DeSantis isn't running in 2024.

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 81
#31
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's like saying you are trying to "cure" people of being black.
No. Those 2 are not equal. Being black is not the same as being homosexual. Most black guys dont go around to have sex with other men, I hope so.
#32
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
And with so many screeching lunatics out there screaming about "grooming", basically any mention of gay or trans people would be grounds for a lawsuit. 
Sure, some cases may be baseless, but predatory educators do exist, and it is the schools duty and responsibility to provide an environment where parents can feel safe sending their children.

So if a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, they can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.
#33
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
So in Florida it will be illegal for a female teacher to have a picture of her husband on her desk? It will be illegal for her to mention her husband to her students?

Is that correct? Because it’s my understanding that gay teachers are being pressured not to do the same.

“There was guidance that clarified that this was not the case,” he said. “But the damage was done. Even to this day, there are teachers who are afraid to display photos of their same-sex spouses. Teachers have self-censored themselves and it continues to this day.”
McCracken complained about “a massive lack of clarity from the state” about how the rules should be implemented”

“Gracie Lindquist, a 22-year-old teacher at Sabal Palm Elementary School in Leon County, said she has a photo of her girlfriend on her phone’s homescreen. A couple of weeks ago, she said, an assistant principal came into her third-grade class and in front of her students said that a parent “had complained that I showed photos of my ‘lesbian friend’ — his words, not mine.” She said he asked that she not let students see her homescreen. She refused”

“Adarius Payne, a seventh-grade teacher in Wesley Chapel, said he had to undergo a week-long investigation after a parent complained that his gay relationship came up during a math problem that involved a question about children”

#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
That looks like a direct cut and paste from MSNBC

Thanks for the input Fanchick.
#35
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
That looks like a direct cut and paste from MSNBC
God you are stupid Nancy boy.

The citation is from the Washington Post. You obviously can’t respond to the question because you’re a lying dummy substitute teacher who apparently isn’t working again today.

but predatory educators do exist,
Ya, you’re one of them.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Time to go. I feel safe knowing you have no ability to dox me with your little MSNBC take on the world.
#37
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Time to go
DOX you to who exactly? You don’t have a real job.

#38
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Is it your contention that sexual orientation can only mean "gay?"
Because if it doesn't then the bill is a "don't say sexual orientation bill"
the title of "don't say gay" is just because it is catchier. But DeSantis wants to discriminate against alot more people than just gay people.

Is it also your contention that gay teachers cannot sexually groom children?
literally anyone could groom children. That is why targeting gay people is so ridiculous. It has nothing to do with grooming. You may as well pick native americans as the target of your lynch mob. It would make the same amount of sense.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Or it just might be the media is being paid by corporate interests to convince you to defend a strawman. An obvious strawman in this case.
#40
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Or it just might be the media is being paid by corporate interests to convince you to defend a strawman. An obvious strawman in this case.
what strawman are you talking about? The republicans wrote a law that made it illegal to talk to children about anything that isn't "age appropriate". But makes no attempt to define what that means. It also left it up to individual parents to sue teachers who do anything they deem "not age appropriate". So every teacher is now under threat of breaking this law if any single parent objects to anything they say. And the right is making a huge witch hunt about people talking to children about gay people existing, or trans people existing etc. Any mention of it being ok to have gay parents would be grounds for a lawsuit under this law.

Bottom line, this law is designed to make it so teachers can be targeted by parents with the support of the state if they say things they don't like. 

#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 But makes no attempt to define what that means.
That surely didn't stop people from defining it and spending millions of dollars to spread the strawman.

I guess you could say they asked for it?

this law is designed to make it so teachers can be targeted by parents with the support of the state if they say things they don't like. 
Hate to break the news to you, but this has always been the case in every State. Not just Fla. Public Teachers have not had the luxury of free speech ever since the many Scotus rulings banning it in the 80-90's especially regarding the separation of church and state along with other various ideologies.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): The Supreme Court ruled that students have a constitutional right to express their political views in school as long as it does not disrupt the educational process. However, the Court also held that school officials can regulate speech that would cause a substantial disruption.

Engel v. Vitale (1962): Scotus ruled that school-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As a result, teachers cannot lead students in prayer or encourage students to pray in the classroom.

Lee v. Weisman (1992): Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer at graduation ceremonies violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Teachers cannot lead students in prayer or invite religious leaders to lead prayers at graduation ceremonies.

There are a couple others too but I can't recall them easily.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) is probably the most impactful recent one tho.



#42
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
That surely didn't stop people from defining it and spending millions of dollars to spread the strawman.
you haven't told me what straw man you are talking about. I keep telling you how this stops teachers from being able to talk to their students. I have given examples of how this can harm teachers and students. You don't reply to any of that and just keep saying it's a strawman, but don't explain why that is.

Hate to break the news to you, but this has always been the case in every State. Not just Fla. Public Teachers have not had the luxury of free speech ever since the many Scotus rulings banning it in the 80-90's especially regarding the separation of church and state along with other various ideologies.
these restrictions are to protect the rights of the children. The don't say gay bill isn't protecting students' rights. It is attacking their rights. Their right learn about themselves, their classmates, their family or friends. this bill doesn't help anyone but bigots. 
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I keep telling you how this stops teachers from being able to talk to their students.
If a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, parents can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.


#44
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
If a 6 year old asks where babies come from or what it means to be gay, parents can be assured the school won't allow the teacher to hand out penthouse magazines, and instead say "ask your parents" because it is now illegal discuss sex with prepubescent children.
Who is using straw man arguments now? I gave examples of how this will harm children and teachers. Instead of replying to the examples I gave, you chose to use a ridiculous example that probably has never and will never happen. But that is the point of this whole thing. To pretend like it is stopping something (that is already against the rules) when what it is actually doing is further victimizing and already victimized group. 

Do you really think this law was needed to stop teachers from handing out penthouse magazines to children? What this bill actually does is criminalize teachers saying anything a parent doesn't like. And MANY parents are stupid and/or bigots. So what they don't like could be almost anything. But that is the point. The bill is intended to allow individual parents to harass teachers.
#45
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Do you think its good to teach children about gay sex?
#46
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you think its good to teach children about gay sex?
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all. It is absolutely a good idea for them to know that it is ok for a classmate to have 2 daddies or mommies. Some of these children are gay. Some of them have family members who are gay. Trying to prevent teachers from being able to talk about this topic that is likely critically important to many of their lives is doing them a serious disservice. And there is no reason why teachers shouldn't be able to talk about it, other than that bigot parents would rather hide this information from their children so they can better indoctrinate their children with their bigotry. 
#47
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all.
So its inappropriate to teach them about gays.


It is absolutely a good idea for them to know that it is ok for a classmate to have 2 daddies or mommies.
So you spread your ideology on them? Thats not education. Thats indoctrination. Plus, you cant say "two daddies" without implying gay sex. Children figure it out by age 9, and they start thinking that its okay to be gay.

I have no idea why you feel the need to spread your diseases to children.
#48
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
With videos like these on YouTube for kids, the indoctrination is complete:


#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all. 

Neither did DeSantis apparently.
#50
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all. 
and so he passed a bill that gave parents the right to sue teachers for teaching children about anything the parent doesn't like. the bill doesn't say they can't teach about sex. it says they can't teach anything "age inappropriate", but then lets any parent decide what that means so that literally anything could be viewed as inappropriate.  
#51
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
I don't think it's appropriate to teach children of that age about sex at all.
So its inappropriate to teach them about gays.
no, of course not. There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex. 

So you spread your ideology on them? Thats not education. Thats indoctrination
being gay is a legally protected class. teaching children it is ok to be themselves isn't indoctrination. 

. Plus, you cant say "two daddies" without implying gay sex. Children figure it out by age 9, and they start thinking that its okay to be gay.
lol so if I say you have parents, you assume I mean "you have two people who like to fuck each other"? The inside of your brain must we a weird place. by that logic it should be illegal for children to know parents exist because it implies sex. 

I have no idea why you feel the need to spread your diseases to children.
it isn't a disease. You can't catch "gay". It is a part of you. Your obession with crushing people who don't identify the exact way you do is highly disturbing. I assume you are a christian based on your hateful rhetoric. Jesus would be ashamed of you. 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. '
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Literally anything that could be regarded as sexual instruction, yes. But that's been an academic policy for many schools before it was ever considered a State law. Where was the multi- million dollar corporate media ad campaign to crush those policies? Or perhaps the simple explanation is a hit job. Politics as usual, no surprises.
#53
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Literally anything that could be regarded as sexual instruction, yes. But that's been an academic policy for many schools before it was ever considered a State law.
But a state law is very different from a school policy. A school can decide if someone was out of line or not in the specifics of what they said or did, just like any other employer. Making a state law that is super vague and empowers anyone to sue a teacher over what they teach is very different. You could decide you think teaching about evolution is "inappropriate". You could decide that teaching about black history is "inappropriate".  And this law gives you the power to sue over whatever thing you want. So now teachers are in a position where they must self censor and not teach anything that anyone could possibly consider "inappropriate" (which the right randomly changes it's mind on regularly) or risk getting sued. 

This law isn't designed to protect children. It is designed to empower bigots to sue teachers who dare to teach children information they don't like. 

#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pretty sure most government agencies are immune to liability tort actions. The worst that usually happens is paid suspension while the system does a 5 year termination process funded by the taxpayers.

Price v. United States (1995) set the standard.

I'm guessing some political corporate news infotainment propaganda outlet was convincing you this wasn't the case?
#55
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex.
Wrong. The word gay is inseparable from gay sex.


being gay is a legally protected class.
Doesnt mean that we should teach kids to be gay. The gay indoctrination is not protected by any law. Plus, the laws are irrelevant if they arent good.


teaching children it is ok to be themselves isn't indoctrination.
Yes, it is. "It is ok" is your opinion which you try to force on children. Children disagree with it, thats why you are supporting your gay indoctrination in the first place. Get it?


by that logic it should be illegal for children to know parents exist because it implies sex.
By your logic, yes. You were the one who said we shouldnt teach kids about sex, but should teach them about "two daddies". So yes, your logic is nonsense that doesnt have any connection to the real world. You fail to understand that its impossible for you to teach "two daddies is okay" to children without teaching children that gay sex is okay because "two daddies = gay sex". You cant teach kids about what parents are  without implying sex, because parents = sex. Then of course, you blame me because your logic is so dumb that it has no basis in any reality. Then you try to present your logic(dont teach about sex) as my logic. Stupidity at its greatest twist. I am perfectly fine with kids being educated about a unity between man and a woman. It is when you try to make them gay is when I oppose.
You say that its wrong to teach children about sex, but not wrong to strongly imply sex in education. The result of those two is the same: infected kids.


 if I say you have parents, you assume I mean "you have two people who like to fuck each other"?
Well, thats what most parents did, silly. They had sex. You have to have so low IQ not to connect the two. Every 10 year-old these days knows what is sex, dummy.


it isn't a disease. You can't catch "gay".
No. You can. Thats why we are trying to prevent you from infecting children.


 It is a part of you.
No. It is your behavior that you can surpress. If you cant surpress it, but you feel the need to spread it, you are then just poisoning our society. The death penalty would cure you from being gay in any case.



Your obession with crushing people who don't identify the exact way you do is highly disturbing. I assume you are a christian based on your hateful rhetoric.
Well, yes, I hate murderers and homosexuals and other abominations.


Jesus would be ashamed of you. 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me. '
Jesus will forgive me, so I dont care.
#56
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Best.Korea
There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex.
Wrong. The word gay is inseparable from gay sex.
what? that is insane. Maybe you can't think of a gay man without thinking about having sex with him, but that's all you. Most of us don't do that. 

Doesnt mean that we should teach kids to be gay. The gay indoctrination is not protected by any law. Plus, the laws are irrelevant if they arent good.
no one is suggesting to teach them to "be gay". I am suggesting they need to be taught that it is ok to be gay, since they may be gay, members of their family may be gay. They need to learn to accept themselves and their family and friends. The same way they should be taught to accept black people (or any other race or group).

Yes, it is. "It is ok" is your opinion which you try to force on children. Children disagree with it, thats why you are supporting your gay indoctrination in the first place. Get it?
so teaching children not to hate other based on their identity is "indoctrination"? 

By your logic, yes. You were the one who said we shouldnt teach kids about sex, but should teach them about "two daddies". So yes, your logic is nonsense that doesnt have any connection to the real world.
parenting and sex are two entirely different things. it is possible for an A sexual person to adopt a child. You can be a parent without ever having sex. So saying that talking about a child having 2 daddies and that being ok is somehow talking about sex is insane. 

You cant teach kids about what parents are  without implying sex, because parents = sex. Then of course, you blame me because your logic is so dumb that it has no basis in any reality
lol so if a teach says anything about momies and/or daddies they should be sued right? I mean they are implying sex. and you say my logic is dumb. You want to ban mentions of parenthood to children. 

No. You can. Thats why we are trying to prevent you from infecting children.
this is long since been debunked as bullshit. Sexual attraction isn't a behavior you can control. 

No. It is your behavior that you can surpress. If you cant surpress it, but you feel the need to spread it, you are then just poisoning our society. The death penalty would cure you from being gay in any case.
ok, i'm just going to stop answering you now. Anyone who would advocate murdering people because you don't like who they are is a complete asshole. You are no different from the people who used to lynch black people. 
#57
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Maybe you can't think of a gay man without thinking about having sex with him
Not what I said, dummy.


I am suggesting they need to be taught that it is ok to be gay
No. Its not okay to be gay.


members of their family may be gay
Irrelevant to the idea that being gay is wrong.


They need to learn to accept themselves and their family and friends.
No. They need to learn to reject homosexuality, not accept it.


The same way they should be taught to accept black people
No. Being black =/= being gay.


so teaching children not to hate other based on their identity is "indoctrination"?
Yes. Identity that is bad deserves to be hated. Plus, being gay also includes gay behavior that can be surpressed with hate.


parenting and sex are two entirely different things.
Most parents have sex, dummy. Everyone knows this except you, apparently.


it is possible for an A sexual person to adopt a child. You can be a parent without ever having sex.
Irrelevant to the fact that "two daddies" are parents who have sex, and irrelevant to the fact that most parents have sex.


You want to ban mentions of parenthood to children.
No. Thats what you are trying to do with your logic.


Sexual attraction isn't a behavior you can control.
Sucking dicks is a behavior that you can control. Thats why when you take it in the butt, you are doing that. Nobody is forcing you. Therefore, we dont teach others to copy you. We teach them to surpress such behavior.


Anyone who would advocate murdering people because you don't like who they are is a complete asshole.
I am not advocating anything yet, but death penalty is one of the more effective cures for your kind.


You are no different from the people who used to lynch black people.
Gay =/= black
Learn the difference.
#58
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
i'm just going to stop answering you now
Oh, I was hoping for at least one more comment, but okay.
#59
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Mommy and daddy kiss each other.

So what do two daddies do?

🤔.....
😳
🤢
🤮
#60
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,516
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Mommy and daddy kiss each other.

So what do two daddies do?
They kiss each other.