She covered her books and directed students to get a library card from a source that is aligned against the book ban. You said this makes her a pedophile groomer, implying she is trying to sexually assault the kids. How?
She should have taken her books back home with her. Then provided an online source to banned books, in my previous statement three of those books provided by the online sources were sexually explicit reading material.
Disseminating indecent materials to minors is an act of pedophilia. You… know that right? Literally a federal crime.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
So you literally think the majority of people in America are pedophiles because they want their kids to be able to read classical works of literature that were widely seen as acceptable until puritanical weirdos started banning books again. Thanks for clarifying.
Three books out of thousands had sexually explicit content, but the reason these books are controversial because they have literary and educational value. There are many who want to maintain the intellectual freedom to engage with those ideas instead of banning them. For instance, Idaho’s recent book ban received overwhelming opposition from the public. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the books that were banned do not have any sexually explicit content, and just contain ideas that some conservative lawmakers found objectionable, such as nonsexual depictions of gayness. The law was written with extremely vague definitions, likely to have this exact effect where huge amounts of information are removed.
Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with these book bans are deliberately engaging in pedophilia and want to rape children? That is what “pdo groomer” means, which is what you said about the teacher. Please answer this question, you have been avoiding it. I really want to know if you actually think the teacher wants to rape the kids she works with. Is that what you think?
Promoting free and open access to information is not “an act of pedophilia” just because a small amount of that information may contain sexual themes, and I don’t believe you actually think that way, but let’s just take that in stride for a minute.
Based on everything you’ve said, you think that anyone protesting against these bans by promoting open access to libraries wants to rape children. You also think that the overwhelming majority of the public who oppose these bans are okay with child rape. Is this correct?
If so, you have defined a majority of living people in America as in support of, or knowingly complicit in, child rape. Do you think that’s accurate or reasonable? Or are you just playing word games to get what you want?
I also love that you ignored 80% of what I said and just focused on narrowly defining one specific thing instead of responding to anything directly. Ignore everything about the structure and language of the laws, the absence of sexual themes in banned works, the extreme levels of unnecessary and vague censorship, etc…
Also you’re just wrong, pedophilia is a passive trait while grooming is an active attempt to fuck kids. You’re just redefining words at this point.
No one said, “promoting free and open access to information is an act of pedophilia”. Providing children direction/guidance/access to pornographic material on the other hand… Is an act of pedophilia. It is a grooming tactic. At best you can call it, “sexualizing children”. And that is still fked.
She provided direction to a public library that does not follow the book ban. She is not telling or directing her students to read porn. She is, objectively, promoting free and open access to a public library. There is no other way to characterize that.
Also, even the most controversial books on the banned list are not “pornographic”. Containing sexual themes or imagery does not qualify something as porn. Porn exists for sexual gratification, and none of those books exist for that purpose.
You also still have not answered my question as to whether or not you think these people actually want to rape kids, or if you are just playing word games.
If you have pedophilic tendencies… not even touching a child, but providing a child ANY sexually explicit material, you are a pedophile. And I have NO mercy for pedophiles.
If that doesn’t answer your question, that’s your problem, not mine.
Sex education isn’t pornography, and as a general rule depictions of nude people isn’t sufficient to be considered pornography. Moreover, comprehensive sex education has a strong correlation with reduced teen pregnancy. The only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from that is that sex education isn’t required for teens to have sex, and that sex education increases the odds that teenagers will engage in safe sex rather than unsafe sex.
What does a story about a boy sucking off another boy in some sort of homo-erotica material have anything to do with sex education? That is pornographic material. And if you need examples, go through my comments/replies and review the two youtube videos I posted.
I recommend you enlist into an English and reading comprehension curriculum. Good grief.
She covered her books and directed students to get a library card from a source that is aligned against the book ban. You said this makes her a pedophile groomer, implying she is trying to sexually assault the kids. How?
Don’t be a coward, answer the question :)
She should have taken her books back home with her. Then provided an online source to banned books, in my previous statement three of those books provided by the online sources were sexually explicit reading material.
Disseminating indecent materials to minors is an act of pedophilia. You… know that right? Literally a federal crime.
Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
You are always wrong…that must get frustrating.
Removed by mod
So you do, literally, think that anyone who promotes free and open access to these materials wants to rape kids? Meaning the majority of people?
Removed by mod
So you literally think the majority of people in America are pedophiles because they want their kids to be able to read classical works of literature that were widely seen as acceptable until puritanical weirdos started banning books again. Thanks for clarifying.
Irrelevant nonsequiter. Pass.
Three books out of thousands had sexually explicit content, but the reason these books are controversial because they have literary and educational value. There are many who want to maintain the intellectual freedom to engage with those ideas instead of banning them. For instance, Idaho’s recent book ban received overwhelming opposition from the public. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of the books that were banned do not have any sexually explicit content, and just contain ideas that some conservative lawmakers found objectionable, such as nonsexual depictions of gayness. The law was written with extremely vague definitions, likely to have this exact effect where huge amounts of information are removed.
Are you saying that everyone who disagrees with these book bans are deliberately engaging in pedophilia and want to rape children? That is what “pdo groomer” means, which is what you said about the teacher. Please answer this question, you have been avoiding it. I really want to know if you actually think the teacher wants to rape the kids she works with. Is that what you think?
Removed by mod
Promoting free and open access to information is not “an act of pedophilia” just because a small amount of that information may contain sexual themes, and I don’t believe you actually think that way, but let’s just take that in stride for a minute.
Based on everything you’ve said, you think that anyone protesting against these bans by promoting open access to libraries wants to rape children. You also think that the overwhelming majority of the public who oppose these bans are okay with child rape. Is this correct?
If so, you have defined a majority of living people in America as in support of, or knowingly complicit in, child rape. Do you think that’s accurate or reasonable? Or are you just playing word games to get what you want?
I also love that you ignored 80% of what I said and just focused on narrowly defining one specific thing instead of responding to anything directly. Ignore everything about the structure and language of the laws, the absence of sexual themes in banned works, the extreme levels of unnecessary and vague censorship, etc…
Also you’re just wrong, pedophilia is a passive trait while grooming is an active attempt to fuck kids. You’re just redefining words at this point.
No one said, “promoting free and open access to information is an act of pedophilia”. Providing children direction/guidance/access to pornographic material on the other hand… Is an act of pedophilia. It is a grooming tactic. At best you can call it, “sexualizing children”. And that is still fked.
She provided direction to a public library that does not follow the book ban. She is not telling or directing her students to read porn. She is, objectively, promoting free and open access to a public library. There is no other way to characterize that.
Also, even the most controversial books on the banned list are not “pornographic”. Containing sexual themes or imagery does not qualify something as porn. Porn exists for sexual gratification, and none of those books exist for that purpose.
You also still have not answered my question as to whether or not you think these people actually want to rape kids, or if you are just playing word games.
Let me make it clear.
If you have pedophilic tendencies… not even touching a child, but providing a child ANY sexually explicit material, you are a pedophile. And I have NO mercy for pedophiles.
If that doesn’t answer your question, that’s your problem, not mine.
Sex education isn’t pornography, and as a general rule depictions of nude people isn’t sufficient to be considered pornography. Moreover, comprehensive sex education has a strong correlation with reduced teen pregnancy. The only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from that is that sex education isn’t required for teens to have sex, and that sex education increases the odds that teenagers will engage in safe sex rather than unsafe sex.
What does a story about a boy sucking off another boy in some sort of homo-erotica material have anything to do with sex education? That is pornographic material. And if you need examples, go through my comments/replies and review the two youtube videos I posted.