• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Effort to Remove Marjorie Taylor Greene From Ballot Can Proceed, Judge Says

NatMorton said:
You don't have a right to advocate for your politics on your employer's dime.
Click to expand...
That's actually incorrect. If such action can be negotiated or if there is a law allowing it, then you can do it.
 
tacomancer said:
#19 doesn't make your case. The state is still taking action to withhold cultural information that is deemed politically unacceptable.
Click to expand...
No, it is not. Nothing is preventing a FL or TX parent from purchasing on of those textbooks and giving it to their child.

The state choosing not to fund your prefered political message is not censorship.
 
NatMorton said:
No, it is not. Nothing is preventing a FL or TX parent from purchasing on of those textbooks and giving it to their child.

The state choosing not to fund your prefered political message is not censorship.
Click to expand...
All you are describing here is the mechanism used for that censorship. This is no different from when schools pulled huck finn from their libraries.
 
tacomancer said:
That's actually incorrect. If such action can be negotiated or if there is a law allowing it, then you can do it.
Click to expand...
Since when are rights "negotiated?"

That is not exercising a right. That is being given permission.
 
NatMorton said:
You don't have a right to advocate for your politics on your employer's dime.
Click to expand...
Only Republicans view gender identity as being an inherently political issue. Possibly because they don't understand it, hence why they wish to censor references to it.
 
Irredentist said:
Only Republicans view gender identity as being an inherently political issue. Possibly because they don't understand it, hence why they wish to censor references to it.
Click to expand...
I see. For Republicans it's a political issue. For you, it's The Truth.
 
NatMorton said:
No, I am not. You labeling something as "censorship" which is not.
Click to expand...
I already explained how it is censorship, you are getting caught up in the minutiae of how that censorship is being performed to find some sort of loophole and are failing at that attempt.
 
tacomancer said:
I already explained how it is censorship, you are getting caught up in the minutiae of how that censorship is being performed to find some sort of loophole and are failing at that attempt.
Click to expand...
No, you merely attempted to explain how it's censorship. Since you didn't explain away the unrestricted access to these textbooks that persist in both FL and TX, your attempt was unsuccessful.
 
NatMorton said:
No, you merely attempted to explain how it's censorship. Since you didn't explain away the unrestricted access to these textbooks that persist in both FL and TX, your attempt was unsuccessful.
Click to expand...
I will explain it to you again. The act of denying the books for political reasons is the censorship.
 
NatMorton said:
I see. For Republicans it's a political issue. For you, it's The Truth.
Click to expand...
I don't view the education of children about the concept of gender identity as being a political issue. Obviously we can debate how and when such information should be taught. But to censor it entirely is simply fear mongering on the part of republicans solely for the purpose of political gain.
 
tacomancer said:
I will explain it to you again. The act of denying the books for political reasons is the censorship.
Click to expand...
And I will explain to you again, this time using bold font: nothing is being denied these students; their parents are not prohibited from purchasing these textbooks for them.

You seem to think that if state funding isn't being used to advance a certain political message that somehow it's censorship. The assertion is complete nonsense.
 
Irredentist said:
I don't view the education of children about the concept of gender identity as being a political issue. Obviously we can debate how and when such information should be taught. But to censor it entirely is simply fear mongering on the part of republicans solely for the purpose of political gain.
Click to expand...
You don't view it that way, but I and many others do. More importantly, the duly elected representatives of FL and TX do.
 
tacomancer said:
I will explain it to you again. The act of denying the books for political reasons is the censorship.
Click to expand...
Which this country has already been through before. I can't believe we're fighting this battle yet again.
 
So if we were to prohibit third graders being assigned the reading of essays written on the virtues of white nationalism, would that be censorship?
 
NatMorton said:
And I will explain to you again, this time using bold font: nothing is being denied these students; their parents are not prohibited from purchasing these textbooks for them.

You seem to think that if state funding isn't being used to advance a certain political message that somehow it's censorship. The assertion is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, they are being denied consideration of text books for political reasons, which is the censorship.
 
NatMorton said:
And I will explain to you again, this time using bold font: nothing is being denied these students; their parents are not prohibited from purchasing these textbooks for them.

You seem to think that if state funding isn't being used to advance a certain political message that somehow it's censorship. The assertion is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that censorship isn't actually censorship unless it applies universally, in all circumstances and context? Because I don't think that is the correct definition of the term. Censorship can be applied not only by governments, but by private institutions as well, in a more limited sense.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Which this country has already been through before. I can't believe we're fighting this battle yet again.
Click to expand...
I find it astounding that social conservatives do not appear to have learned any lesson from the last 100 years. I thought the US was better than this.
 
tacomancer said:
I find it astounding that social conservatives do not appear to have learned any lesson from the last 100 years. I thought the US was better than this.
Click to expand...
Maybe they've just been pissed off for a 100 years.
 
Saying that there are Jewish Space lazers starting fires in California should be enough to put her in a mental institution..
 
CaughtInThe said:
Maybe they've just been pissed off for a 100 years.
Click to expand...
Then I hope they lose this little cultural tantrum they are throwing, which I think they will as its mostly coming from the very old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom