(06-06-2023 02:57 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-06-2023 01:51 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-06-2023 11:19 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-06-2023 09:11 AM)WalkThePlank Wrote:  This isn't directed at anyone specific in this thread.

The main issue most people have it where does it stop? This is why zero tolerance is the way to go, we need the vast majority of liberals and conservatives to agree on some simple rules of sexual content and children so we can legislate.

It will only get more and more contentious if we let any sort of sexual content/behavior to be acceptable to children. Anyone who defends LGBT content in schools needs to let everyone else know, what is too far for children to see and at what age is it ok? Is there a limiting principle or not?

The Founders decided the American Experiment of freedom and self-governance could work if the people adhered to a common world view.

Washington said, "Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." (link)


And Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (link)


When we decided to change our societal composition from "out of many, one" to "inclusion of all" we essential shifted to where we find ourselves today.

Which brings us to the reason for your statement: "we need the vast majority of liberals and conservatives to agree on some simple rules of sexual content and children so we can legislate."

This point is easy for a society that is monolithic in its core beliefs, but it's impossible for anything else.


We have people who desire to engage in sexualization of children. We have others who support their efforts.

And we have others who despise their actions.

How can these two sides reach a compromise. It seems the options are to sexually exploit children or not to sexually exploit them. There is no middle ground.

You really think there couldn't be 90-95% agreement or higher that children shouldn't see depictions of sexual activity in school and an agreed upon list of things that fall into that category? I'm very certain there could be. What is it that you consider to be "sexually exploiting children" that you don't think could be agreed upon by 90-95% of the population?

Then why does the left cry foul about every no-transing or no sexualized content for young children legislation?

Why does not a single one of these bills want to be clear about what does and doesn't fall into the buckets of "sexually exploiting children" in these pieces of legislation? Since like you said It seems the options are to sexually exploit children or not to sexually exploit them. There is no middle ground. then it should be extremely easy for me to know what falls on each side of that line. The line should be pretty clear. So maybe I'm just an idiot, I contend that could be possible, so describe where that line is in these laws since in your opinion there is no grey area.