• The KillerFrogs

The Harris/Biden Administration: Coming Together to Build Back Better

Eight

Member

Casey T

Full Member
Here's the first part of the bill that uses the word "discussion."

"prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner."

And then later in the bill, it says:

"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."
That doesn’t sound to me like “teachers can be sued for discussing sexual orientation even if the child is the one who asks about it (i.e. why does my classmate have two moms?) or if someone decides whatever they're discussing is inappropriate for their child regardless of the child's age.”

It seems to prohibit classroom discussion/instruction and not apply to a private discussion if a student asks a question like that in a one-on-one setting. If you support a teacher sharing their views on these matters in front of the whole class then I see what you’re saying (though I personally support the bill in this case), but if you’re talking about students asking a teacher on the side, I don’t see how that verbiage encompasses it.
 

What Up Toad

Active Member
Honest question, but when you were in K-3 did any of your teachers discuss their personal relationships, sexual attraction, or personal identity (outside of the occasional "what do you want to be when you grow up" assignment) with the class?

Yes, I was invited and went to my kindergarten teacher's wedding. This was in Hurst, TX.
 

What Up Toad

Active Member
Honest question, but when you were in K-3 did any of your teachers discuss their personal relationships, sexual attraction, or personal identity (outside of the occasional "what do you want to be when you grow up" assignment) with the class?

I also met many of my teacher's husbands and wives.
 

What Up Toad

Active Member
That doesn’t sound to me like “teachers can be sued for discussing sexual orientation even if the child is the one who asks about it (i.e. why does my classmate have two moms?) or if someone decides whatever they're discussing is inappropriate for their child regardless of the child's age.”

It seems to prohibit classroom discussion/instruction and not apply to a private discussion if a student asks a question like that in a one-on-one setting. If you support a teacher sharing their views on these matters in front of the whole class then I see what you’re saying (though I personally support the bill in this case), but if you’re talking about students asking a teacher on the side, I don’t see how that verbiage encompasses it.

Here's the full bill if you want to read it. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

The ambiguous wording is my main issue with the bill. It seems like it was enacted in bad faith, but I'd happy for the state to clarify what is and isn't allowed to prove me wrong.
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
Here's the full bill if you want to read it. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF

The ambiguous wording is my main issue with the bill. It seems like it was enacted in bad faith, but I'd happy for the state to clarify what is and isn't allowed to prove me wrong.
It’s not ambiguous.

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.

That’s all that the bill outlaws on this topic. And it doesn’t create a cause of action against teachers.
 

LSU Game Attendee

Active Member
Exactly. The people mad about this bill would lose their minds if they found out some teachers were discussing what they learned in Bible study.
A lot of this could be addressed through school choice/vouchers. Parents who want their kids to be steeped in multi-amorous, woke goodness could choose one school; parents who want their kids instructed in the “3 Rs” could choose another.
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
That sounds really nice, until someone bigger, faster or smarter comes along and takes all your stuff.
Great question. Everyone needs security. The problem with police is that they are a government monopoly. So the same reasons why you are not for socialized medicine is why you should be against socialized security. Whenever you have a government monopoly on any service (education, healthcare, security, etc.) you are going to have zero accountability, mass death, or enormous inefficiencies and costs. There is also a huge incentive to make sure that the problem perpetuates because that is how their budgets increase. We saw in 2020, how the police stood while buildings were being burned and people were being killed, whereas when people were trying to defend their own property those were the ones that the police arrested. They bent the knee to BLM and the people who backed the blue were locked in jail.

The police right now don't prevent crime, they just show up at your house after you are burglarized and take a report so you can send it to your insurance company. There is no possibility that you are going to get your stuff back. If security was market oriented, if you got robbed, the company that is responsible for your security would be incentivized to get your stuff back or pay you. The current organization says we are going to protect you in your home, but then you get robbed or shot in your own back yard and they say sucks to BU. There is no accountability and there is no pretense that you are going to get what your tax money is paying for. If you had security in a private system, with competition, just like with Uber, etc., it would be a lot safer and there would be a lot more security. If you want a cop, go the donut shop. If you go the mall (I know they're dead) there is private security. If you go to a bar, with private security, it is a lot safer than the NY Subway, a public park, or alleys.
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
0elsfFq3j7HU.png
And our foreign policy.
 
Exactly. The people mad about this bill would lose their minds if they found out some teachers were discussing what they learned in Bible study.
Tells you all you need to know about the left.

Teach kids about God? You’re destroying our kids and our country! You’re a nazi!

Teach kids about pederasty and transgerderism? It’s essential for the advancement of humanity! You’re a bigot and your life should be destroyed if you disagree!
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
Of course not, but that is not what this is about. This about DeSantis canceling Disney because they won't go along with his outrageous legislation. And making up baseless vile and disgusting accusations that are complete lies along the way to try to deflect.
Disney was silent about the Parental Rights bill until the woke mob pressured them to say something about it.
 

Endless Purple

Full Member
Great question. Everyone needs security. The problem with police is that they are a government monopoly. So the same reasons why you are not for socialized medicine is why you should be against socialized security. Whenever you have a government monopoly on any service (education, healthcare, security, etc.) you are going to have zero accountability, mass death, or enormous inefficiencies and costs. There is also a huge incentive to make sure that the problem perpetuates because that is how their budgets increase. We saw in 2020, how the police stood while buildings were being burned and people were being killed, whereas when people were trying to defend their own property those were the ones that the police arrested. They bent the knee to BLM and the people who backed the blue were locked in jail.

The police right now don't prevent crime, they just show up at your house after you are burglarized and take a report so you can send it to your insurance company. There is no possibility that you are going to get your stuff back. If security was market oriented, if you got robbed, the company that is responsible for your security would be incentivized to get your stuff back or pay you. The current organization says we are going to protect you in your home, but then you get robbed or shot in your own back yard and they say sucks to BU. There is no accountability and there is no pretense that you are going to get what your tax money is paying for. If you had security in a private system, with competition, just like with Uber, etc., it would be a lot safer and there would be a lot more security. If you want a cop, go the donut shop. If you go the mall (I know they're dead) there is private security. If you go to a bar, with private security, it is a lot safer than the NY Subway, a public park, or alleys.
While I agree with some of this, it is a small limited point of view. You are assuming all human nature otherwise stays the same except for how security is handled in single instances. The idea of security has ingrained specific human responses over thousands of years. Take that away, and people will revert to more strong will survive techniques.

What is to stop the private security at the bar from taking the cash at the end of the night, then come back the next night and say "We still work here or we will burn down your bar, plus we will take the cash one night every week as a bonus"?
 

An-Cap Frog

Member
At least in Texas, it's 4th grade.

"Starting in the fourth grade, students learn about sexual health topics like puberty, relationships, and reproduction, centered around abstinence education."

If only there was a way for our democratically elected representatives to decide this for us...
 

Latest posts

Top