Disney Has Lost $50 Billion So Far

[Canon Shooter]

He passed this awful law to demonize gay people.

No, he signed it into law because he doesn't believe that children ages 5-8 need to be told, by anyone other than their parents, about human sexuality and gender issues.

What kind of sick, diseased pervert believes it's okay to talk to someone else's 5 year old about homosexuality?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yes, the teacher should give a short, historical account of who Jesus was

As long as the teacher also offers similar content regarding Buddah, and Muhammed, sure, that'll be fine...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As long as the teacher also offers similar content regarding Buddah, and Muhammed, sure, that'll be fine...

If the student ask about those then yes

 

[Canon Shooter]

If the student ask about those then yes

No, it's all or nothing.

Period.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He passed this awful law to demonize gay people.

You seem to have misspelled “subhuman pieces of shit who sexually abuse children”.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, it's all or nothing.

Period.

That is just stupid. If a student ask a question then give them an answer. If a student ask a question about a dog should the teach talk about every other animal?

 

[Canon Shooter]

You seem to have misspelled “subhuman pieces of shit who sexually abuse children”.

I know gay people.

Oddly, none of them has ever abused, not have they advocated for the abuse of, children.

Your comment exposes just what kind of special idiot you really are...

 

[Canon Shooter]

That is just stupid. If a student ask a question then give them an answer. If a student ask a question about a dog should the teach talk about every other animal?

No, but animals aren't beliefs.

If a child asks about Jesus, the teacher should simply tell the student that such a question is nest answered by the child's parents. I don't want a Christian teacher explaining who Mohammed is, or vice versa, simply because of the bias which will be unavoidably present. Seriously, if you can't see the difference between explaining who Jesus was and explaining what a Collie is, you may not be intelligent enough for the internet.

But, let's go ahead and contnue on with your version of how things should go: Let's say your 7 year old daughter hears the word "blowjob". Do you want little Sally's male 2nd grade teacher explaining to your 7 year old daughter what a blowjob is? That should be fine as long as he talks about going down on a woman, too, right?

Certain things do not belong in a grammar school classroom. Religion and sexuality are two of those things...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

He passed this awful law to demonize gay people.

You seem to have misspelled “subhuman pieces of shit who sexually abuse children”.

I know gay people.

Oddly, none of them has ever abused, not have they advocated for the abuse of, children.

Your comment exposes just what kind of special idiot you really are...

You seem to have [probably intentionally] misunderstood my point.

Incel Joe was lying that it was “gay people” who are the targets of DeSantis' law to protect children from sexual abusers.

You pretty much see that, anywhere, now, that any politician takes any action intended to protect children form being sexually abused, that it is the ******/tranny lobby that comes out and claims that they are the targets of that action.

I wonder why that is?

Although the connection is rather obvious between the two groups, my post was not intended to say that faggots and child abusers are the same group, but to take Incel Joe to task for crying that a law protecting children from sexual abuse was intended to “demonize gay people”.

To whatever extent there may exist faggots who are not interested in sexually abusing children, there is no reason at all why they should feel targeted by this law.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You seem to have [probably intentionally] misunderstood my point.

Incel Joe was lying that it was “gay people” who are the targets of DeSantis' law to protect children from sexual abusers.

You pretty much see that, anywhere, now, that any politician takes any action intended to protect children form being sexually abused, that it is the ******/tranny lobby that comes out and claims that they are the targets of that action.

I wonder why that is?

Although the connection is rather obvious between the two groups, my post was not intended to say that faggots and child abusers are the same group, but to take Incel Joe to task for crying that a law protecting children from sexual abuse was intended to “demonize gay people”.

To whatever extent there may exist faggots who are not interested in sexually abusing children, there is no reason at all why they should feel targeted by this law.

Mea culpa...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, but animals aren't beliefs.

If a child asks about Jesus, the teacher should simply tell the student that such a question is nest answered by the child's parents. I don't want a Christian teacher explaining who Mohammed is, or vice versa, simply because of the bias which will be unavoidably present. Seriously, if you can't see the difference between explaining who Jesus was and explaining what a Collie is, you may not be intelligent enough for the internet.

But, let's go ahead and contnue on with your version of how things should go: Let's say your 7 year old daughter hears the word "blowjob". Do you want little Sally's male 2nd grade teacher explaining to your 7 year old daughter what a blowjob is? That should be fine as long as he talks about going down on a woman, too, right?

Certain things do not belong in a grammar school classroom. Religion and sexuality are two of those things...

Jesus is a person from history, no different than if the student asked about Gandhi.

This is not the same thing as asking about a sexual act.

That you equate the two is scary as **** to be honest

 

[Canon Shooter]

Jesus is a person from history, no different than if the student asked about Gandhi.

This is not the same thing as asking about a sexual act.

That you equate the two is scary as **** to be honest

Just trying to find your limitations.

That said, asking about Jesus would be nothing like asking about Gandhi. People don't believe that Gandhi turned water into whine. They don't believe that Gandhi rose from the dead or was born to a virgin. You can't have any meaningful discussion about Jesus without discussing the religious aspects, and that just shouldn't be allowed in a public school classroom.

But, then again, why do you bother to differentiate between the two? You don't want someone telling your precious little Sally what a blowjob is (and understandably so), despite the fact that blowjobs exist, but you're fine with someone telling her about someone on whom an entire world religion is based.

To what extent would you allow a teacher to discuss Jesus with your child?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That said, asking about Jesus would be nothing like asking about Gandhi. People don't believe that Gandhi turned water into whine. They don't believe that Gandhi rose from the dead or was born to a virgin. You can't have any meaningful discussion about Jesus without discussing the religious aspects, and that just shouldn't be allowed in a public school classroom.

None of those things are necessary when saying who Jesus was from an historical stand point. A lot of people think there was a man named Jesus, not everyone believes in the miracles. It is 100% possible to give a quick 2 minute historical view of Jesus.

But, then again, why do you bother to differentiate between the two? You don't want someone telling your precious little Sally what a blowjob is (and understandably so), despite the fact that blowjobs exist, but you're fine with someone telling her about someone on whom an entire world religion is based.

Again, you are comparing two totally different things, that you equate them is very troubling. There is no way to talk about a blowjob leaving out the sexual part of it. There is a way to speak of Jesus without the religious part of it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Again, you are comparing two totally different things, that you equate them is very troubling. There is no way to talk about a blowjob leaving out the sexual part of it. There is a way to speak of Jesus without the religious part of it.

Really?

What happens when the kid asks who Jesus' father was?

Because it sure the **** wasn't Joseph...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Really?

What happens when the kid asks who Jesus' father was?

Because it sure the **** wasn't Joseph...

Why would a kid ask that? Would they ask who the father of Thomas Edison was?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why would a kid ask that? Would they ask who the father of Thomas Edison was?

The "why" doesn't matter an iota. Maybe the kid just wants to know.

My niece once asked me why "television bears" can talk when "zoo bears" can't. To this day I have no idea why she asked me, since asking why "television bears" are pink would've certainly been a more pressing question.

To what extent should a teacher explain who Jesus was?

If the child asks where Jesus is buried, how should that teacher respond?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

To what extent should a teacher explain who Jesus was?

I already gave you the answer, in the historical perspective only. None of the rest needs to be brought up, if the child ask too many question you just redirect and move on like you would with any other topic

 

[Canon Shooter]

I already gave you the answer, in the historical perspective only. None of the rest needs to be brought up, if the child ask too many question you just redirect and move on like you would with any other topic

And what historical perspective could a teacher give without citing Christianity, or the Bible, or the resurrection?

"Jesus was an out of work carpenter with 12 friends who liked to hang around him"? Would that work?

And what of the burial question? Where Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson are buried are matters of history, why not Jesus?

 

[JoeB131]

You seem to have misspelled “subhuman pieces of shit who sexually abuse children”.

Naw, man, that would be spelled M-O-R-M-O-N.

You cult was started by dirty old men who fucked teenage girls.

You seem to have [probably intentionally] misunderstood my point.

@Incel Joe was lying that it was “gay people” who are the targets of DeSantis' law to protect children from sexual abusers.

You pretty much see that, anywhere, now, that any politician takes any action intended to protect children form being sexually abused, that it is the ******/tranny lobby that comes out and claims that they are the targets of that action.

How are children being "abused" by being told that gay people exist?

If there is actual abuse, then spell out what is prohibited, most people would get behind it. Don't create a law so vague that any discussion about Sally having two mommies would be prohibited.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Trump/DeSantis 2024 "Make America Hate Again"

I'll ask one more time what did Desantis do to demonize gays?

A cartoon is not an answer.

Answer or retract.