Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal

[Chris_Halkides]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Libraries are somewhat state funded. That is the only reason they are being targeted with proposed legislation. I guess? I mean geez talk about a lame target to fight smut over!

In Missouri about 95% of the funds come from property taxes (see link upthread and also this link). The Kansas City Star wrote, "Of the 159 library districts in Missouri, all have different needs that fit their respective communities. These different requirements proposed by Ashcroft would restrict access to some materials for library patrons."

From the Kansas City Beacon: "The Missouri Association of School Librarians, which opposes the rule change, said in a statement that the measure flies in the face of ideas of local control that are often touted in Jefferson City. “By imposing a state-level administrative rule regarding what can and cannot be purchased with certain funds, the Secretary is thereby contradicting the very idea of local control,” the group wrote."

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

My argument is that such procedures should be a requirement in this case, not an option.

It is pretty simple. And nobody has come forth with a reasonable justification as to why procedures should not be required...even though they imply that such procedures already exist and are a good thing.

That's pretty much where the debate ends. Of course the fact that some don't feel there should be any measures to determine and restrict age-appropriate materials, that is just icing on the cake. Really showing clearly why this legislation is needed.

I hope the legislation passes, that is all I can say. And I will be supportive of similar legislation in the future.

What specific problem is this legislation addressing?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the "idea".

Like what, specifically?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What specific problem is this legislation addressing?

Has already been covered, extensively. Disingenuous question.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Like what, specifically?

Again, not interested in debating what materials I might personally find objectionable. That has zero to do with the discussion. It does not matter whether the material is Thomas the Tank Engine or A Children's Guide to Rimjobs, for purposes of this debate.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What specific problem is this legislation addressing?

Originally Posted by Warp12

Has already been covered, extensively. Disingenuous question.

Please cut and paste your claimed previous response.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Again, not interested in debating what materials I might personally find objectionable. That has zero to do with the discussion. It does not matter whether the material is Thomas the Tank Engine or A Children's Guide to Rimjobs, for purposes of this debate.

You are the one talking about exposing children to sexually explicit material. So far we have no evidence from you that libraries do any such thing.

Are you projecting yet again?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Has already been covered, extensively. Disingenuous question.

You're lying again, Warp. You have yet to present any evidence that children being granted access to age inappropriate materials at public libraries is any sort of real problem.

Maybe if you did a modicum of research, or just took a minute to ask yourself "do I have any actual evidence for this?" prior to reflexively affirming whatever ******** issue has been fabricated by Republican politicians for the purpose of manipulating their irrational and dimwitted conservative base you wouldn't keep painting yourself into corners like this by making claims that you can't defend with evidence.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by arayder

Please cut and paste your claimed previous response.

This is the same thing he did when he failed to justify his "freakish liberal ideals and beliefs being pressed on children by public school teachers". He said he wasn't going to repeat himself, despite having never said anything in the first place.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

wouldn't keep painting yourself into corners like this by making claims that you can't defend with evidence.

Arguably one of the most humorous posts in the thread.

My claim is that procedures, as defined in the legislation, should be a requirement to receive state funding. I have already clearly stated why procedures are needed, although at this point I am fairly convinced that some wouldn't know a procedure from a pomegranate, nor why we use and need them.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Arguably one of the most humorous posts in the thread.

My claim is that procedures, as defined in the legislation, should be a requirement to receive state funding. I have already clearly stated why procedures are needed, although at this point I am fairly convinced that some wouldn't know a procedure from a pomegranate, nor why we use and need them.

Tell us again. A simple cut and paste will do.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

Tell us again. A simple cut and paste will do.

Based on how long you have been active in the thread, I would expect that you already know the answer. Feel free to read over the thread again to refresh your memory. Not my issue to resolve.

I won't be addressing this again.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Has already been covered, extensively. Disingenuous question.

Okay, great. Could you please give me the post number in which you provide the specific problem this legislation is addressing?

Quote:

Again, not interested in debating what materials I might personally find objectionable. That has zero to do with the discussion. It does not matter whether the material is Thomas the Tank Engine or A Children's Guide to Rimjobs, for purposes of this debate.

You are unable to come up with any “liberal ideas” from which children need protection. Got it, thanks.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Based on how long you have been active in the thread, I would expect that you already know the answer. Feel free to read over the thread again to refresh your memory. Not my issue to resolve.

I won't be addressing this again.

Well, you haven’t addressed it at all yet. You just repeat the same vague generalizations without articulating an actual, real-world problem this legislation is designed to address.

A simple post number could prove us all wrong.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I have already clearly stated why procedures are needed...

No, you haven't.

It's like saying there is a need for government regulation of the auto industry to keep people from slamming their dicks in car doors. It kind of helps is you show that it's actually a problem. It doesn't help if, after failing to show it's a problem, you simply alternate between pretending you have and saying, "I guess you're just in favor of people slamming their dicks in car doors".

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I won't be addressing this again.

You won't be addressing this again, again?

[Carrot Flower King]

Hmmmm, lemme see now...None of the gay or wondering if they might be gay bairns that I worked with arrived at those views of themselves by reading anything, as they always knew from around the age when anyone, according to standard views on child development, would be developing their ideas of gender and sexuality.

On the other hand, I had to read EM Forster (OK, not Maurice...) and Oscar Wilde at school and it didn't turn me gay and nor did reading Genet, Edmund White, Larry Kramer, more Wilde and all the rest in my late teens and 20s...

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Hmmmm, lemme see now...None of the gay or wondering if they might be gay bairns that I worked with arrived at those views of themselves by reading anything, as they always knew from around the age when anyone, according to standard views on child development, would be developing their ideas of gender and sexuality.

On the other hand, I had to read EM Forster (OK, not Maurice...) and Oscar Wilde at school and it didn't turn me gay and nor did reading Genet, Edmund White, Larry Kramer, more Wilde and all the rest in my late teens and 20s...

One thing is for sure, there is definitely a fixation on homosexuality in this thread. Oddly, since the proposed legislation is simply about policies and procedures as related to age-appropriate materials.

This seems like a lobbying effort for a "Do Say Gay" initiative. It is comical.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Warp12

One thing is for sure, there is definitely a fixation on homosexuality in this thread. Oddly, since the proposed legislation is simply about policies and procedures as related to age-appropriate materials.

This seems like a lobbying effort for a "Do Say Gay" initiative. It is comical.

Since homosexuality is clearly not an issue that conservative voters in Missouri are concerned with, this sounds like a great opportunity for you to segue into the specific nature of the real danger this proposed law would protect children from.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Warp, you implied that all Missouri libraries don't have appropriate procedures in place, so provide the evidence.

Please detail the policies and procedures of each of the individual libraries, as related to age-appropriate materials. Please explain the requirements for each library.

Please point out which libraries, in your opinion, are deficient.

And then tell us what degree of oversight they are subject to.

You have 24 hours to do so.

Get moving.

Your time is up, Warp.

You fail.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

One thing is for sure, there is definitely a fixation on homosexuality in this thread.

You're the one who brought up gay rimjobs.

Projecting yet again are you?

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by arayder

You're the one who brought up gay rimjobs.

Projecting yet again are you?

What is it that you hate about homosexuals so much that you attempt to crowbar them into an insult?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

You're the one who brought up gay rimjobs.

Incorrect and pathetic commentary.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Incorrect and pathetic commentary.

Oh, that's one of your best moves. . .feign superiority and indignation.

The problem is you are going to that well too often.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

What is it that you hate about homosexuals so much that you attempt to crowbar them into an insult?

No offense intended. I apologize.

I was just recounting Warp's homophobic slur which he used so as to infer that there was some good reason for the state of Missouri to get into the book burning business.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by arayder

I was just recounting Warp's homophobic slur which he used so as to infer that there was some good reason for the state of Missouri to get into the book burning business.

What homophobic slur?

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

What homophobic slur?

Feel free to read over the thread again to refresh your memory. Not my issue to resolve.

I won't be addressing this again.

(Did I do that right, Warp?)

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by arayder

No offense intended. I apologize.

I was just recounting Warp's homophobic slur which he used so as to infer that there was some good reason for the state of Missouri to get into the book burning business.

But he didn't do that at all with the post you quoted. He posted.

"It does not matter whether the material is Thomas the Tank Engine or A Children's Guide to Rimjobs, for purposes of this debate."

He explicitly stated that it does not matter what the subject matter of a given book might be, his point is that he feels it is not relevant to the debated subject at hand. The comment makes clear that he is focussing (in this particular post) on the need for "rules" and not what needs banned.

(Let's not forget that sexual practice isn't the exclusive domain of homosexuals and to suggest so would be....... guess?)

[arayder]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

But he didn't do that at all with the post you quoted. He posted.

"It does not matter whether the material is Thomas the Tank Engine or A Children's Guide to Rimjobs, for purposes of this debate."

He explicitly stated that it does not matter what the subject matter of a given book might be, his point is that he feels it is not relevant to the debated subject at hand. The comment makes clear that he is focussing (in this particular post) on the need for "rules" and not what needs banned.

It's a dog whistle.

A comment dropped to suggest the possibility that book readers in Missouri's libraries are subtly grooming our little ones.

Edit: It's a comment that demonstrates Warp's fixation on homosexuality, That's the topic at hand, not whether Warp said it mattered or didn't.

OH DANG. . I just said I wasn't going to talk about this again.

My bad.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by arayder

It's a dog whistle.

A comment dropped to suggest the possibility that book readers in Missouri's libraries are subtly grooming our little ones.

That's certainly one interpretation and you are at liberty to apply it as you see fit. I can't see how it would move the debate forward though?

Originally Posted by arayder

It's a comment that demonstrates Warp's fixation on homosexuality, That's the topic at hand, not whether Warp said it mattered or didn't.

.....and that via a quick edit is another. The topic is the Missouri Book Ban Law Proposal.

Quote:

OH DANG. . I just said I wasn't going to talk about this again.

Been there, done that

[Warp12]

I'm still not getting where rimjobs are an exclusively, or even mostly gay thing. If they are, i missed the memo, clearly. Time to move on, I suppose. Suffice it to say, there is nothing homophobic about mentioning an imaginary book about the subject.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Warp12

II'm still not getting where rimjobs are an exclusively, or even mostly gay thing. If they are, i missed the memo, clearly. Time to move on, I suppose. Suffice it to say, there is nothing homophobic about mentioning an imaginary book about the subject.

There you go again! You are fixated on talking about little kids getting porn at the library.

You have been asked to document such a thing happening several times and you just can't do so.

People have even asked you to, in a non-porn specific way, tell what objectionable materials are being distributed in Missouri's public libraries and you refuse to do so.

So you go back to talking about rimjobs in the hopes that if you mention them enough the weak minded will assume children are being taught about them in Missouri's public libraries!

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

That's certainly one interpretation and you are at liberty to apply it as you see fit. I can't see how it would move the debate forward though?

Taken in the totality of Warp's comments in this thread including "Grooming 101" and drag queens, pretending that Warp wasn't talking about those 'icky' gays requires a deliberate obtuseness.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Taken in the totality of Warp's comments in this thread including "Grooming 101" and drag queens, pretending that Warp wasn't talking about those 'icky' gays requires a deliberate obtuseness.

Talk about a stretch. What is this constant obsession to associate drag queens and rimjobs with homosexuality? This is surreal. Like the people making the association are lobbing the criticisms.

[arayder]

Like so many of his ilk, most every accusation made by our friend is an admission.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Warp12

One thing is for sure, there is definitely a fixation on homosexuality in this thread. Oddly, since the proposed legislation is simply about policies and procedures as related to age-appropriate materials.

To address what problem?

[bruto]

As long as one remains (or pretends to be) blissfully ignorant, blind to precedent, and contextually clueless, of course the idea of making sure material is "age appropriate" seems like a good idea, which it is, which is why it's already a matter of policy among a large body of people who consider a reasonable idea reasonable without having to obey orders. This is true, of course, even if your own notion of what is age appropriate is not always adhered to.

I think if one looks at things from a different angle, one might consider the actual people who are likely actually to enjoy the provisions of the law in question, and to consider what they are likely to find objectionable. In the news in various places we can see at least some of this, and what we see too often is the objection to normalizing homosexual households, the depiction of the holocaust, and the struggle of a black astronaut.

There is a huge and important difference, conspicuously ignored by many dissatisfied prudes, bigots and would-be theocrats, between saying "my standards are not being met" and "there are no standards."

If truth is the enemy of your beliefs, the problem is not with truth.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Warp12

That is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the "idea".

What liberal ideas are bad? Acceptance of homosexuality, transexuality, gender-fluidity, reproductive choice, interracial marriage, racial equity, cultural equity? Those liberal ideas I just listed are a large part of the list of ideas that the book bans are trying to censor.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Talk about a stretch. What is this constant obsession to associate drag queens and rimjobs with homosexuality? This is surreal. Like the people making the association are lobbing the criticisms.

Yes, we all know that you were intending to dogwhistle about homosexuality, but you tipped your hand with the (conspicuously absent in your response, here) "groomer" stuff. Why, just because drag queens are overwhelmingly gay men, but not exclusively, how very dare anyone think you meant gay men, right? Seems like it was some sort of game, how many "probably gay" terms could you pile up and still have plausible deniability? But, again, "groomer" was a step too far for that game.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Taken in the totality of Warp's comments in this thread including "Grooming 101" and drag queens, pretending that Warp wasn't talking about those 'icky' gays requires a deliberate obtuseness.

Whether gays are "icky", or not, or are judged as such by Warp12 is irrelevant to the core of the debate which is, does Missouri need a book ban, what does the proposal advocate and is it reasonable?

If you (the royal you here and going forward) are making the case that the gay community may be harmed by such regulation then let's see some debate that doesn't include "Warp12 is a homophobe", as a strap line.

If you are making the case that only LGBT+ will be hurt by this legislation then lets see some honest debate.

If you are making the case of overreach; that one set of parents shouldn't be in a position to decide what book another sets child should have access, let's see some debate relating to how that doesn't seem to be an issue in the other direction.

If you are making the case that children should have complete access to all books then I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

If you're content that the current set up in libraries is adequate then there is nothing more to add.

If you are simply responding to Warp12's retaliatory nose tweaking and reading past what he's actually writing then, what's the point? The debate is dead.

If you vehemently disagree with him then it's unlikely you're going to persuade him and therefore refer to the previous paragraph.

Me? I'm here for the

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

To address what problem?

He already made it clear that he wants to protect children from imaginary books about rimjobs.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Whether gays are "icky", or not, or are judged as such by Warp12 is irrelevant to the core of the debate which is, does Missouri need a book ban, what does the proposal advocate and is it reasonable?

Sorry, gonna stop you right here. You were the one who claimed that recognizing Warp's anti-gay rhetoric was only "one interpretation" (your emphasis). As I pointed out (with links), believing he meant anything else requires ignoring what Warp himself said.

Now, you are free to ignore what Warp says when interpreting Warp's comments and the comments made in reply to him, but no one else has to put on such blinders.