Re: Some bicycle paths...

On 8/3/2024 5:13 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 8/2/2024 3:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/2/2024 1:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 8/1/2024 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/1/2024 4:00 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 7/28/2024 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/28/2024 10:53 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 7/28/2024 10:12 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/28/2024 6:10 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 7/27/2024 8:52 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/27/2024 6:19 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 7/26/2024 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/26/2024 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/26/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/25/2024 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/25/2024 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/25/2024 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
Purposely irritating others is fun to people who are childish and obnoxious.
>

>
And yet, autos with political candidate stickers are common.

>
Interesting viewpoint. So expressing approval for a candidate in an election is childish and obnoxious? Really?
>
I see many more right wing examples than left wing examples. And when it comes to obscene examples, it's not even close.
>
>

>
"> I see many more right wing examples"
>
>
That's because you take offense at them and blithely disregard the left wing stickers. Perfectly normal response BTW, nothing wrong with that but see it as it is.

>
I know what confirmation bias is, thank you. I suppose this fine side point could be settled by actual counts. You know, data.
>
But the fundamental point is that candidate stickers are not necessarily intended to irritate others, as you implied. Most are intended to express support for a candidate, just as similar ones saying "Vote for the [police, or fire, school or library] levy."
>
And they've been ruled a first amendment right.
>

>
Excellent analysis.
Now just extend your argument one Amendment further...

>
ok. how about SCOTUS has repeated ruled the right to free speech is not absolute. Let's extend that to the 2nd amendment.

>
Personally I think they are wrong on both counts but that hasn't stopped them from either.

>
except when it comes to banning books in school libraries....You're fine with that, but you're not fine with banning guns in schools. Gee I wonder how many kids have died over the years from reading Catcher in the Rye?

>
You conflated limits on prurient materials to minor children in State funded facilities with 'book banning'. Utterly different things.

>
No, it isn't. Book banning is book banning regardless of the motive or source of funding for the materials. Nice try at defection, especially considering much of the books being banned in school libraries aren't 'prurient' by even the loosest definition of 'prurient'. Books with discussions on slavery and experiences of racism are hardly prurient, yet you have made no distinction between those and books depicting graphic sex.

>
You mistake my position.  I oppose ideological book censorship and have been carping about the loss of Huckleberry Finn to younger generations for decades.
>
[People who haven't actually read it get incensed at certain words out of context while ignoring that it is among the most beautifully, powerfully crafted anti racism works ever.]
>
I could not phrase it better than this:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/reading.jpg
>
That said, normalizing sexual deviance to preteens is different in kind.

>
That's funny becasue every time I've mentioned actual works of literature being lumped in with bans on sexually graphic material, you respond with a shrug, if any response at all.

>
If I recall you only mentioned Catcher in the Rye (a work I have not read) which is $1.63 up to anyone as of this morning:

>
I also mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird and The Kiterunner, to reiterate, you respond with a shrug, if any response at all.
>
>

>
Happy to help with that.
>
To Kill a Mockingbird is available only to a select few. That is, people with 99 cents to spend:
>
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=to+kill++mockingbird&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
>
I am unfamiliar with The Kiterunner but is actually valued more highly. $1 to anyone, 24x7:
>
https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=the+kiterunner&hs.x=0&hs.y=0
>
Whatever ban you refer to seems to be ineffective so far.
>
>

Ah, I see, so your response to banning books from school libraries is to just go buy the book - IOW, a shrug. Gee, Andrew, why bother having school libraries at all? You don't seem to grasp the slippery slope of the bans being extended to public libraries.
 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/attempts-to-ban-books-are-at-an-all-time-high-these-librarians-are-fighting-back
 Of course, if you were a true libertarian you would be against any publicly funded library. oh, wait...Public libraries don't cost anyone anything:
 "I Went to the Library, Where Books Are Free" - Glenn Beck.
 So let's keep banning books. It's not like censoring speech is unconstitutional or anything.
 

I have my beefs with various curricula and library policy but they are granular and local. I've mentioned before the loss to young people of never having read Huckleberry Finn, for example, among other valuable but lost works.
But such are the normal vicissitudes of a culturally divided citizenry expressed in their local venues.  A worse situation would be something like France, where all policy is centralized, the natural end point of having a Federal Education Department.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971