Comments by "" (@NinjaKittyBonks) on "What's Wrong with Censorship? | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU" video.
-
75
-
8
-
@snowcat9308 …. Yes, censorship is evil, but this is about age appropriate material, so it depends on the age of those whom have access to it. Best example, of late, is the gender queer books that were rightfully removed from grade school libraries. They were not and are not “banned books”. These are very graphic descriptions, with suggestive images, that are written in a way that is easilly understood / digested by sub 5 yo children (like cartoons).
.
I have no issue with books, movies that depict or describe same-sex images or scenes, but these are adult activities, so 18 yo is apprpriate. This is the age of concent, (some states are 16) because society has come to a determination, over thousands of years, that the cognitive development level increases over time. The process of complete development, has been determined to be approx. 25 yo.
.
There is a reason we do not let 5 yo’s drive a car, smoke cigarrettes or drink alcohol. They are simply not equipped with the cognitive understanding or discipline to make a healthy judgement call. There is a reason that “kids do dumb things” far more regularly than adults and is for the above reason.
.
Protecting the developing mind is not censorship…. it is called being responsible.
2
-
2
-
@snowcat9308 ... You are just itching for some sort of confrontation here, aren't you? The book "Gender Queer" (think that is the full title, but do not even want to search to confirm), discusses VERY graphic details on sexual interactions, between characters in the book that are minors. If you think it is necessary or even OK, to have books that must be censored when read on national TV or school board members telling parents that reading from such books is unacceptable in their meetings, than you have VERY different ideas about what should be in taxpayer funded schools with children of the age that book was meant as reading level. So, as per your inference, it is OK for 5 yo's to be exposed to the very graphic details of sexual interactions between children of around this age, because what.. "they won't get it?". Well, kids being kids, will go out and experiment with putting a boys p** in another boys mouth to see what the fuss is all about.
.
Children of the age that book was meant to academically reach, are FAR below the age of understanding the dynamics of such interactions and the risk of a very wide range of social, health and stigma related societal issues. They have ZERO business being exposed to this part of the human condition, as children lack the cognitive ability to discern, as well as the inhibition to restrain from adult activities. See, you ARE taking the least faith interpretation, as I don't distinguish "gay" relationships from "straight" ones, when it comes to the age of those we are talking about. You are trying VERY hard for a gotcha, by your use of language here and I find it very curious indeed.
.
This has NOTHING to do with being gay or straight. My concerns here are with the appropriateness, or lack there of, for the age of the students with access. You are the one who has and continues to make this a "gay" issue, so you are seeking to paint me as anti-gay or homophobic in line with the "modus operendi of the right". I don't take my cues of morality from Daily Wire, PragerU or anyone on the internet. You are the one whom is conflating issues of my concerns of exposure of sexual material to young children, is somehow anti-gay motivated.
.
Your last line sums up your agenda perfectly. I am talking about a book with very graphic detailed descriptions of human sexuality in a grade school library and you think this is me trying to hide or conceal children from knowing gay people exist (your words). Kids will naturally begin to "experiment" with such things described in this book, rightly or wrongly, in due time and is in overwhelming amount of cases, during puberty.
.
Let me ask you this... is Gender Queer SIMPLY about gay people and their "interactions" with each other? Do we allow Penthouse magazine in the schools? Do we allow unfettered access to the internet to children of this age? If not, why not? Serious question. Can we just allow kids to be kids and figure out all this stuff, as they have for the last, oh.... I don't know 100K years? Do we need to have graphic descriptions of sexual acts being performed by children and with reading level comprehension that reaches young children? Do we REALLY need that, in order to tell these kids... that "gay people exist?". Is this the academic path in which you feel is best for a child to first learn of gay peoples existence, by describing how to perform a b*** **b on another student?
.
Society can do better to show how various people show physical affection, but how about we wait until they are a LOT better emotionally, physically and cognitively able to incorporate it into their lives? The overwhelming vast majority of full grown adults will STILL say it is too young to grasp the gravity of such interactions (pregnancy, emotional attachment or the removal of its importance and even disease). This is not and should not be about "sex" alone. It is about a bonding that will happen when shared with a person of whom, I would hope that care deeply for one another. If not, than sex becomes a simple act of pleasure and we can see OF an the VERY high number of young people whom have access to pr0n and often times before they have even had it. This cheapens the experience and lessens that "bond" one should feel, when with a very close partnership. This strengthens not just a marriage, but long-term relationships, so that these two people, irrespective of their gender, share something special that ONLY they do. This creates an intimacy and a "value" that we are losing, when it comes to sexual interaction.
.
I could go on and on, but I would like this to be a conversation, so.... please let me know your thoughts :)
1
-
1
-
@snowcat9308 ...OMG, my last comment ACTUALLY remains, so is the first one in the last ten. I understand, you do not want conversations that belong in THIS threat, on your channel, a that is a perfectly reasonable stance and feel exactly the same way myself. However, had you ACTUALLY read those comments, you would understand why I put them there, as well as my apologies for doing so. Instead, you simply delete them and then block me from posting normal positive comments about your cute cat videos. I kept the political comments OFF of your videos, because the "Community" tab is off the beaten path and you had no user comments there, prior to my using that page.
.
I check today and... BOOM, my last comment actually still exists. However if YouTube decides to delete this one, I again will have no way to reach you. On to the topic at hand....
Bad faith: YES, you are arguing in bad faith, because I already told you about 1 book "Gender Queer" and is 100% sexually explicit material. It is written for lower-grade school reading levels (circa) 1st and 2nd grade and has ZERO place in public school library where that age child has access. Your gaslighing and denial that this book is sexually explicit and presented in the reading / comprehension level of the ages of children I just mentioned, shows how you are arguing in bad faith.
.
There are other books, but that one is by light-years the most well known, as MFL (organization of female parents against such material ) have been wrecking the likes of Joy Reid and Bill Maher, to name a couple, by simply reading that book aloud to them. Joy Reid is the worst of the worst, when it comes to HORRENDOUSLY bad faith arguments, yet those two Moms read from that book and Joy still tried to defend how it was "banning books". This is an outright lie, because keeping such material away from those age children is not censorship nor banning... it is the right thing to do. As I said, in the comments you conveniently failed to read or at least fail to acknowledge you read.... another example of bad faith. Whether wont acknowledge having read them or to NOT have read them and repeating the same question as above, is concrete evidence of your bad faith position.
.
That same book has been read aloud in many [board meetings of "educators"] and those who run the meetings, shut down the microphone, for the reading of explicit pr0n, within the meeting. That [board] calls that book for what it is during the public meeting forum, yet is directly responsible for that book being made available to children 12+ years younger than the 18 year old minimum America has said (via laws) across the country. The banning of books and keeping them from such age children are not the same thing and you know this to be true. Avoiding this SPECIFIC issue repeatedly and asking me again to tell you which books.... is yet another example of bad faith.
.
Furthermore, it is 100% irrelevant that this book happens to be about gay interactions, as it would be precisely as explicit were it identical, but was male / female CHILDREN depicted within it. You have proven to me, in just the same way as probably 50 others whom I have tried to hold this conversation, that you will duck, evade, obfuscate, straw-man and gaslight me, in order to avoid answering the following question...
.
Why is it that you refuse to recognize that book for being [s** e****] and specifically presented for children of the age mentioned above? You have conflated the ACTUAL Issues of such material and told me that I and others whom feel the same way, are seeking to "hide or deny the existence" of gay people. The answer has been made abundantly clear, multiple times within this thread (and the comments you fail to acknowledge on your "Community" tab), by me and by every person who has publicly called for its removal from elementary school libraries. Yet... here you are speaking as though this has NEVER been said and earlier claimed it as an excuse to avoid teaching children about gay people. I have proven multiple times this is a lie, so more proof of your bad faith position.
.
We do not allow unrestricted access to internet, via the schools these children attend, nor do we allow [Top Floor of hotel magazine] or [adult activities] visual recorded media to exist there, so tell me... what is the difference between the book we are discussing and these particular items, listed immediately above...? Hint: NOTHING!
.
PS> If this comment remains for you to see, I will be absolutely shocked, because replies that expose the agenda are not welcome here.
PPS> I still have that comment that was posted on your "Community" tab. As a conservative who knows what it is like to be censored, I back up those comments that come within 500 miles of "wrong-think"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@snowcat9308 .. OMG.. Yes. Educators who want to children to be exposed to material that is SPECIFICALLY meant for adults. You, know, literary depictions of acts! Those depicted are of years under the lowest legal age in US. So, as per YOUR definition, if it is a "personal experience" of someones "gender identity", than the idea of adult behavior is mute?
.
Children do NOT need a deeper understanding of activities that are ONLY legal ones between adults. A book, that discusses activities that are ONLY legal between adults has no place in a public school library, where not only accessible by minors, but written SPECIFICALLY for them to understand.
.
As for "politely", what you are telling me, is that I am ONLY spouting that which has been told to me and because I disagree with you, that I have obviously not done any thinking for myself. What if I was to say..."I would like you to politely ef off"? Using "politely does not make it less insulting, but actually more so. Your telling me to seek other sources of information, is you not just being condescending, but narcissistic, arrogant and self-righteous, because YOU think you know better than I.
.
That book is written for children, yet with very adult themes, so has no place within publicly funded libraries.
1
-
1
-
1