So yeh I call sophistry again
Stating a fact is not sophistry.
Some one term you won't accept because it's "too vague" and another you won't accept because it isn't designed to turn people on.
Well done on proving there basically is no definition you'd accept for the content that would even somewhat accurately describe it if said term doesn't sound entirely harmless and innocent lol.
I've told you the definition I'll accept for pornography: a work with the primary purpose of arousing the audience. Really simple and pretty much universally agreed. Everybody here actually knows that's the primary purpose of pornography.
So then she wouldn't have been suspended by the school board if the books were acceptable and known to be so. That simple.
That's true. Nobody disputed it.
I dispute the idea that someone should be suspended for pointing kids towards a public library that carries those books.
No I said she wasn't fired.
Something I believe you asserted had happened.
I didn't say she was fired.
You DID say she wasn't suspended.
You were factually wrong.
I'm sorry you still haven't explain how it's a factual error that school library books are part of a schools budget.
It's not a factual error to argue "But the books were part of a public library" when the post in question was specifically about the subject of activist books in school libraries a tangent from the main topic.
You're arguing that if I said there was no banana in a fruit bowl I was factually wrong because there are bananas for sale at the supermarket. Wouldn't make it factually incorrect unless the banana was in the fruit bowl. So again how is it factually incorrect of me to say school library books are part of a schools budget?
It's not factually wrong to believe school library books are part of the schools budget.
Literally no part of this incident concerns whether or not these books should be in the school library. She was suspended for pointing kids towards a list curated by the Brooklyn Library which had the books on it, alongside many hundreds of others. There's no indication any specific books from that list were in the Oklahoma school libraries.
So to be clear you believe.
The Parent was wrong.
The School Board and administration were wrong
The state is wrong.
But the teacher is right despite her not even having the conviction in her own position being right to see the investigation through?
Also Dungeons and Dragons didn't contain secret occult rituals to summon Satan. The books in question here do contain explicit sexual imagery
The state's sole involvement here was mandating that certain books in Oklahoma schools should be covered
(not removed) if they contain potentially controversial content. I'd say the state's direction was far too vague to have a good legal role and could easily be weaponised against books that conservatives simply don't like.
School board & admin were wrong for suspending a teacher for pointing kids towards a public library and a list of frequently-banned books which is nationally recognised.
Parent wasn't wrong. They just complained about something they objected to, they're perfectly within their rights. I think the complaint is a bit silly but it's all subjective.
On the front page, it's not some secret hidden link she couldn't possibly have known about.
So, for instance, do you think teachers should be suspended for "advertising pornography" if they link to (say) the front page of Wikipedia?
Because the Wikipedia article on sex has some images of sex. They're obviously not arousing, but you don't care about that-- you've made it clear they still constitute pornography. And it's possible that the front page of Wiki might lead someone to the sex article.
Should the teacher be suspended?