LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBT+ Thread (3 Viewers)

[Summer Wheat]

Have hetros mentioned their sexuality in graduation speeches?

Are you honestly thinking that this was the reason for this law? That there were too many people mentioning their opposite sex significant other and it made people uncomfortable?

Not thinking anything about any law. Just asking if any other people are mentioning it.

 

[squistion]

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

But it wasn't overreach or worst case scenario. The only link to the law regarding the speech was that the kid in question was going to turn it into a protest of the law.

We don't remove speed limits because people are mad about the speed limit. And we wouldn't blame the speed limit if somebody was told that they couldn't waste the schools time whining about the speed limit.

You have misrepresented this situation.

But it wasn't overreach or worst case scenario.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

 

[squistion]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

 

[BladeRunner]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

 

[squistion]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Nope. Not when I specifically said "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Nope. Not when I specifically said "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

 

[John123]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Nope. Not when I specifically said "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

"So called" Fly to the moon bill.......

 

[squistion]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Nope. Not when I specifically said "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

I can't say the so called "Fly To The Moon" bill if no one has actually ever called it that (unlike Don't Say Gay which has been labelled that hundreds of times).

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

 

[BladeRunner]

No I didn't make up anything about the bill. Proof is the article (see WaPo and CNN links above) about the HS Commencement speaker, he literally couldn't say that he was gay or discuss his gay activism.

Yes, you did. You clearly lied about what the bill says. The bill itself says no such thing about heterosexual or homosexual or an other "ual".

Let me clear: You're lying.

Not lying. It specifically mentions sexual orientation:

Florida's governor signs controversial law opponents dubbed 'Don't Say Gay'

The law says public school teachers may not instruct on sexual orientation or gender identity in grades kindergarten through third grade.

www.npr.org

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Doesn’t that only apply to kindergarten through grade 3?

It is supposed to, but it had a chilling effect on this HS senior's commencement speech.

How could it? Like saying the ban on sales of alcohol to minors is effecting me, in my 40s. It doesn’t.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

I guess I’m missing your point then, and forgive me if I came into this conversation late. You bring up a high school graduate who was apparently unable to speak about being gay at his graduation because of a law that only affects those from kindergarten through the third grade.

How does that law impact him and his speech? About the same way that not selling alcohol to minors impacts me - it doesn’t. Unless I’m totally missing your point.

ETA - moreover, it wasn’t even law yet. The graduation was in May, the law didn’t take effect until July 1. So you’re saying that a future law that wouldn’t even impact him kept this graduate from talking about being gay?

Unless I’m totally missing your point.

You are. This bill was not supposed to impact him but the overreach involved by his HS principal did, and he was not allowed to talk about being gay or his gay activism.

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

So after weeks of raking me over the coals for posting numerous acetotal examples, you post this acedotal case which had nothing to do with the law which only really confirms that you are completely wrong about the law.

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

It's not a Don't Say Gay Bill. You continue to misrepresent the truth

I didn't misrepresent it.

Here (from above) are my exact words again, I referred to it as "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Yeah, that's misrepresentation.

Nope. Not when I specifically said "so called" and put Don't Say Gay in quotes.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

May as well call it “Fly to the moon” bill then.

I can't say the so called "Fly To The Moon" bill if no one has actually ever called it that (unlike Don't Say Gay which has been labelled that hundreds of times).

Cool.

Then using your logic we'll just call you the so-called "LGBTQ+ Don't Have Civil Rights" poster.

 

[:deadbevo:]

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

 

[jon_mx]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

 

[tommyGunZ]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

 

[squistion]

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

And I would suggest the same for you. I believe that the possible consequences of how any bill might actually be implemented should always be taken into consideration because the worst case scenario sometimes is what is played out.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

NAILED IT!

 

[BladeRunner]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

 

[tommyGunZ]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

 

[jon_mx]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

 

[tommyGunZ]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

Who determines what constitutes "Inappropriate sexually explicit topics"

 

[BladeRunner]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

Who determines what constitutes "Inappropriate sexually explicit topics"

Sane, rational and logical thinking people. So that would exclude the alphabet mob.

But is that what you want? No rules whatsoever? Anything goes?

 

[jon_mx]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

Who determines what constitutes "Inappropriate sexually explicit topics"

At the first grade level, any discussion of genitals, sexual preferences, sexual activities, gender identification. Any first grade teacher breaching these topics is out of line and is either grooming or indoctrinating their whacky ideas onto very young children.

 

[tommyGunZ]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

Who determines what constitutes "Inappropriate sexually explicit topics"

At the first grade level, any discussion of genitals, sexual preferences, sexual activities, gender identification. Any first grade teacher breaching these topics is out of line and is either grooming or indoctrinating their whacky ideas onto very young children.

This is according you?

 

[dkp993]

The media called it the dont say gay law. Squish only repeats what his media tells him to repeat.

There comes a point when they're no longer merely falling for the hoaxes, but rather are part of them.

Ah, NorvilleBarnes from last week says hello

USER=1412]@NorvilleBarnes[/USER] and @BladeRunner do you accept the results of the 2020 election and do you view Biden as your legitimate president?

It is extremely sad that this question needs to be asked

No and No.

 

[jon_mx]

"We've lied about the bill this long, why stop now?"

"Don't say gay pretty accurately summarizes the bill's motivations, but it also reveals our bigotry, so we must deny it."

I always knew the virtue signalers were nothing more than bigots to begin with.

Who are the "virtue signalers"?

People who suggest that trying to keep out inappropriate sexually explicit topics out of first grade classrooms is the same as "don't say gay".

Who determines what constitutes "Inappropriate sexually explicit topics"

At the first grade level, any discussion of genitals, sexual preferences, sexual activities, gender identification. Any first grade teacher breaching these topics is out of line and is either grooming or indoctrinating their whacky ideas onto very young children.

This is according you?

Says parents whenever they find out this crap is going on in their school system.

 

[:deadbevo:]

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

And I would suggest the same for you. I believe that the possible consequences of how any bill might actually be implemented should always be taken into consideration because the worst case scenario sometimes is what is played out.

You seem to be acknowledging you don't judge all bills and laws the way you are judging this one.

 

[jon_mx]

Do you generally judge a bill/law by the examples of overreach?

Yes, because quite often, as in this case, it was anticipated and correctly predicted. One should always consider the worst case scenario.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

I'm going to suggest you haven't thought this through.

And I would suggest the same for you. I believe that the possible consequences of how any bill might actually be implemented should always be taken into consideration because the worst case scenario sometimes is what is played out.

You seem to be acknowledging you don't judge all bills and laws the way you are judging this one.

He judges bills the way he judges everything, if it supports the far-left narrative it is good. If not, it is evil.

 

[squistion]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Great day for me.

I have:

Circle Jerk Media
Evil
Mutilation
Groomers
Gender Affirming care

All on my jon_mx daily trans rant BINGO card! If I could only do this well on Wordle.

 

[jon_mx]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Great day for me.

I have:

Circle Jerk Media
Evil
Mutilation
Groomers
Gender Affirming care

All on my jon_mx daily trans rant BINGO card! If I could only do this well on Wordle.

Oh puh-leez. There is no way you had circle-jerk media. I just coined that today.

 

[squistion]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Great day for me.

I have:

Circle Jerk Media
Evil
Mutilation
Groomers
Gender Affirming care

All on my jon_mx daily trans rant BINGO card! If I could only do this well on Wordle.

Oh puh-leez. There is no way you had circle-jerk media. I just coined that today.

Yes, looking at my Bingo card again, I just had "circle jerk" as you have regularly used that eloquent term for years.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The US is overwhelmingly supportive of not having teachers talking to kids about sex. This is like an 80-20 position. Very few things see as high of a level of support as to not want perverts in the classroom.

And yes. If you need to talk to other peoples kids about your sex life, you are a pervert.

 

[jon_mx]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Great day for me.

I have:

Circle Jerk Media
Evil
Mutilation
Groomers
Gender Affirming care

All on my jon_mx daily trans rant BINGO card! If I could only do this well on Wordle.

Oh puh-leez. There is no way you had circle-jerk media. I just coined that today.

Yes, looking at my Bingo card again, I just had "circle jerk" as you have regularly used that eloquent term for years.

You van even handle a joke without having to backtrack.

 

[squistion]

Your anecdotal examples seem to be always just a YouTube clip with a one person narrative about their personal experience, unlike what I posted, which is an actual story that got national wide attention as it was seen as a logical consequence of the so called "Don't Say Gay" bill.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Anecdotal evidence is acedotal evidence. They are both one person's experience whether it is part of a YouTube video or widely-covered by the circle-jerk media. It is one example. What makes your anecdotal example ridiculous is that one principle trying to clamp down on speech does nothing to show what is in the law. It is just exactly that, one principal abusing his authority that has absolutely no connection to the law. My dozens of example are representations of direct results of the evil mutilation practices which groomers call gender affirming care.

Great day for me.

I have:

Circle Jerk Media
Evil
Mutilation
Groomers
Gender Affirming care

All on my jon_mx daily trans rant BINGO card! If I could only do this well on Wordle.

Oh puh-leez. There is no way you had circle-jerk media. I just coined that today.

Yes, looking at my Bingo card again, I just had "circle jerk" as you have regularly used that eloquent term for years.

You van even handle a joke without having to backtrack.

Um...no...I guess I "van even handle a joke" whatever that the hell that means.