What's new

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

I was hoping you'd actually read the bill yourself. There's a difference between "cannot" and "have not".



Incase the type is too small for your eyes, "must ... obtain the permission of the parent. "


Again, that's different from a procedure for suspected molestation, unless you saying opting out of curriculum also opts you out of teachers being able to conduct investigations.


???


Your saying every abused kid was abused by a school employee?

Were you referring to this question?

That had 10%, but:

So, that takes it down to 2%, which is still far too many, but at about the same rate as Catholics (considering Catholics are only 20% of the US population).
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/sexual-abuse-by-educators-is-scrutinized/2004/03

I don't think anyone questions that it happens at all.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-42.pdf

Name one thing this Florida bill does to prevent educators grooming students. I'd really like to know. I'm sure you're not so dumb as to think grooming occurs in front of a class of 20-30 students. Further, this bill does not claim to address grooming/molestation/etc. in any fashion at all. That's red meat being thrown at you so you'll stop thinking about what the law says or means. The bill claims it's about parental rights.


Again, just a red herring when discussing this bill.


Check again. The majority of abuse of young children comes from the family.

Among other places:



I see it just fine.
Once again, you have not or cannot shown me a line in the bill that prevents a teacher from talking to a student about molestation.
Then you find another line that says "obtain the permission of the parent" but it is referring to a questionnaire...not talking with a teacher.
You are wrong about this and have been since you started trying to frame this bill as an enabler bill.

"Again, that's different from a procedure for suspected molestation, unless you saying opting out of curriculum also opts you out of teachers being able to conduct investigations."
I was hoping you'd actually read the bill yourself. There's a difference between "cannot" and "have not".



Incase the type is too small for your eyes, "must ... obtain the permission of the parent. "


Again, that's different from a procedure for suspected molestation, unless you saying opting out of curriculum also opts you out of teachers being able to conduct investigations.


???


Your saying every abused kid was abused by a school employee?

Were you referring to this question?

That had 10%, but:

So, that takes it down to 2%, which is still far too many, but at about the same rate as Catholics (considering Catholics are only 20% of the US population).
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/sexual-abuse-by-educators-is-scrutinized/2004/03

I don't think anyone questions that it happens at all.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-42.pdf

Name one thing this Florida bill does to prevent educators grooming students. I'd really like to know. I'm sure you're not so dumb as to think grooming occurs in front of a class of 20-30 students. Further, this bill does not claim to address grooming/molestation/etc. in any fashion at all. That's red meat being thrown at you so you'll stop thinking about what the law says or means. The bill claims it's about parental rights.


Again, just a red herring when discussing this bill.


Check again. The majority of abuse of young children comes from the family.

Among other places:
Once again you cannot, have not or will not find a line in the bill that prohibits a teacher to talk to the student about molestation. But you keep saying that it does. I have read the bill, that is why I am so confident that it does not prohibit a teacher from talking to a child about molestation. I think you should spend some time reading it.

You contradict yourself in a matter of a day…
“Further, this bill does not claim to address grooming/molestation/etc. in any fashion at all.”

But a day before:
“As I mentioned, the Florida bill (now law, IIRC) makes it easier for child molesters by encouraging secrecy.”
“It's a pro-sexual-predator bill, by trying to eliminate discussion of molestation, among other things.”
“nor have discussions with them, about sexual issues (including molestation) without parental permission.”
“It prohibits the teachers from talking to the child without parental permission.”


The only permission it asks for is a questionnaire opt out. But those questionnaires or surveys are not required to have questions about molestation. They could just be general health or mental wellness surveys. Also schools are not required to send out health surveys.


“Your saying every abused kid was abused by a school employee?”
I have never implied or stated this. Just a stupid response. I wish you were better than that. Put some effort in.

You stated most molesters of children are family members which is not true, why I added the stats in there. Your stat is for children under 6…this bill goes to 11. Why the stats I provide are for up to 12… also the median age for a first sexual abuse is 9.
“Keep in mind, over half the molesters of young children are family members, and this law is almost entirely about giving parent more control over what the schools can talk to young kids about. It's a child molester's dream bill.”
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/h...-gay-and-anti-woke-bills-actually-say/2022/03
“The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said.”

Maybe if we kept the conversation away from sexual topics, then maybe it would stop a grooming opportunity. The average age of a first time molestation is 9…right in the middle of the this bills age range. I don’t think it will stop grooming problem, at home or in schools.
 
Once again, you have not or cannot shown me a line in the bill that prevents a teacher from talking to a student about molestation.
Then you find another line that says "obtain the permission of the parent" but it is referring to a questionnaire...not talking with a teacher.
Teachers are trained child counselors, psychologists, nor social workers, and won't be having any sort of discussion about molestation with a child with some sort of procedure or form to guide them.

You are wrong about this and have been since you started trying to frame this bill as an enabler bill.
I might be. I'm not a lawyer. I see we agree it doesn't do anything to stop grooming.

You contradict yourself in a matter of a day…
“Further, this bill does not claim to address grooming/molestation/etc. in any fashion at all.”

But a day before:
“As I mentioned, the Florida bill (now law, IIRC) makes it easier for child molesters by encouraging secrecy.”
“It's a pro-sexual-predator bill, by trying to eliminate discussion of molestation, among other things.”
“nor have discussions with them, about sexual issues (including molestation) without parental permission.”
“It prohibits the teachers from talking to the child without parental permission.”
Friendly advice: you should lay out a contradiction before claiming to have one.

There is nothing contradictory about "not ... address"ing something (not mentioning it in a formal manner) while making the activity easier. I even referred to this an a possibly unintended consequence in post #1828 in this thread. If it had been addressed, I wouldn't have used "unintended".

The only permission it asks for is a questionnaire opt out. But those questionnaires or surveys are not required to have questions about molestation.
If procedures/questionnaires/etc. are not required to discuss it with the child, they should be. Teachers talking to kids without proper guidance could interfere with investigating molestation.

“Your saying every abused kid was abused by a school employee?”
I have never implied or stated this.
It was the implication of the mathematics of 10% of kids being abused and "10% of k-12 students are victims of sexual misconduct by school employees ". 10% = 10%. Surely you're not so innumerate that you think otherwise.

Put some effort in.
I phrased it as a question because I wasn't sure if you were so innumerate, or just read your material incorrectly.

You stated most molesters of children are family members which is not true, why I added the stats in there. Your stat is for children under 6…this bill goes to 11.
This bill actually goes to 18, but the prohibitions on discussion go to age 9 (3rd grade).

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/h...-gay-and-anti-woke-bills-actually-say/2022/03
“The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said.”
I already linked you to information that the report Shakeshaft tried to quote said 10% of students experienced abuse, but only 21% of those, 2% overall, from an employee. Repeating discredited information doesn't help you.

Maybe if we kept the conversation away from sexual topics, then maybe it would stop a grooming opportunity.
Because?

The average age of a first time molestation is 9…right in the middle of the this bills age range. I don’t think it will stop grooming problem, at home or in schools.
Here we agree. At the very least, the bill does nothing to stop grooming.
 
Teachers are trained child counselors, psychologists, nor social workers, and won't be having any sort of discussion about molestation with a child with some sort of procedure or form to guide them.
I never stated this, and Im not letting you try to weasel your way out of your misinformation, and claim that teachers can not talk to students about molestation because of this bill. You will not find it and I take this as you conceding this point.
I might be. I'm not a lawyer. I see we agree it doesn't do anything to stop grooming.

Agreed
It was the implication of the mathematics of 10% of kids being abused and "10% of k-12 students are victims of sexual misconduct by school employees ". 10% = 10%. Surely you're not so innumerate that you think otherwise.


I phrased it as a question because I wasn't sure if you were so innumerate, or just read your material incorrectly.
Let me break this sentence down:
10% of K-12 students... Lets say the school has a 1000 kids, 10% is 100. That means that 100 kids are victims of sexual misconduct by school employees. This does not count for all the other sexual abuse occurrences. Meaning 100 kids plus other occurrences might Total 300, which would put 1/3 of victims are from school employees. So no, I never said every abused kid was by a school employee.

This bill actually goes to 18, but the prohibitions on discussion go to age 9 (3rd grade).
Correct, which is the average age of a sexual abused child.

Maybe if you don't talk about sexual topics, it might stop it from leading into other topics that could groom a child. Tiger King groomed the kid that came to work on his resort. He even explained how he did it. Started with an inappropriate conversation and went from there. Like I said I do not think it will stop grooming but it might stop some occurrences from happening.
 
Last edited:
I never stated this,
I agree that I stated that teachers would not be having those conversation without procedures being in place, not you.

and Im not letting you try to weasel your way out of your misinformation,
No weaseling needed.

and claim that teachers can not talk to students about molestation because of this bill.
They should not talk to the students without a procedure in place, and are forbidden (in grades K-3) to talk to the students using a procedure, unless they have parental permission. So, in your world, how do these talks happen? We want to protect the kids, but we also don't want another McMartin incident or to put innocent people in prison as happen in Wenacthee. So, how do these talks happen without the guidance of an official procedure?

You will not find it and I take this as you conceding this point.
Conceding which point, precisely?

Let me break this sentence down:
10% of K-12 students... Lets say the school has a 1000 kids, 10% is 100. That means that 100 kids are victims of sexual misconduct by school employees.
Except, that's not what the survey says.

This was a real test of your critical thinking skills. I know you just read that 21% percent of students who were victims said the abuser was a school employee, and 79% said other students. If 10% were abused by employees, that means another 40% by other students. That half the population, before we even get to abuse that happens within families, in religious organizations, in after school activities, among neighbors, etc. You're up to 80%+ of the country being a victim of sexual misconduct. Is that really what you think?

You should have at least read the pertinent section of the report you linked. From your link to Shakeshaft's report:
Gorey and Leslie (1997), in a review of prevalence studies where they controlled for response rates and operational definitions concluded that 15 percent of women and 7 percent of men were sexually abused as children.
Since more males are born than females, that's about 10% of the population overall. That's all incidences of sexual abuse, not just by school employees, and not even just in schools. It's overall. Here's a link to their abstract. Still far to many, of course, but it's not particularly an issue in schools.

This is the list of questions Shakeshaft is using for her 10% claim about sexual harassment (not molestation, but harassment):
During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following things to you when you did not want them to?
Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks.
Showed, gave or left you sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations, messages, or notes.
Wrote sexual messages/graffiti about you on bathroom walls, in locker rooms, etc.
Spread sexual rumors about you.
Said you were gay or a lesbian.
Spied on you as you dressed or showered at school. Flashed or “mooned” you.
Touched, grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way.
Intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way.
Pulled at your clothing in a sexual way.
Pulled off or down your clothing.
Blocked your way or cornered you in a sexual way.
Forced you to kiss him/her.
Forced you to do something sexual, other than kissing.

3 of those (at least) happened to me, and had nothing to do with educators, nor did I feel particularly harassed.

This does not count for all the other sexual abuse occurrences.
The 100 is the number of occurances, from all sources, according to Gorey and Leslie.

Meaning 100 kids plus other occurrences might Total 300, which would put 1/3 of victims are from school employees. So no, I never said every abused kid was by a school employee.
The math says that for you.

Correct, which is the average age of a sexual abused child.
These are the kids that need the most protection, not the most silence.

Maybe if you don't talk about sexual topics, it might stop it from leading into other topics that could groom a child. Tiger King groomed the kid that came to work on his resort. He even explained how he did it. Started with an inappropriate conversation and went from there. Like I said I do not think it will stop grooming but it might stop some occurrences from happening.
No doubt Tiger King mentioned the importance of privacy in the grooming process, but if not, it should have been obvious. You can't groom a kid in a classroom of 20 or 30 students.
 
Most people are not happy and it’s getting worse…
Agreed. I think people rely on the government/politics for their happiness or lack thereof too much.
I was very very happy when trump was president and the republicans controlled congress. Im very very very happy currently while Biden is president and the democrats control congress.
I make smart decisions, eat healthy, work hard, spend lots of time with family, exercise and get adequate sleep. I dont rely on politicians to make me happy like many people in our country currently do.
 
Agreed. I think people rely on the government/politics for their happiness or lack thereof too much.
I was very very happy when trump was president and the republicans controlled congress. Im very very very happy currently while Biden is president and the democrats control congress.
I make smart decisions, eat healthy, work hard, spend lots of time with family, exercise and get adequate sleep. I dont rely on politicians to make me happy like many people in our country currently do.
You're also fortunate to not need to rely on that. Not everyone is so fortunate.
 
You're also fortunate to not need to rely on that. Not everyone is so fortunate.
True. However even for many of those people if they made better decisions, ate healthier, exercised more, paid less attention to negative things like politics, and slept better then most of those people would be happier as well. Most people dont exercise, eat like crap, dont get enough sleep, make bad financial decisions, and focus on every single negative thing in the world. Then blame their lack of happiness on something they have no control over. I get that there are exceptions though, just saying that most people have the ability to improve their lives and be happier and choose not to.
 
True. However even for many of those people if they made better decisions, ate healthier, exercised more, paid less attention to negative things like politics, and slept better then most of those people would be happier as well. Most people dont exercise, eat like crap, dont get enough sleep, make bad financial decisions, and focus on every single negative thing in the world. Then blame their lack of happiness on something they have no control over. I get that there are exceptions though, just saying that most people have the ability to improve their lives and be happier and choose not to.
People need to belong to something they feel is bigger than themselves. As we become more educated as a people, we will continue to see a reduction in religious beliefs. That vacuum is currently being filled by political beliefs my many, which is causing more division as people cling to their beliefs like a religion. It can also lead to an unhealthy need for a workplace identity. Religious beliefs are so fascinating, as even some very intelligent people will cling to clearly identifiable flawed logic to support their beliefs. We see it more and more in politics, where reaching across the aisle has become a taboo.

Remote working, social media, and most recently, social distancing have exacerbated the situation.

We need more clubs, adult sports and other activities to help people have more healthy opportunities to belong and feel they are a part of something more.

You even see it with sports fans, and the need to refer to one's preferred team as if the fan is a part of the team (WE need to do this or WE suck, etc.).

If your political beliefs are so strong that you KNOW your position is right and others are dead wrong, you may want to self-reflect and decide if you want political beliefs to define you.
 
People need to belong to something they feel is bigger than themselves. As we become more educated as a people, we will continue to see a reduction in religious beliefs. That vacuum is currently being filled by political beliefs my many, which is causing more division as people cling to their beliefs like a religion. It can also lead to an unhealthy need for a workplace identity. Religious beliefs are so fascinating, as even some very intelligent people will cling to clearly identifiable flawed logic to support their beliefs. We see it more and more in politics, where reaching across the aisle has become a taboo.

Remote working, social media, and most recently, social distancing have exacerbated the situation.

We need more clubs, adult sports and other activities to help people have more healthy opportunities to belong and feel they are a part of something more.

You even see it with sports fans, and the need to refer to one's preferred team as if the fan is a part of the team (WE need to do this or WE suck, etc.).

If your political beliefs are so strong that you KNOW your position is right and others are dead wrong, you may want to self-reflect and decide if you want political beliefs to define you.
I agree with a lot of this.

But I also wanted to add that organized religion bears at least some responsibility for people losing interest in it. American Christianity in particular has ceased significantly in being relevant to many, especially younger people, because of decisions made by leaders and institutions. We can discuss why organized religion, especially American Christianity, has become less relevant and has even alienated many of its own congregants. But I’m not sure if right now in this thread is the time.

People are still religious. They still want spiritual experiences. But they’re not finding them in organized (Christianity) religion. We shouldn’t blame people for making the logical decision to bail on the pews on Sunday. If your church or religion isn’t having a positive influence on your life, why stick with it?

This episode was enlightening for me. People want to feel fulfilled. They want religion to provide and promote values. Which is why so many young people are joining Social and political organizations and leaving organized religions behind


View: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-point/id121534955?i=1000517128008


TBH, my experiences working in downtown salt lake at a few organizations that helps refugees have been far more spiritual and fulfilling than a lot of Sunday morning testimony meetings at my LDS ward. So I actually find myself a lot in what that On Point episode talks about.

Again, we can talk more extensively about this if we want. But the bottom line is, we shouldn’t just blame people for leaving organized religion behind. Leaders and institutions are failing their congregants too. People are making logical choices to leave. IMO, we need to place the spotlight on the failings of leaders and institutions, not on ex-congregants.
 
I promise I could buy 10 dishwashers tomorrow
I’m going to add a disclaimer first that I have not paid attention at all to any discussions going on here for a while, so if I missed something, it’s solely due to my own blessed ignorance.

Now on to the fun!

I’m a fortunate (LOL KILL ME) person who is in the process of building a house (please kill me). Purchasing appliances, among other things, was a complete nightmare.

“Hi salesman, I’d like to get this, this, and this.”

“Oh sorry you ****, we have 30 of those on back order and haven’t heard anything on when they think they’ll be available. The other one we have one in a warehouse somewhere, so we might be able to get it, but be warned we haven’t been able to get any parts on those models in months.”

Now I was fortunate in that American companies haven’t been hit as hard as some others in supply chain issues, and those are some of the products I wanted (Blue Star oven, Speed Queen washer). But I’ve also had to replace appliances where I currently am, and if you’re in need of immediate need, you’re screwed. Not in that you can’t find anything at all, but screwed in that most likely what you want is not available. And it really sucks to spend that much money on a crucial appliance and not get exactly what you want. So yeah, maybe you could buy 10 dishwashers tomorrow, but you there’s more than a decent chance you couldn’t buy what you want tomorrow.
 
I’m going to add a disclaimer first that I have not paid attention at all to any discussions going on here for a while, so if I missed something, it’s solely due to my own blessed ignorance.

Now on to the fun!

I’m a fortunate (LOL KILL ME) person who is in the process of building a house (please kill me). Purchasing appliances, among other things, was a complete nightmare.

“Hi salesman, I’d like to get this, this, and this.”

“Oh sorry you ****, we have 30 of those on back order and haven’t heard anything on when they think they’ll be available. The other one we have one in a warehouse somewhere, so we might be able to get it, but be warned we haven’t been able to get any parts on those models in months.”

Now I was fortunate in that American companies haven’t been hit as hard as some others in supply chain issues, and those are some of the products I wanted (Blue Star oven, Speed Queen washer). But I’ve also had to replace appliances where I currently am, and if you’re in need of immediate need, you’re screwed. Not in that you can’t find anything at all, but screwed in that most likely what you want is not available. And it really sucks to spend that much money on a crucial appliance and not get exactly what you want. So yeah, maybe you could buy 10 dishwashers tomorrow, but you there’s more than a decent chance you couldn’t buy what you want tomorrow.

Agree with all of this. And i wouldnt lay all of these issues on who the president is either.

My CPAP broke in early april and i found a new one i liked for about $600 (not bad really) and ordered it online. Kept waiting for a shipping email. Called the company to ask when it would ship. They said they have no idea (there is a huge issue with CPAP machines because phillips, who is the largest producer, had an incredibly massive recall).
Lucky for me i found a different company that had some in stock and cancelled my original order and bought from the company that had them in stock.
Went about a month without my CPAP and wasnt getting goos sleep.
So glad to have my new one (its better than my previous one that was like 10 years old.)


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Agree with all of this. And i wouldnt lay all of these issues on who the president is either.

My CPAP broke in early april and i found a new one i liked for about $600 (not bad really) and ordered it online. Kept waiting for a shipping email. Called the company to ask when it would ship. They said they have no idea (there is a huge issue with CPAP machines because phillips, who is the largest producer, had an incredibly massive recall).
Lucky for me i found a different company that had some in stock and cancelled my original order and bought from the company that had them in stock.
Went about a month without my CPAP and wasnt getting goos sleep.
So glad to have my new one (its better than my previous one that was like 10 years old.)


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Fwiw, I’m not putting all the blame on any one person or party. I think there are certain things that might have helped a little, but in general, we’re just in a ****** situation that most likely will take a couple years to fix.
 
It’s weird that the forced birth crowd that cheered kids in cages and was super excited over Roe being overturned is now angry that immigrant babies are getting baby formula.

It’s almost like it’s never been about life or making the world a better place…
 
It’s weird that the forced birth crowd that cheered kids in cages and was super excited over Roe being overturned is now angry that immigrant babies are getting baby formula.

It’s almost like it’s never been about life or making the world a better place…
The frustration is in people who are here illegally taking precedent over those who are here legally. I don’t think anybody wants those babies to starve, but at the same time, they shouldn’t be the United States problem. Had the borders been enforced like they should, it wouldn’t be a problem. Basically, this was all preventable, but yet, it wasn’t. Surely even you can see how that’s frustrating.
 
The frustration is in people who are here illegally taking precedent over those who are here legally. I don’t think anybody wants those babies to starve, but at the same time, they shouldn’t be the United States problem. Had the borders been enforced like they should, it wouldn’t be a problem. Basically, this was all preventable, but yet, it wasn’t. Surely even you can see how that’s frustrating.
What do you mean by "Had the boarders been enforced like they should..."?

I think the southern boarder is a very complicated issue and there are going to be people there trying to get into the United States. Some will cross illegally. Some will do so seeking asylum.

What does enforcing the boarder the way they should be look like?
 
What do you mean by "Had the boarders been enforced like they should..."?

I think the southern boarder is a very complicated issue and there are going to be people there trying to get into the United States. Some will cross illegally. Some will do so seeking asylum.

What does enforcing the boarder the way they should be look like?
The number of people crossing the border illegally has increased dramatically, while it seems like the number of people enforcing the border has either stayed stagnant or decreased.
 
Top