books... Oh wait... Banned Books Awareness: “The Diary of a Young Girl” by Anne Frank, Banned Books Awareness: “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, Persepolis Was The Second Most Challenged Book In US Libraries Last Year, They're trying to ban 'Maus'

*Of course, there may be other true reasons parents are trying to get Gender Queer banned. But in order to hide their discriminatory feelings towards what they deem as 'others' they are left with attacking the book on that bit mentioned on your link.

Originally Posted by rcentros

Because these books usually pass (masturbation) off as normal and acceptable behavior, whereas those in the Catholic Church (for one) teach that it is a mortal sin (self abuse).

And Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in celebrating birthdays. Guess The Lord of the Rings better go. They celebrate Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday as if it is normal and acceptable behavior!

At least Alice is still safe. She only celebrates her un-birthday.

In many religions, women must cover their hair. Sorry Rapunzel, you are just too much of a tramp to risk exposing you to children.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, would you want public school teachers teaching that masturbation is self abuse and a mortal sin? And that mortal sin (unforgiven) leads to eternal damnation? And would you like to see the school library providing Catholic books and pamphlets saying as much? If not, why not? Are you in favor of censorship?

For one, it would violate the separation of church and state if a teacher in a public school taught a church's dogma.

But I wouldn't demand that The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, The Divine Comedy or The Pilgrim's Progress be removed from school libraries.

[joblack]

Actually, the title is misleading. They don't want to 'burn' e-books, but just don't want to give very young children access to pornographic material.

The mentioned "LQBTQ pride" books actually were pornographic material, which should IMHO not be available for small school kids. As 'normal pornographic material' should not be available for young children, too.

So you should pack your Fahrenheit and 1984 metaphors back in your pockets.

[JSWolf]

What temp do eBooks burn?