Why the f do you libs want to talk to 1st graders about sex and gender? Take the L on this and STFU.
Disney
- Thread starter LowerLevelSeatA
- Start date
- Status
Why the f can't you understand that we don't? Why is asking for a clearly defined law a bad thing? Speed limits are clearly defined. Drunk driving is clearly defined. Why can't this be clearly defined? Even Dale Brown thinks you should STFU.
the fact that a law had to be created in the first place shows just how effed up liberals are with children.
There are already laws and rules about boundaries in schools. How much more clearly defined should it be?
Obviously the same Critical Race Theory gobbledygook that is taught to Law students isn't the same CRT that is taught to children K-12, just like the psychological grooming taking place isn't exclusively predatory for the sole purpose of molestation.
This isn't at all a left vs right issue, but a left vs wrong issue. The primary resources are readily available to anyone with the time and desire to do the research.
This isn't at all a left vs right issue, but a left vs wrong issue. The primary resources are readily available to anyone with the time and desire to do the research.
If a pastor, coach, or employer started to have conversations about sex with minors, it’s inappropriate. Outside of a sex Ed class, there are few ways that this could occur without boundaries being crossed.
The fact that this is 15 pages and some people refuse to accept this is truly frustrating.
The fact that this is 15 pages and some people refuse to accept this is truly frustrating.
I was watching "A league of their own" with my mom and at the time 12 year old niece at Thanksgiving. When the scene comes when someone asks Tom Hanks character for his autograph and he signs it "Avoid the clap, Jimmy Dugan" my niece said "whats the clap?" and I just looked at her and did the 
am I a groomer?
am I a groomer?
I don't see what's so difficult about keeping your personal separate from your work life.
None of my teachers were telling me antyhing about their personal lives. The bell rang, and class was in session...that was it.
This is going to be a fiscal disaster for Florida. There's $2 billion in current debt that will transfer to the taxpayers of Orange and Osceola counties to the tune of $2200 per household. The current tax revenue from those counties cannot support the Disney infrastructure. Reedy Creek existing saved Florida a ton of money.
So I will chalk that up to a vote for there is no reason it should be as vague as it is. Thanks for your contribution.
quit supporting ppl who molest kids, you say you don't, but you vote for the ones that do. that is how voting works. you support it. it's sick.
There has never been a law about saying you have a husband or wife if you are gay. Is answering that question adding sexual orientation to the curriculum? To some people it might be. That is why it needs to be defined.
You probably supported Trump and he has those same allegations. You support it. It’s sick.
It’s fascinating how liberals are now all about slavery to global corporations. Did not see that coming 15 years ago.
all you have is "but Trump, and allegations"
It's like liberals can't just come and say it's wrong to support the mutilation of preteen and teenage bodies, having tranny story time with 5 yr olds, letting boys in girls bathrooms and locker rooms, letting boys destroy girls sports, allowing grow adults discuss sexuality with 5 and 6 yr olds.
Like you can't just not support it? Or see how all of this goes together. Like how you vote for allowing it so you actually support it?
But Trump and something CNN said. that is your whole rebuttal.
I'd recommend looking at other states if/when you look... there are much better places to live than what you can get in Florida imo.
Florida is also a political battleground, few thousand votes from being indistinguishable from California in this brave new world our decidedly mediocre and corrupt leaders are creating.
So aside from personal attacks, you have no logical reason as to why the law shouldn’t be more defined. You can be ok that a person can possibly lose their career and possibly go to jail simply because someone like you doesn’t like that that they said they have a husband. Based on the law as written, it’s only a matter of time til that happens. If you are ok with that then fine. We will just wait to see your reaction when it happens to a lady talking about her husband instead of a guy talking about his husband. You (and others in this thread) will be the first to lose their minds that isn’t what the law was for but wouldn’t give a damn if it happened to a gay guy talking about his husband in the same exact context.
How does saying, "oh that's my husband" ever going to be compared to the teacher using a book or having a lesson on gender identities? No matter how vague, that interaction will not be an offense worth firing. Stop being obtuse. Could it be worded better? Sure, what law couldn't be?
I agree with some of your points, to be honest. The bill needs to be revamped to address perverted teachers/LGBT activists trying to mold young children to adopt a particular view of sex and gender. I’m not sure I agree shutting down any recognition of trans people is the answer, but the push for normalization of puberty blockers being used on children is a bridge too far, so I’m not sure how to get there and be fair to the kids that don’t fit in, but we have to address some troubling developments in society.
You have a lot more faith in the school system and people than I do or has been proven to be deserved. There will be someone that accuses a teacher of trying to teach sexual preference simply because they say they have a husband. You know as well as I do that someone is bigoted and stupid enough to do just that. The school system will then do whatever they have to do in order to cover their own ***. It already happens with laws and regulations worded better than this vague piece of legislation.
Strange, huh? When the corporations adopt more traditionally “liberal” social views, they seem to encounter less pushback on things like fair wages, benefits, work conditions, and more. What if that was the plan?
All teachers have to say if questions persist is, "hey how about you ask your parents(grandparents.. whoever)." It’s the ones that are shown in the tweets that will be axed. I don't think c.y.a. will be required with the interaction you mentioned.
When I was in grade school, especially in 1st thru 4th grade, I don’t remembering any teacher telling us about their home life or private life. I just don’t think it is hard for a teacher to avoid engaging kids in such matters. So, I don’t have the concern you are expressing. But, I have no doubt some teacher will consider intentionally testing the issue.
Reckless behavior is not always clear. Crimes of passion that lead to lesser penalties are not always clear. Language cannot always make things as clear as the speed limit, because the behavior being addressed is not so linear.
Again you have more faith in people than they deserve. I’m not sure some in this thread wouldn’t accuse a teacher of teaching about sexual preference because a teacher mentioned their husband. Schools always try to CYA.
Do those counties get property tax revenue from Disney? I assumed they did not and that Disney was currently it’s own taxing district.
And, then, if you parse out the examples of what is not instruction, then what is keeping a motivated person from setting up the situation to make their little instructional chat look innocent? Let’s just avoid personal life discussions with kids who are not our kids. None of us have to talk to others little kids who are supposed to be tasked to learn about our spouses or our private lives. This is not difficult.
Right. I don't remember my teachers, even in high school, talking about their private lives at all.
I knew every single one of my teachers spouses name. I knew their kids names. I remember them talking about vacations. It’s not that uncommon.
Disney does currently pay property taxes to the counties to the tune of around $300 million a year. No revenue currently collected by RCDI will be redirected to those counties when it's dissolved. It'll just disappear and will be kept by Disney. Taxes in Orange and Osceola counties are going to have to go up if they need to support the infrastructure of Disney World. They will have to pick up the tab on the infrastructure with zero additional tax dollars from Disney.
RCDI wasn't a way for Disney to save money. In fact they have to subsidize the operations of the district because it loses money. They did it to get things like building permits approved easier and quicker.
Or, maybe, and get this: Floridians don’t really want some of the new social constructs that are being forced upon them, so their governor, for once, is actually doing something they want him to do.
Hardly, this is the liberal Pro Gay spin. Do you realize how big Florida is and how financially sound it is thanks to conservative leaders in our state. Disney World is a drop in our revenue bucket. Florida has billions in reserves. Billions. Florida made money during the pandemic. Florida has close to 22 million residents and if little Mickey left tomorrow most of these citizens would celebrate. The Disney Corporation does nothing for people who live here. They are much more trouble than they are worth.
For 50 years the very liberal Orlando Sentinel has raised questions about the propriety of a company having its own government. Disney's vast media empire profited from the special district carve out. They were allowed to raise million in taxes. Democrats have always been against the concept of conceding government authority to any private corporation. Now all of a sudden liberals in the media are all up in arms because Disney will be like every other business in this state and all special privileges that creates millions in wealth for them is over. So now the media cries, How dare Republicans take away special privileges granted to Disney World, How dare they turned the existing world order on its head. How dare they treat Disney like every other corporation in our state.
What hypocrisy. Now Democrats find themselves defending the right of a multinational mega-corporation to govern itself over a vast area with significant human, economic and environmental impacts. A policy position that they have historically hated and opposed with vigor. But since it involves one of the liberals biggest supporters and funding machine they are opposed. You can't make this stuff up.
So Disney got a little too big for it's britches and cut it's own throat. Their stock is going down and the mothers and fathers of the youth of Florida are the better for it.
Ok, but mental health treatment is expensive. The vast majority of people can't afford it. So what do we do? Right now it seems as though because of their sexuality they are being treated a bit like soldiers returning from Vietnam. I for one think love and kindness should prevail.
You also make a very salient point about soldiers. What age is appropriate to start indoctrinating children to the glory of America's war machine. I mean I was in grade school during the Gulf War and had a lady come sing God Bless The USA at a variety show about war. I guess I was old enough to learn about killing but not old enough to know there were gay people around. Only one of those things disturbs my 40 year old self.
This is so ridiculous. You do not speak for all Floridians, or even most. I don't have any particular affinity for Disney, but they are an important economic engine in the state of Florida and, contrary to what you say, most Floridians don't want them gone. Can you imagine Florida or Orlando in particular with no WDW?
Anyway, my biggest issue with this is not taking away the special treatment for Disney, it's the fact that it was obviously done as political retribution for Disney opposing this law. That sets a horrible precedent and is very bad politics in the long run.
Systematic reviews on hormonal treatment for young people show a trend of low-quality evidence, small sample sizes and medium to high risk of bias.
...
Based on the currently available evidence, "encouraging mastectomy, ovariectomy,uterine extirpation, penile disablement, tracheal shave, the prescription of hormones
which are out of line with the genetic make-up of the child, or puberty blockers, are all
clinical practices which run an unacceptably high risk of doing harm."
...
Based on the currently available evidence, "encouraging mastectomy, ovariectomy,uterine extirpation, penile disablement, tracheal shave, the prescription of hormones
which are out of line with the genetic make-up of the child, or puberty blockers, are all
clinical practices which run an unacceptably high risk of doing harm."
Last edited:
- Status