jross

Would you be able to restate this in different words? I am having trouble following your meaning. I do a good job of weeding out the 'expert' from the 'apprentice.' And depending on the cost, I will consider multiple experts to decide. My new dentist recommended that I replace all my silver fillings. Why? Because they were old. I went to another dentist who could tell me which ones needed replacing due to failure and could explain why they failed. My wife visited a mechanic this month to have him inspect why her SUV is still bouncy after replacing shocks. I needed a fault diagnosis to get a refund on parts. The mechanic's diagnosis of the cause was that the front shocks (coil over) did not look like the rear shocks. When I brought the old shock out for comparison, he could not explain why the new shock did not work, just stated that it must be faulty. After returning from India with a parasite, the first doctor could not tell me what was wrong, wished me luck, and said I should get back with him after figuring it out. I went to two other doctors and finally found an Indian doctor who immediately diagnosed me with confidence. When contracts told me that my company needed to pay a large amount of money to a vendor, for a contract I inherited, something didn't seem logically right, I read the contract language myself - worked through ambiguous language, and saved the company money. As an engineer, I have to explain the reasoning behind my design to my critical peers, answer questions, show sources, and convey confidence because design acceptance impacts my team. So when an 'expert' cannot confidently express themselves and provide informed answers, I second guess them. Remember, more doctors smoke camels than any other cigarette!

Say more about your reasoning beyond an empty "No." Help me understand where protecting children would not be a self-evident choice. I can't think of any without going into dark cultural practices like child marriage, child labor, etc. I do not understand why I'd need to explain the morality of the golden rule to you, and how that applies to the opinion shared, for which protecting children is self-evident. Or maybe you think that children can handle any content without risk so long as there is a difficult conversation about it? Sources aplenty: Even in California, parents are upset that Flamer is in K-6 library. (link) Your last sentence is vapor. It is not 'all' and only a tiny percent of book material is triggering parents to consider its content appropriateness in school.

Probably not possible when Hamas is forcing citizens to stay put; those who support the PA authority over Hamas also hate the Jews, and citizens with less hate are at risk from their countrymen. The survey results indicate that Palestinians believe controlling Palestine is their God-given right. Most prefer to take control via peace but will fight for it forever. When they think about the occupation, most get so angry that they wish all Israelis would disappear. But not everyone shares those thoughts, and thoughts are not actions. 2020 Survey results of interest (article on what Palestinians want, 2020 survey results) ~60% of respondents want to regain all of historical Palestine for the Palestinians, from the river to the sea (and believe it will happen because "God is on their side.") ~70% of Gaza/West Bank respondents desire that the Palestinian Authority should “take over the administration” of Gaza The highest national goal is to support the resistance to end the occupation. ~70% would prefer to live in an equally nice home in Palestine over Israel The number one thing they want from the USA is to stay out of their affairs. ~50% say Hamas should stop calling for Israel's destruction and accept a two-state solution based on 1967 borders ~60% would prefer a peaceful rather than violent approach to gain their rights ~40% of Gaza/West Bank respondents prefer being part of Israel to being in “PA or Hamas-ruled lands.” ~30% say they can be friends with Israelis since we are all human beings after all.

WHAT!

Having watched about half of it, it's a mixed bag. I was wrapped up in thoughts about the decision to ban accounts, censure content, and the one-sided bias of who did the censuring. It definitely has examples of 'framing' events in different ways. Name the debates that the video 'ends' and what 'crows must be eaten?'

The USA media, the general public, and some on this BBS frame the messaging as you either support Israel or else you support Hamas killing Jews. @uncle bernard knows that Israel is mistreating Palestinian citizens, Israel is killing innocent Palestinian citizens, and Israel's behavior is causing blowback. He is in the minority for calling this out. Criticizing Israel does not equate to supporting Hamas behavior! That Jon Stewart clip (comment link) nailed it. It is factual that the recent establishment of Israel involved the displacement of Palestinian Arabs, and the Arabs view this as an occupation of their lands. Judea is an ancient term where Jews had been displaced numerous times, and Israel views Palestinians as occupying their lands.

Video evidence like this tells me I need to visit my kid's classroom, meet the teachers, attend parent conferences even though my kids have good grades, and stay away from California.

All of them depending on what they say, how they say it, and how they answer questions. Have you never gotten a second and third opinion from doctors, dentists, mechanics, carpenters, painters, lawyers, and so on?

Simple. Protecting children from potentially harmful content is a self-evident choice that prioritizes their well-being over unfettered access to sensitive material within an educational setting. I disagree with parents' beliefs that access to Huck Finn's N words will transform my white kids into rabid racists. These parents believe hearing the N-word read aloud, personally reading in silence, and classmates reading it could traumatize their black kids. Removing Huck Finn from the school library does zero harm to my kids. Keeping the book accessible has a non-zero risk. A graphic novel, "Flamer" is available in K-6 school libraries. One page has multiple images with boys' pants down around their ankles and says, "We're each busting a load into this bottle. If you don't cum, you have to DRINK IT! Hahahaha!" There is zero risk for harm by banning the book in the K-6 library. There is a nonzero risk a young child is exposed at the wrong time in their life, and the parent may not even be aware they need to discuss it.

I might not understand your position but it is a poor stance if you think I (a parent) need to prove or explain why it is my responsibility for my child's upbringing and education, even if I may not be an expert in child development. Having an 'educator' decide and act to expose my child to sensitive material like "spit or swallow" is out of bounds. I agree with you on the word 'fear.' I should not have reused it from your post. I don't fear my kid's teachers who, at the parent conferences, seem to align with my values. The storylines from extreme liberal areas seem like fake news... but the video recordings show it is real and it would hypothetically cause me fear if I shook their teacher's hand at my kid's school.

Yep. The best I can do is keep smartphones away, limit Wi-Fi time, filter sites and keywords, etc. The kid who drives has a smartphone. The younger ones do not have phones.

Agreed. I'd have loved to homeschool my kids through middle school. It was not in the cards. I've largely delayed involving my children with organized religion and held off on religious discussions until they can think critically. Our home dialogue includes questions like How many religions exist in the world? What are the fundamental principles of the popular religions? What parts of those popular religions do you find morally problematic? How does one's surroundings and cultural background influence their choice of religion? What are the pros and cons of Pascal's Wager? What will require you to place faith despite concrete evidence? Who are the best people you've encountered, and what faith do they follow? Is belief in god required to be a good person? My 14-year-old daughter recently started attending a bible study at her Nana's house. I am feeding my daughter questions like "If you were born in Iraq, what would your religion most likely be? Would you be destined for hell if by chance you were born to a Muslim family in Iraq? If you were born and raised by a Muslim family in Iraq, would you believe that Nana (Protestant Christian) is destined for hell?" This type of discussion is my parental responsibility...

The school can guide me as a parent, and it's my decision on when and how my children are exposed to sensitive topics. There is no fear of having conversations with my kids. There is fear of a school teacher negatively influencing my child on sensitive topics, without my permission, at the wrong child development time.

No. I could get this 'school' banned book via same-day delivery. https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Queer-Memoir-Maia-Kobabe/dp/1549304003/ref=sr_1_1

Book bans in schools are not cancel culture. An act of cancel culture is to find dirt on the school librarian that put Gender Queer on the school bookshelf, publicly shame them, and take action to get them fired.

We sometimes overshelter children to protect them, but that's better than 'not enough!' Children should be protected from things that can negatively influence them. These are 'children!' They imitate what they see. They easily get anxiety, fear, and trauma that lasts into adulthood. It is the parent's responsibility to guide sensitive topics. Even adults are negatively influenced by materials... but they are adults and are accountable for their decisions. Hustler magazine is not appropriate for a school's bookshelf. Too extreme? Gender Queer: A Memoir should also have restricted access. The Old Testament and other religious material should have restricted access. And if enough caregivers believe that Huck Finn is inappropriate for public school, that is okay! In my house, I read it to my children. Are the books actually banned? Not even close. Many banned books are still on the school shelf, they are almost always accessible at the public library, and they are purchasable at book vendors. I have numerous "school" banned books on my shelf. Restricting access to a small set of books with sensitive content at public schools is good practice. It feels slimy to argue that it's discrimination...

***duck duck goose**. Hamas official Ali Baraka says, "Our allies are ready to join the fight." https://www.memri.org/tv/senior-hamas-official-ali-baraka-prisoner-swap-america-planning-invasion-two-years-russia-support Partial interview clip

My daughter has been working her first job for a few months. We spoke today about how her taxes are enabling both sides of this skirmish to kill people, including innocent people. Sadness.

You feckless dodger, who is ‘we?’

To be fair ^^^

Did @uncle bernard state that Israel deserved the killing of innocents, or did he provide context for what may have led to Hamas' retaliatory actions in response to past Israeli events?

Is it the Leopards Eating Faces Party or not? They believe in book bans. Which book do they support bans for? "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" for racial themes "Fifty Shades of Grey" for sexual themes Their intolerable Twitter behavior Which behavior is intolerable? Twitter-banning the "Babylon Bee" account for the joke that granted Rachel Levine the 'Man of the Year Award' Reinstating the "Babylon Bee" account This comment belongs to another topic.

Your persona is the tap-dancing elephant in a tuxedo trying to prove he's a ballet dancer with a Ph.D. in ethics, whose steps contradict themselves. You make up hasty generalizations and strawmen while serving rudeness with a side of moral high ground. You criticized me for communicating that a society implementing behavioral euthanasia for unsafe dogs should support capital punishment for unsafe people. You accused me of having a callous attitude towards taking lives, even likening me to a serial killer and suggesting I would enjoy harming people and dogs. This ignores my statements that while taking a human life is morally wrong, I support capital punishment to prevent future harm to innocent individuals. Your hypocrisy became evident when you compared people (Hamas) to dogs with rabies and stated that (unsafe) dogs (and people) need to be put down. Don't be a dick.

This is why I wrote in Ron Paul's name for president... angering my in-laws, who called it a wasted vote. Defund both sides Israel started Hamas.