- Jan 15, 2013
- United Kingdom
"Sophistry" to point out a literal factual error. K lol.See point before about sophistry and how your argument really should be making little difference.
Are you really going to argue that there is a vast difference between a character sucking on a fake penis vs a person sucking on a natural penis?
XDHuman and designed more for entertainment which yeh that book is.
That's so naive it's almost cute. Like talking to a nun from the 1300s.
Did you... did you actually read that article you've just quoted? Or did you just ctrl-F for "banned books" and then highlight them?From the article that kicked this off
Sorry what was that about the books not being banned?
Because it repeatedly says that she linked her students to places where they could read books that have been banned. Uhrm, yes, that's what the "books unbanned" list is: it's right there in the title.
But those books weren't banned from her school library. Hell, we don't even know if the school library carried these books in the first place! A state direction instructed her to cover (NOT REMOVE) books. She complied, but also linked people to a list of books which have been commonly banned, curated by the Brooklyn Public Library. Then a parent checked the list, spotted 'Gender Queer' on it, and complained.
Please, I'm begging you, learn the basic details of something if you're going to angrily rant about it. Just the basics. Please.
You said she wasn't suspended. That was factually untrue, but you refuse to acknowledge it.Pretty sure I said she wasn't fired. Which she wasn't, she chose to quite before the investigation finished.
Books in the school library are (usually) part of the school budget.Care to explain to me how you believe school library books are not part of a schools budget again?
Part of the issue is said books are banned in school libraries or according to you in contradiction to the article that started this not banned.
Either you once again failed to read what I said or you're deliberately misrepresenting what I said by applying a context it was never said in.
So care to explain how it's factually untrue that school library books are part of the school budget if it's an actual school only library? Because unless I'm mistaken the magical money fairy doesn't cover the cost of school books for school libraries.
This case has nothing to do with providing books to the school library or removing them. Zero. Zilch. There's no indication the school ever carried 'Gender Queer' or 'Lawn Boy', and nothing was ordered to be removed.
Literally the only reason "Gender Queer" came up is because a parent opened the "Books Unbanned" list-- which contains many hundreds of books (including stuff like Mein Kampf, I believe) and is curated by the Brooklyn Public Library, not this teacher-- and saw it there. The books on the "Books Unbanned" list is not a list of books contained in her school library. There's zero reason to assume that books you see on that list will also be in some random school library.
You have zero fucking clue about the very basic facts about the case, and you refuse to bother to learn. Just repeat errors over and over again, whining about irrelevant shit like school budgets which are utterly unrelated to whether or not a public library carries something.And hilarious to see you realise quite how little you really know about what you're talking about