maine

[tx911]

How about a Disney related one? According to some, Companies shouldn’t be allowed to express their views as individuals (the Supreme Court upheld that expression of free speech), but nope, it must be more restrictively interpreted! Because, companies need to “stay in their own lanes”.

Another little doozy of an interpretation, what does fomenting of an insurrection really mean, didn’t that just apply to the the Civil War days as some would argue, can’t a guy just exercise his free speech these days others would say - that one is a two-fer.

Companies are free to express whatever views they want, it's just that if a large percentage of their customers takes offense, they may have to face negative financial repercussions, as those customers are free to take their business elsewhere if they choose.

No one is saying Companies can't express their views, but it might not be the greatest idea if you want to maximize your customer base.

 

[tx911]

Here’s one. Short and sweet:

If we can't agree that elementary school children should not be exposed to sexualized material, we probably won't agree on much.

 

[john7994]

No one is saying Companies can't express their views, but it might not be the greatest idea if you want to maximize your customer base.

Disagree - this has played out quite publicly on the political stage and even on the DIS quite often over this past spring and summer. Again, only shows the double-mindedness at work. where some rights should be restricted, and others are untouchable ...

 

[tx911]

I think part of the problem is that people have too much of an attitude that they have to “win.” No working together towards a common goal.

I took a real estate negotiations class once and as an experiment we were made to play Tic Tac Toe with the person next to us, and the goal was to get three Xs or three Os in a row. Almost every team of two tied. And then we were told that if we really attempted to work together we’d have gotten our three characters in a row in only three total moves. So often we see the opposition as someone to beat, when we both want the same thing in the end, in the case of real estate, to get to to the closing table so all parties are happy. Good negotiators know this; if both sides know it, success is all but guaranteed.

I'm not sure it's just a pure desire to "win". I think people feel very strongly that their beliefs are what's best and what's right.

For example, you may feel very strongly that a trans-sexual biologic male should be able to participate in women's sports in order to validate and respect "his"transition to being a female. Whereas my point of view would be that, while I personally have zero problem with this on an individual level, I think that when it comes to participation in sports it would be harmful to the majority group of women, therefore I would be against it.

It's not about "winning" per se, just that we disagree on what's best.

 

[gmi3804]

If we can't agree that elementary school children should not be exposed to sexualized material, we probably won't agree on much.

Ah, but we have to first agree that this is “sexualized” material. Herman Munster and Bugs Bunny dressed in drag too, after all; both were offered as entertainment for kids. Your conviction that all drag is “sexual” shows your rigidity in this matter, and your unwillingness to see it any other way.

 

[tx911]

Disagree - this has played out quite publicly on the political stage and even on the DIS quite often over this past spring and summer. Again, only shows the double-mindedness at work. where some rights should be restricted, and others are untouchable ...

I don't know of any examples of anyone saying that such and such company should not be allowed to express their views. Disallowing speech and a company facing negative consequences for expressing speech are not the same thing.

 

[tx911]

Ah, but we have to first agree that this is “sexualized” material. Herman Munster and Bugs Bunny dressed in drag too, after all; both were offered as entertainment for kids. Your conviction that all drag is “sexual” shows your rigidity in this matter, and your unwillingness to see it any other way.

I guess that the examples of drag that I've been exposed to have all been done in a very sexualized way.

I'm quite sure that was not the case in the examples you cite.

Sexual or not, I'm not sure why these things have to be explicitly taught to elementary kids.

Why not just: "Be kind and respectful towards others?"

 

[leebee]

I don't know of any examples of anyone saying that such and such company should not be allowed to express their views. Disallowing speech and a company facing negative consequences for expressing speech are not the same thing.

The arguement was that companies which spoke out would face loss of revenue due to offending their customer base. The current situation with Disney and the State of Florida is that Disney is facing retribution from the GOVERNMENT. The amendment regarding free speech was designed specifically to PREVENT this, so no citizen need be afraid that the government would come after them for speaking out against said government. Yes, Disney is a company, not a person, but Congress has decided that companies are people too, and allowed the same rights and protections, as people.

 

[john7994]

I don't know of any examples of anyone saying that such and such company should not be allowed to express their views. Disallowing speech and a company facing negative consequences for expressing speech are not the same thing.

Then I suggest you try a google search (or other search engine of your choosing) looking up those who feel companies (like Disney) should not be allowed to express their opinions in certain areas.

In terms of disallowing of speech and resulting negative consequences for doing so - are of course two different things - but you are the one that raised that conflation - not me.

 

[tx911]

The arguement was that companies which spoke out would face loss of revenue due to offending their customer base. The current situation with Disney and the State of Florida is that Disney is facing retribution from the GOVERNMENT. The amendment regarding free speech was designed specifically to PREVENT this, so no citizen need be afraid that the government would come after them for speaking out against said government. Yes, Disney is a company, not a person, but Congress has decided that companies are people too, and allowed the same rights and protections, as people.

I agree

 

[tx911]

Then I suggest you try a google search (or other search engine of your choosing) looking up those who feel companies (like Disney) should not be allowed to express their opinions in certain areas.

In terms of disallowing of speech and resulting negative consequences for doing so - are of course two different things - but you are the one that raised that conflation - not me.

If there are those that think companies should not be allowed to express themselves, I disagree with them.

If I ran a company, I would just choose not to.

 

[AppleDumpling]

The militia is formed from the general citizenry. The constitution was written in a time when colonists were extremely fearful of any kind of centralized government whatsoever, and that it would replicate the tyranny of England. The 2nd amendment was included to appease those individuals, and protect the means of armed rebellion if necessary.

I think most who are knowledgeable about the subject agree that the amendment refers to the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms ("the right of the people").

I understand the history, yet still think it’s debatable. Over the years, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases related to the Second Amendment. The most recent rulings have been in favor of individuals’ rights to bear arms, however, that doesn’t mean all Americans agree with them. Naturally the political biases of Supreme Court justices determine their decisions, and there are always dissenting opinions.

The slaughter of innocent victims in public places continues, although it has nothing to do with protection from the government, nor self-defense. And although we have the ability to put sensible gun laws in place while retaining constitutional rights, the gun lobby seems unwilling to make any concessions. So we all suffer, and the pervasiveness of gun violence has become something we are supposed to accept as part of American society.

Thoughts and prayers are lovely, but meaningless when no action is taken, and we see the same situation again and again. It is so disturbing on so many levels, and such a disgrace. JMHO.

 

[tx911]

I understand the history, yet still think it’s debatable. Over the years, there have been a number of Supreme Court cases related to the Second Amendment. The most recent rulings have been in favor of individuals’ rights to bear arms, however, that doesn’t mean all Americans agree with them. Naturally the political biases of Supreme Court justices determine their decisions, and there are always dissenting opinions.

The slaughter of innocent victims in public places continues, although it has nothing to do with protection from the government, nor self-defense. And although we have the ability to put sensible gun laws in place while retaining constitutional rights, the gun lobby seems unwilling to make any concessions. So we all suffer, and the pervasiveness of gun violence has become something we are supposed to accept as part of American society.

Thoughts and prayers are lovely, but meaningless when no action is taken, and we see the same situation again and again. It is so disturbing on so many levels, and such a disgrace. JMHO.

What Americans agree with is irrelevant, until enough of them agree to amend the constitution.

Re the slaughter of innocent victims, we both agree that it is abhorrent. I don't want to open Pandora's can of worms, but many feel exactly the same way about the killing of unborn children, yet that is on the other side of the political spectrum.

 

[gmi3804]

I guess that the examples of drag that I've been exposed to have all been done in a very sexualized way.

I'm quite sure that was not the case in the examples you cite.

Sexual or not, I'm not sure why these things have to be explicitly taught to elementary kids.

Well, because older kids usually don’t go to story hours.

Did your sexualized drag experiences happen at libraries?

 

[Douglas Dubh]

And although we have the ability to put sensible gun laws in place while retaining constitutional rights, the gun lobby seems unwilling to make any concessions.

I’d be really interested in hearing about these laws, because nothing I’ve heard proposed would be both constitutional and help solve the problem.

 

[Ms.Minnie]

More lives are ruined by tobacco and alcohol every year than by guns but because it happens slowly instead of all at once it is easy for people to ignore. It’s not in your face like a mass shooting.

The indirect consequences of alcohol and tobacco use contributes to families destroyed, people killed, children abused, etc.

Alcohol and tobacco are gigantic public health crises that are ignored by so many.

If you're suggesting that we ban alcohol, I think we already tried that about 100 years ago and it was a HUGE failure. People need to consume alcohol responsibly. I'm not sure what you can do to assure that will happen and yes, it is tragic when bad things happen due to misuse of alcohol. Short of making it illegal again (which didn't work the first time) I don't know what can be done.

As far as smoking goes, that is a personal choice. I think we all know the health risks associated with tobacco but unfortunately there are always going to be those who choose to ignore all the warning signs. I will say that in the state I live in, and many others if not all smoking has been cut down to almost nonexistent in public places. This is a good thing; I would say we are making positive progress on this one.

Nobody is suggesting to ban guns, or take guns away.

It seems that way to me.

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I agree

I don’t. Disney has not been punished by the government due to their speech.

 

[tx911]

Well, because older kids usually don’t go to story hours.

Did your sexualized drag experiences happen at libraries?

I'll just ask again, why not just teach children to be kind to others and nonjudgmental?

Do we really need to parade every possible lifestyle choice in front of them in elementary school, or can we just make it that simple?

 

[gmi3804]

I don’t. Disney has not been punished by the government due to their speech.

Have you not been following the dissolution of Reedy Creek?

 

[gmi3804]

I'll just ask again, why not just teach children to be kind to others and nonjudgmental?

Do we really need to parade every possible lifestyle choice in front of them in elementary school, or can we just make it that simple?

Why not teach both? Isn’t exposure to other experiences a good thing?

Ignoring or consciously withholding realities and history is how history gets banned from school curricula.