Conservatism

[Joey D]

Man it's going to be hilarious when the tourism industry in Florida tanks because it's a backwater hellhole and Florida Man needs to start paying state taxes.

 

[TexRex]

Why do Republicans hate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Public schools would have to display Ten Commandments under bill passed by Texas Senate

The Senate also passed a bill that would set prayer and Bible reading times during the school day.

www.texastribune.org

Okay but let's be real here. They love it for themselves and would have it protect nobody but themselves. Can you imagine the tantrums connie trash would throw and the terrorist threats they'd make--even carry out--if public schools broadcast the Adhan over the intercom system?

Of course we've been here before. In 1980, the Supreme Court held in Stone v. Graham that a Kentucky law requiring display of the ten commandments violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Because it obviously does.

"The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact."

As for other provisions in the bill, I gather public schools still observe a schedule that isn't exclusive to instruction and any student that sincerely holds religious belief can utilize those non-instruction periods for personal exercise in a manner that doesn't endanger or violate the rights of others, as ever.

 

[Liquid]

In deliberately trying to ignore social realities for demagogic gain, DeSantis is acting the King Cnut here in every sense of the phrase.

DeSantis is a Cnut, no doubt at all, but for accuracy I am fairly certain that the stories of Cnut commanding the tide and Caligula stabbing the sea are both lessons in futility that the protagonists already knew and were merely demonstrating to overly sycophantic flatterers.

Xerxes of Persia ordering the Hellespont strait to be flogged 300 times and throwing legcuffs in it is an act of delusional foolishness though.

 

[UKMikey]

DeSantis is a Cnut, no doubt at all, but for accuracy I am fairly certain that the stories of Cnut commanding the tide and Caligula stabbing the sea are both lessons in futility that the protagonists already knew and were merely demonstrating to overly sycophantic flatterers.

Xerxes of Persia ordering the Hellespont strait to be flogged 300 times and throwing legcuffs in it is an act of delusional foolishness though.

I should have said "multiple senses" instead of "every sense" but the article I linked references two modern readings which support this assertion.

 

[Jezza819]

The world's worst MeeMaw is at it again.

Gov. Kay Ivey renounces pre-k educator resource book, ADECE secretary resigns

The administration stated that the content was “simply not in line with what the Ivey Administration or the people of Alabama stand for or believe.”

www.waff.com

Apparently Miss Camelia Blossom Festival Queen of 1927 thinks she needs to take a stand against this "woke" stuff being introduced to the children of Alabama. To which the Alabama Department of Early Childhood Education’s Secretary Barbara Cooper flipped the governor the bird and resigned. She probably didn't do that as much as I wished she would have.

When MeeMaw's office was asked to define just what it was that got her drawers all bunched in a knot about the book they responded with the following.

“For added context on some of the governor’s concern that this resource book contained a woke agenda, the book invokes ideas for teachers that there are “larger systemic forces that perpetuate systems of White privilege” or that “the United States is built on systemic and structural racism.” Also included for four-year-olds to learn is that “LGBTQIA+ need to hear and see messages that promote equality, dignity and worth.” The glossary includes equally disturbing concepts that the Ivey Administration and the people of Alabama in no way, shape or form believe should be used to influence school children, let alone four-year-olds.

Governor Ivey does not stand for these concepts. For as long as she is governor, Alabama will be focused on ensuring our students are receiving a quality education.”

Quality education?!?! In Alabama?!?! This state ranks 47th in terms of education. Hey Granny, how about addressing the real problems of education in this state and not go around chasing the "woke" imaginary windmill.

 

[Barra333]

EDIT I don't know how this strike through format got put on here.

Highlight the text and hit ctrl+S

 

[Jezza819]

Highlight the text and hit ctrl+S

Thanks.

 

[TexRex]

Court convicts women for "offending religious feelings" with rainbow Virgin Mary at LGBT march

One women was handed five months of community service and the other fined for displaying the "Rainbow Virgin Mary".

notesfrompoland.com

A court has found two women guilty of offending religious feelings – a crime in Poland that carries a prison sentence of up to two years – for displaying an image of the Virgin Mary and Jesus with rainbow haloes during an LGBT march.

One was handed five months of community service while the other was fined 2,000 zloty. The pair’s lawyer has, however, announced their intention to contest the judgement, as they are entitled to do, meaning the case would proceed to a full trial.

The incident in question took place during the 2021 Equality March in Częstochowa, a city that is home to Poland’s holiest Catholic shrine, the Black Madonna. An image of the icon with added rainbow colours is regularly displayed by LGBT activists in Poland.

After the march, police and prosecutors received a number of complaints from individuals who said that the image had offended their religious feelings, reports the Gazeta Wyborcza daily.

One of those statements came from Robert Bąkiewicz, a far-right leader, who said that “intentionally presenting the image [of Mary and Jesus] with the symbol of the sin of Sodom clearly violates my religious feelings”.

After one expert submitted a report concluding that the image should not be seen as offensive to religious feelings, prosecutors – who are under the authority of prosecutor general Zbigniew Ziobro, an outspoken anti-LGBT figure – commissioned a second expert.

He submitted a 70-page opinion concluding that the image did not display the biblical, seven-coloured rainbow symbolising hope and closeness to God, but instead a six-coloured symbol of the LGBT community. He therefore concluded that the image was offensive.

Prosecutors therefore indicted the pair – who are named only as Kamila Ł.-B. and Magdalena W.-D. under Polish privacy law – at the end of last year. Today, the district court in Częstochowa issued a form of ruling that can be made without a full trial based on case files.

It found both to be guilty, and handed down sentences. However, lawyer Adam Kasperkiewicz, who represents both defendents, told Gazeta Wyborcza that he would challenge the judgement. “We want a public trial and will prove that no crime was committed,” he said.

Last year, the same court in Częstochowa acquitted a man who had also been indicted for offending religious feelings by displaying an image of the Black Madonna with rainbow colours added.

The judge found that the symbol contained a positive – not an offensive – message supporting equality and opposing discrimination. In another case, three LGBT activists were acquitted of the same offence in 2021 for producing and distributing images of the “Rainbow Virgin Mary”.

Poland’s national-conservative ruling camp has mounted a vociferous campaign in recent years against what it calls “LGBT ideology” and presents as an alien threat to national culture and identity. That has led Poland to be ranked as the worst country in the EU for LGBT people.

However, opinion polls show that the Polish public are increasingly accepting of LGBT people and supportive of granting them greater rights, including a majority now in favour of legalising same-sex civil partnerships.

 

[Danoff]

Court convicts women for "offending religious feelings" with rainbow Virgin Mary at LGBT march

One women was handed five months of community service and the other fined for displaying the "Rainbow Virgin Mary".

notesfrompoland.com

Freedom of speech is important.

 

[TexRex]

Mental illness.

There's...context, I guess? The context is that one of the characters is purported to be portrayed by a drag queen. The context doesn't actually help to make the case for the single connie rat getting its way and depriving children of parents who don't take exception to that purported fact of entertainment.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TB]

Thoughts and prayers saved Florida again.

 

[TexRex]

"We're putting pedophiles to death, hopefully."

So I know I've made this point before, but I'm compelled to make it again. Pedophilia is thought alone. When one who has those thoughts acts on them, one perpetrates the act of child sexual assault. One may perpetrate the act of child sexual assault even though as one may not actually be a pedophile. Sexual assault, the victim's age notwithstanding, is an act of violence rather than one of love or sexual desire.

When one who is attracted to underaged individuals declines to act on those thoughts, nobody's rights are violated. When one who is attracted to underaged individuals declines to act on those thoughts conventionally, as with an underaged individual, and instead engages in sexual activity with a consenting adult who is acting as a surrogate to satisfy those desires, nobody's rights are violated.

I don't understand pedophilia. Frankly, I think it's creepy. I certainly don't condone it, but in the absence of action that violates rights, I don't feel it's appropriate to condemn it either. It's really not anyone's business.

Of course also at play here is that conservatives have long linked what they consider to be deviant sexual behavior, including that which doesn't violate any individual's natural rights, with pedophilia. The classic example is homosexuality, but lately the condition of being transgender and even drag, which isn't inherently sexual, have been lumped in with it.

 

[Danoff]

"We're putting pedophiles to death, hopefully."

I haven't looked at the wording of the bill, but it's concerning given how lightly "pedophile" gets thrown around. I really hope we're not talking about an 18 and a 17 year old. Even if you go with the Romeo and Juliette law (for example in colorado), I'd certainly not be interested in seeing the death penalty for a case between an 18 year old and 14 year old. 30 and 16 doesn't sound much better.

Regardless, even if we're talking about extreme cases of pedophilia, the death penalty is not remotely appropriate. Rape of an adult? Maybe as little as 2 years in prison. Rape of a child? Death. Child (or Adult) rape victim is pregnant? Now it's time of the state to commit crimes against the victim.

 

[TexRex]

Regardless, even if we're talking about extreme cases of pedophilia child rape, the death penalty is not remotely appropriate.

I think it probably wasn't intentional and that you understand the difference--the two are conflated way too often and it can be an easy slip--but I just had to fix that bit.

 

[Danoff]

I think it probably wasn't intentional and that you understand the difference--the two are conflated way too often and it can be an easy slip--but I just had to fix that bit.

Yea that's totally fair.

 

[Barra333]

The sheer number of contradictions in these extreme conservative policies is mind boggling. Not to mention the mind bogglingness of their policies in isolation.

 

[McLaren]

I haven't looked at the wording of the bill, but it's concerning given how lightly "pedophile" gets thrown around. I really hope we're not talking about an 18 and a 17 year old. Even if you go with the Romeo and Juliette law (for example in colorado), I'd certainly not be interested in seeing the death penalty for a case between an 18 year old and 14 year old. 30 and 16 doesn't sound much better.

Regardless, even if we're talking about extreme cases of pedophilia, the death penalty is not remotely appropriate. Rape of an adult? Maybe as little as 2 years in prison. Rape of a child? Death. Child (or Adult) rape victim is pregnant? Now it's time of the state to commit crimes against the victim.

They're not.

This is specifically being done in attempt to scare the transgender community back into hiding. They already call transgender people, "child groomers", and believe transgender people shouldn't be around kids in any way (even as far as to use drag queen events as proof despite the fact drag queens are typically not transgender folks). Then, DeSantis changes the rules on how the death penalty can be applied to pedophiles (complete agreement to 8 of 12 jurors & I believe ruling back a Supreme Court decision) to make it easier to convict, knowing a lot of people will not exactly push back on putting actual, convicted child molesters to death.

He does not link the two directly, but it's easy to see route that can transpire: Pedophiles can be given a death penalty. Pedophiles are generally categorized as child groomers. Ignorantly & hatefully throw out repeatedly that transgender folks are "child groomers" too, & the extremists will start believing any transgender person in Florida seen around a child can now have a death penalty looming over them for no actual crime. Not like they haven't hid this desire. Michael Knowles has openly called for their eradication & I'm not at all surprised a red state like Florida might actually be trying to open up such an avenue under the usual performative politics ("Pedos bad, am i rite?").

 

[HenrySwanson]

When one who is attracted to underaged individuals declines to act on those thoughts, nobody's rights are violated. When one who is attracted to underaged individuals declines to act on those thoughts conventionally, as with an underaged individual, and instead engages in sexual activity with a consenting adult who is acting as a surrogate to satisfy those desires, nobody's rights are violated.

I don't understand pedophilia. Frankly, I think it's creepy. I certainly don't condone it, but in the absence of action that violates rights, I don't feel it's appropriate to condemn it either. It's really not anyone's business.

Broadly agree, but i have a question.

Should simulated sex with a child, I.e. computer generated videos/vr be legal?

 

[Danoff]

Should simulated sex with a child, I.e. computer generated videos/vr be legal?

Identify the injured party.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Identify the injured party.

That's my point, but I think those sites would quickly take down such videos. I presume the reason is more to do with the negative association with child "actors" but I'd be interested about the current legality, and how it may change with more immersive experiences.

 

[Danoff]

That's my point

I don't understand your point.

but I think those sites would quickly take down such videos.

I don't know what sites you're talking about, but surely it's their prerogative.

I presume the reason is more to do with the negative association with child "actors" but I'd be interested about the current legality, and how it may change with more immersive experiences.

Obscenity laws in the US are currently a mess and rather... obscene.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't understand your point.

Following @TexRex's statement about violating someone elses rights, I was wondering if it should be legal *.

*But I get what you mean, I didn't really make a point and was really just thinking out loud.

I don't know what sites you're talking about, but surely it's their prerogative.

Porn.

Obscenity laws in the US are currently a mess and rather... obscene.

I actually looked it up.

Seems to vary widely.

 

[McLaren]

Broadly agree, but i have a question.

Should simulated sex with a child, I.e. computer generated videos/vr be legal?

I mean, if sites are getting hit by legal notices to take down generated celebrity fakes, I would imagine any site featuring a generates child will get similar treatment. I would guess most porn sites won’t even allow such content anyway.

 

[Danoff]

Following @TexRex's statement about violating someone elses rights, I was wondering if it should be legal *.

Back to my question, on what basis would you want otherwise?

Porn.

My answer stands.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Back to my question, on what basis would you want otherwise?

I'm not sure I would, as it could provide an outlet for those attracted to children.

It makes me uneasy that there could be videos of, say, Millie Bobby Brown circa Stranger Things season 1 getting it on with an adult but I don't know enough about the law to say whether that should be illegal.

I see that childrens charities support criminalisation of such media but I can't seem to find evidence of it deterring potential offenders (which I think is cited as one reason they want it outlawed).

 

[TexRex]

Broadly agree, but i have a question.

Should simulated sex with a child, I.e. computer generated videos/vr be legal?

Following @TexRex's statement about violating someone elses rights, I was wondering if it should be legal.

"Simulated sex with a child," as with computer generated representations, should be legal, yes, because, as Danoff suggested, there is no injured party--there's no violation of rights.

And in the United States, it is legal. Congress sought to prohibit it in passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, but the Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), struck down provisions relating to computer generated images or those depicting actors whose consent is recognized by law (aged 18 years regardless of state law in those states in which material may be consumed), though said actors' appearance may be "indistinguishable from" that of those who are underaged.

I should say that "child pornography" is more appropriately referred to as child sexual abuse material as it depicts child sexual abuse. Pornography ought to be recognized as that which depicts sexual acts to which participants legally consent, and where documentation and distribution of depictions is also subject to all participants' consent. Absent consent on any of these points moves it from pornography to sexual abuse material.

I think those [porn] sites would quickly take down such videos.

Such is their prerogative. It still should not be prohibited by law. Laws should preserve rights without violating rights. Such a law preserves no rights absent injured parties while it violates rights.

Edit:

...it could provide an outlet for those attracted to children.

And that's good, if only because one may decline to violate any rights. Pedophiles have a right to exist and their rights should only be infringed upon if they can be shown to have violated the rights of others.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Such is their prerogative. It still should not be prohibited by law. Laws should preserve rights without violating rights. Such a law preserves no rights absent injured parties while it violates rights.

Is there a legal basis for this too if the sites can be viewed in a jurisdiction where it would be illegal (like the UK)?

I.e. Are they covering their arses

 

[TexRex]

Is there a legal basis for this too if the sites can be viewed in a jurisdiction where it would be illegal (like the UK)?

I.e. Are they covering their arses

Their compliance with and state of being subject to laws of a jurisdiction is directly correlated to their presence in that jurisdiction, though some may still comply with laws absent legitimate means of enforcement, and that's also their prerogative.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Back to my question, on what basis would you want otherwise?

I'll expand on my thought process here.

Part of me was thinking about the Newsroom's opening episode and the speech made by Jeff Daniels, specifically:

We passed laws, struck down laws - for moral reasons.

This made me question what the law should aim to do. The other day during some reading relevant to our discussion in the Human Rights thread I came across this

Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order? - JSTOR Daily

Is social cohesion possible in plural societies? Philosopher H. L. A. Hart weighed in amid debates on abortion and same-sex relationships.

daily.jstor.org

and thought if there should ever be instances where the law "promotes" morals.