for democrats : concern mom, bad , child porn, good.

so, we should just surrender any moral out rage what so ever about child porn and simply ignore the fact that it exists , ignore the child drag shows, ignore the sexualization of kids , because it exists on the internet and kids might be exposed to it? We are not talking about "porn" in the general sense , this is a specific kind of illegal pedophilia that only the most sick and brain f**ked, criminal kind of people enjoy.

Where did I say that?

I believe I said, depending on the context of message, the contents alone are not enough to dismiss.

drugs are on the streets , cocaine , meth, heroine, and crack.. should parents not try to keep their children from it because it is already out there ? Why try to have any morals at all seeing sin exists. I used the term "Sin", as a general term for all the things any normal person might not want their kids to be exposed to , not biblical "sin".

Strawman.

I’m taking about information. Not drugs.

its exactly the same point though, since it exists just accept it and let the kids be consumed by it.. whether it is information online or drugs in the streets.. child pornography is just as dangerous if not more so, than dope.

There is a difference between reading a book and doing drugs.

If the book showcases people in engaging in drugs and doing stupid things to teach the child a lesson in NOT doing drugs, then it's different is it not?

Not everything you read is glorifying the subject.

yea that is the same reasoning they gave for "cuties " on netflix, the entire movie was little girls being as provocative as legally possible , twerking, dry docking the ground, for 2 hours but at the very end , the last 5 minutes of the movie shows one girl regain her composure.. is that a learning movie to show little girl not to act like s**ts or was it a round about way to get basically pedofan film through the censors?

There is, again, a big difference in a book doing this and a Netflix show that hypocritically portrays a subject of young people being objectified while doing the very thing it preaches against. The latter incidentally harms the young actors, while the former is mere fiction. Or... as the book contends, semi-autobiographical. So... non-fiction with some fictional elements... regardless, the objectification is not the issue here. It IS the same subject, I agree but I don't see the point other than you're arguing that young people shouldn't be exposed to it all. My argument, again, is that you're going to have a hard time doing that.

Even within the context of the fact I have not read the book, I have made a very significant IF here in my argument.

IF the book is a morality story of NOT engaging in underage sex with others who are underage, then I don't see the problem.

IF the book is NOT this thing, then I agree that it should be removed.

Books do not cause underage sex from happening.

Nor are you going to prevent underage sex by banning books.

okay, I am happy the common ground , the epicenter of this debate, should child pornography be in schools , is agreed on.. everything else, is simply opinion and where moral/ and educational lines are drawn.. which is fine, everyone has different lines in the sand , that is the human condition. On this note, I'll end my portion of this conversation and bid you a good day. take care and stay safe out there.

Also just to be clear , I mentioned in an earlier post that I am fine with these books existing and being found in a city library open to the public. I am not looking to "ban books", I simply want books involving pornographic images about children taken out of school libraries. So don't make me out to be a liberal wanting to ban Huck Finn because it has the "N" word in it.

I am not making you out to be anything.

I am very careful in my assessments and have no wish to join any bandwagon of torches and pitchforks.

I think you may be splitting hairs a bit when describing the "big difference" in movies and books. Anyways the common ground I assume here, is that child pornography for self indulgent reasons should not be in school libraries, do we agree on that at least?

I'm sorry to keep repeating myself but...

Movies contain real people portraying fictional people. The real people are being exploited to make a moral message which is why the movie is more damaging to the argument that it's a morality story.

A book, which isn't exploiting any real people, is a far better media to explore such moral messages of exploitations of minors.

Yes, I agree that child pornography for self indulgent reasons should not be in school libraries.

Parents concerns aside, I've yet to see evidence that is what the book is actually about.

-You just can’t shelter children from this. It’s already out there. - that is what you said, to me it sounds like you are saying since it exists .. there is no point in trying to avoid contact with it.

There is a very big difference in "reading about it in a book" and engaging with the contents in it.

A book has the potential to steer a child away from the dangers of a thing rather than steer them directly into it.

My point was if the book was a moral lesson in what happens to people who this happens to, and it has NOTHING to do with how good or bad you are; this shit can happen to you at any age, then the context of how the book portrays it is more important than the content.

My point was, since the internet exists, one way or another, the child was going to be exposed to it and, hopefully not, may even have it happen to them. A book can potentially help a child recover from such experiences rather than making them think this is only happening to them. That there is no one they can turn to who will understand what they're going through.

I have no idea if this book does this, but if there are books of this nature, it seems to me that it isn't just to open a child up to possibilities but rather safely discuss a topic that might either be uncomfortable or not relatable from parent to child. Your experiences are not always going to be the same as your child's. And that kind of disconnect can also lead to families breaking up too.

Why are you commenting on books that you have no idea what they are about ? Go online and read -why- conservative parents do not want their children being exposed to this in school. There is no learning experience from child pornography, to even assume something so asinine is below you Gum, you never struck me as a hardline braindead liberal that refuses to see the other sides if presented with logical reasons. These books that are being discussed here are things both sides of the isle should stand against, to protect our kids. I don't know if you are a parent but I am.

"Why are you commenting on books that you have no idea what they are about ?"

Have you read the book or have you only gone "online and read -why- conservative parents do not want their children being exposed to this in school."?

"There is no learning experience from child pornography"

Forgive me, but I do not know if the book contains child pornography and, I suspect, neither do you.

"you never struck me as a hardline braindead liberal that refuses to see the other sides if presented with logical reasons."

Thank you. And by disagreeing with you here, shows that I am not a liberal who is in favor of burning books nor judging them based on other people's perspectives.

I've been quite honest with you that I have not, in fact, read the book but have maintained that books that do contain such content can be morally beneficially. Despite what Puritan Conservatives may think with their unrealistic standards, that they think they can successfully shelter their children from the reality of the world, especially one where the internet exists and can do far more damage than a mere book, banning such books will not -in fact- solve anything. Again, if they have moral benefit. If they don't, then fine. Ban them from public schools but I have yet to see any evidence of this and I'm not so free with my time to read a book of that nature at this time.

Whether we are parents or not makes no difference if we're being objective. If you only want to appeal to me subjectively through your perspective then you're utterly failing to be objective in your analysis which, is why I am not immediately convinced that the book contains pornography.

What I can tell you is that I actually have read other people's perspectives. And it appears that many Texas Schoolboards have reviewed the complaints and considered them fair. However, I won't pretend that I know what the book contains or the point it is trying to make for having the content, again, without the context.

Context is very important in text.

one pornographic book — "Gender Queer: A Memoir" — continues to pop up in school libraries all over the country. Advertisement - story continues below Written by cartoonist Maia Kobabe, the book contains cartoon-style pornographic images, including those depicting minors engaging in sex acts.

read the books and then decide - then we can cut out all this discussion pork, about opinions and this and that. If you decide that the two books listed lawn boy and gender queer , are suitable for a school library , then we can simply disagree , or you may find you agree with me and then we can find common ground . Being a parent is something you have to experience before you can make logical conclusions on what being a parent entails.

There was a book?

that is what the original meme is making fun of, Lawn Boy and Gender queer are two books that the women was banned over for complaining about the child pornographic stories in the books.

oh right your right King Toady

Oh that went over my head

Have you read the book?

I have, I didn't read gender queer but I read LAwn boy

Thank you.

That is why I am asking YOU to read them and then give your opinion.

I had no idea about this either

I don't understand

Right the internet has everything known to man

Except nuclear codes.

. . . yet.

True