[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

And what pray tell is that "truth"?

Apparently it's whatever the "MSM", the bicoastal elites, and the Hollyweird crowd spout out. The other 99% of us apparently have no idea what the truth is

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Corporations need to be at the forefront of ALL progress - economic, scientific, and SOCIAL. Anything less is going backward, anti-progress.

Corporations have little business being on the forefront of anything, except their primary industry as it relates to their reason for existence: Returns to shareholders.

Yes, a corporation like Edwards Lifesciences SHOULD be on the forefront of scientific progress. That is their industry and field, and being on the forefront is how they return to shareholders. A corporation like JP Morgan SHOULD be on the forefront of economic progress, as that is how they create returns to shareholders.

Corporations have ZERO business being anywhere at all involved with social anything, unless they cover Hollywood news or need to stay abreast of the zeitgeist for their movie/tv products to appeal to the masses and generate revenue (id est - returns to shareholders).

Corporations should be as separate from Social reform as church is from state.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Easy question, in most people "truth" is what they believe. And the older one gets the more certain they are that their TRUTH is the true truth. So, here most people are very convinced.

Best post you ever made. So, pot meet kettle

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Corporations have little business being on the forefront of anything, except their primary industry as it relates to their reason for existence: Returns to shareholders.

Yes, a corporation like Edwards Lifesciences SHOULD be on the forefront of scientific progress. That is their industry and field, and being on the forefront is how they return to shareholders. A corporation like JP Morgan SHOULD be on the forefront of economic progress, as that is how they create returns to shareholders.

Corporations have ZERO business being anywhere at all involved with social anything, unless they cover Hollywood news or need to stay abreast of the zeitgeist for their movie/tv products to appeal to the masses and generate revenue (id est - returns to shareholders).

Corporations should be as separate from Social reform as church is from state.

Absolutely, positively 100% correct

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Easy question, in most people "truth" is what they believe. And the older one gets the more certain they are that their TRUTH is the true truth. So, here most people are very convinced.

Not at all , demonstrated facts, not opinions, logic reason will get as close to the truth as one can get, you weigh those fact and logic and reason on both sides = truth

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

So, you are okay with a teacher being sued by a parent for mentioning she was going bowling with her HUSBAND after class? Because that is exactly what people are afraid of if the same teacher said she was going bowling with HER WIFE.

Actually, I'm not OK with either scenario---I want the teacher teaching---not discussing their social life, sex life, or after work plans. Besides, the pickleball players will claim her bowling statement is discriminatory and sue!

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Agreed, that is why the law (passed, no longer a bill) states sexual orientation, not specifically targeting ANY ONE sexual orientation. I don't want my 5 year old grandchild getting taught what mommy and daddy do in their bedroom any more than being taught how two men "express their love"

As far as certain groups being "afraid" the law will be used against them----get over it, a lot of things in this world are frightening. And if it actually gets used in that way, there is legal recourse

Has your 5 year old grandchild experienced that kind of teaching? Are there any examples of it happening? I have not read of any during the discussions of this law. Then the law was needed not to stop an actual practice but because of the concern/fear that it could happen. But if someone points out that the law allows a bad practice to occur the response is "get over it, a lot of things in this world are frightening."

The parents' "fear" of something being taught in school has been determined to have more value than others' "fear" of being targeted and discriminated against. Having no dog in the fight, I see this as just a bit hypocritical.

If the law prohibited the explanation of the mechanics of sexual practices I would be right there with you. But it doesn't do that, it prohibits the discussion of sexual orientation. Further, it empowers the parents to sue the teacher if the parents feel the discussion violated the new law. I still contend that this would allow a gay parent to sue over reading Bambi in school since the book mentions mother and father and therefore is obviously a discussion that includes sexual orientation. I think that's foolish and I doubt that was the intent of those who wrote the law, but that is one way the law could be interpreted.

[Spalumbos62]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Since you choose to be snarky....

I've included my original post and your highlighting.

1. I didn't claim half the population was LGBTQIA+, as you can see above. I wrote there were many LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC people and wondered if it was half the population

2. If 60% of the population is white, non-hispanic then 40% (100% - 60%) are BIPOC. That is nearly half the population right there.

3. if 3.5% are LGB and 0.3% are T then at least 3.8% are LGBTQIA+. Next, 3.8% of 60% is 2.28% (we'll use 2% to make the math easier). 60% white, non-hispanic less 2% LGBTQ, white, non-hispanic leaves 58% white, non-hispanic, non-LGBTQIA+.

4. If 58% are white, non-hispanic, non-LGBTQUI+ then 100%-58% = 42%, or very nearly half, who are either LGBTQIA+ or BIPOC - which, I think, is what I wrote above.

(snarky comment that didn't move the discussion forward deleted)

You "like the law that caters to the 96.2% of us that don't want this crap taught to our 5 year olds?" I take offense when you direct your misplaced snark at me but even still I cannot believe you are accusing the entire white, LGBTQIA+ population of wanting "this crap" to be taught to 5 year olds! You really don't believe that, do you?

(and as I mentioned earlier, the law says more than just that but I'm concerned about discussing those details under the rules of this forum)

Oh please, get in line, this poster you are speaking of(which btw is commenting under 2 diff names) is the most condensing, self righteous, rudest person, and I'm trying to be kind. He says he holds a degree or two....obviously another lie, and I say this bc he is so degrading and dismissive of others. He then ends his strong hold rants with his stupid emojis laughing. Trust me, he'll come back with a snarky comment to this, as he did to yours..
Oh well..

But I do enjoy your openmindedness.

[Madelaine Amee]

Putting aside all the "opinions" being written on this site, people have forgotten the real reason Disney got this benefit .... it was an incentive to get them to build in Florida. To build in an area of Florida which was literally a sand box. Nobody wanted to move inland in those days, everyone was headed for the breaches.

Any smart attorney (and Disney probably has dozens of them on call) can site this clause and then call the case one of malice for going against the politics in Florida They can then suggest very loudly that if they are denied special privileges granted to them in the 1960s, what about the dozens of other developers who are benefiting from the same clause they were offered.

This is a no win any way you look at it and could end up being disastrous for Florida.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by rustyp

For those who believe it could never happen in TV the lead story in the forbidden online news this AM is "The Villages District Office issues statement indicating it’s not part of DeSantis’ aim at Disney".

First time since in my 15 years in TV have I seen the developer take a stance not on the same page as the republican party. Obviously some concern to prompt this maneuver.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I don't see it as taking a stand but stating facts.
The birth of a new conspiracy theory from you?

You say toMayto I say toMAHto - It's still a fruit !

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Best post you ever made. So, pot meet kettle

I agree, I advice NEVER claimed claimed immunity to believing I am right. However, I do constantly ask for proof I am wrong. And funny thing, I write pages of background and support for my positions, and in response I get, "BS". That certainly educated me.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

Putting aside all the "opinions" being written on this site, people have forgotten the real reason Disney got this benefit .... it was an incentive to get them to build in Florida. To build in an area of Florida which was literally a sand box. Nobody wanted to move inland in those days, everyone was headed for the breaches.

Any smart attorney (and Disney probably has dozens of them on call) can site this clause and then call the case one of malice for going against the politics in Florida They can then suggest very loudly that if they are denied special privileges granted to them in the 1960s, what about the dozens of other developers who are benefiting from the same clause they were offered.

This is a no win any way you look at it and could end up being disastrous for Florida.

Absolutely. I expect DeSantis will try to hold out until after the election, and then back pedal. But, if there is enough heat (consider what happened to Abbot - Texas Governor) DeSantis may find some other topic to focus on and suddenly you wont hear anything else about protecting our children. It happens over and over.

The sad thing is usually a small amount of truth in any conspiracy, so, that is the foundation supporters fall back on every time the silliness of their position is shown.

[Spalumbos62]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

You think "good" people want sexuality and its variations taught in schools to 5-8 year olds??? Think again.

For the love of god. Please put it in perspective and stop with the scare tactic. They are not teaching sex education in these lower grades, it is done with age appropriate language, answering their questions and validating that, yes. It's ok if little Johnny has 2 dad's as parents..he still has a loving household. He's not coming from a freak show...many people are different and that's ok. I really don't understand where all this fear comes from. There's really no problem in the school's its the imagination of the grandparents.
I do believe most educators,doctors whatever believe your sexual preference is something you are born with.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Has your 5 year old grandchild experienced that kind of teaching? Are there any examples of it happening? I have not read of any during the discussions of this law. Then the law was needed not to stop an actual practice but because of the concern/fear that it could happen. But if someone points out that the law allows a bad practice to occur the response is "get over it, a lot of things in this world are frightening."

The parents' "fear" of something being taught in school has been determined to have more value than others' "fear" of being targeted and discriminated against. Having no dog in the fight, I see this as just a bit hypocritical.

If the law prohibited the explanation of the mechanics of sexual practices I would be right there with you. But it doesn't do that, it prohibits the discussion of sexual orientation. Further, it empowers the parents to sue the teacher if the parents feel the discussion violated the new law. I still contend that this would allow a gay parent to sue over reading Bambi in school since the book mentions mother and father and therefore is obviously a discussion that includes sexual orientation. I think that's foolish and I doubt that was the intent of those who wrote the law, but that is one way the law could be interpreted.

The law does not "allow" a bad practice to occur------people create a bad practice, the law is there to prohibit that. Also, I am not aware of any incident of somebody leading a caravan of elephants and giraffes down the center lane of I-75, yet the law prohibits it---I guess you could argue that was an unnecessary law as well. Mechanics, orientation, gender assignment---I don't want any of it taught to 5 year olds.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Spalumbos62

For the love of god. Please put it in perspective and stop with the scare tactic. They are not teaching sex education in these lower grades, it is done with age appropriate language, answering their questions and validating that, yes. It's ok if little Johnny has 2 dad's as parents..he still has a loving household. He's not coming from a freak show...many people are different and that's ok. I really don't understand where all this fear comes from. There's really no problem in the school's its the imagination of the grandparents.
I do believe most educators,doctors whatever believe your sexual preference is something you are born with.

I think you would find many parents disagree with that characterization