Comments by "ElephantInTheRoom " (@elephantintheroom5678) on "" video.

@andysmith1996 Well, that makes a big difference, and I'm glad you pointed that out. The problem is, I've seen "explicit" sexuality described in some lgbtq books. That's where I draw the line. Children shouldn't have explicit sexual content shoved at them.
2
Any books describing sexual acts (of any brand name) should be banned from school libraries.
1
@joshsmith9572 They are fine. They aren't sexually explicit at all. Have you read one?
1
@Kat-dp4rh That's not in biology books, though. At least not in any science curriculum I've ever seen. It's usually limited to reproduction. You're describing sex education classes, another subject altogether.
1
@Kat-dp4rh Firstly, that only applies if the child is near or at adolescence, and secondly, only if there is a trustworthy, trusted adult there who can answer any questions and clear up any misconceptions, or reassure the child about any concerns they may have.
1
@Kat-dp4rh They aren't being banned; they are being banned from some schools, at some school levels, as being inappropriate for that age group to come across in a library without appropriate guidance. On the whole, reasonable educational books aren't being banned. We are talking about books with titillating, and blatantly unnecessary, rather than educational, sexual content, being banned.
1
@Kat-dp4rh No, sex education is a separate subject and isn't taught as part of biology curriculums, except as it pertains to reproduction. Sex is far more than simple reproduction, there are important ethics involved that require more than scientific guidance. That's why it's important that sex education isn't just something that children stumble upon.
1
@Kat-dp4rh Actually, there are some books like that in school libraries these days. It's a reflection of relaxing standards of public behaviour. I'm not assuming anything, either, and I'm not referring to "hundreds" of books, only a handful. I'm not the kind of person who thinks that images of Michelangelo's David are lewd, for example, and should be banned in school, as was recently enacted somewhere in America.
1
It has absolutely no explicit sexual content. That is a blatant lie. It has some euphemistic love poetry, and some "begats,' that is all.
1
@joshsmith9572 I've read both the King James Bible and the silly Good News bible, and I also understand the distinction between explicit sexual content and mere references to sexual acts, such as are in the Bible. Don't bandy empty words with me; it won't work.
1
@monochromicornthetuna4256 It's like some of you really suffer from reading comprehension deficits. Did I say I was against book banning in general? I most definitely am not. Just because sexually explicit, or propaganda books are not suitable for school libraries doesn't mean I condone banning, say, books about evolution. Distinctions should be made; not everything that should be available to adults, due to intellectual freedom, should be made available to minors, who haven't developed their powers of discernment yet.
1
@monochromicornthetuna4256 You did, actually. You implied I was all for banning books even though I hadn't read them. You see, there's literally saying something, and then there is this thing - you may or may not have learned about in American high schools - called implication, and it's what you did when you commented about me.
1
@pluubooruu It's not exactly explicit, though, is it? It says they "lay" with him - and that's about it.
1
@arturferrao7353 They exist. If you don't believe me, you're free to prove me wrong if it's worth your effort and time. It's not to me. But you go ahead.
1
@arturferrao7353 The Bible isn't sexually explicit. It has some euphemistic love poetry, and a few lines about Lot laying with his daughters. That's far from sexually explicit.
1
@Gadget_292 And later on in that chapter dear old God supposedly advises his followers to stone the women to death. The whole chapter sounds like old religious scholars ranting on and calling women of another nation "whores." Pure propaganda from the ancient Middle East. Typical.
1
@arturferrao7353 They do exist. You don't actually know what you're talking about.
1
@arturferrao7353 okay - "Gender Queer" has oral sex, and "In the Dream House" has sexual abuse. You haven't a clue what you're on about.
1
@andysmith1996 I've quoted a couple of them below. As for "forced" to read, "happened to open and flip through" would do enough harm to a small child. The problem with this channel, and TYT is most of their followers are young men who know next to nothing about caring for kids.
1
@andysmith1996 Because I'm lazy. Perhaps you're lazy, too, if you can't be bothered to search the thread. I have a different view than you. Get used to the fact that there are people who disagree. That's life, sonny.
1
@arturferrao7353 Lazy, search the comment thread.
1
@andysmith1996 You're employing a logical fallacy, called Appeal to Ignorance, which claims that a statement is false simply because it has not been proven true. Weak argument. Besides, if you weren't so lazy, you'd search my comments below, and find where I did actually prove my statement true. Laziness all round, mate.
1
@andysmith1996 An appeal to ignorance is when you claim something doesn't exist because you can't see the evidence, which is exactly what you were doing, and still are. As for whether you should have to search or not, I reply: why should I have to repeat my evidence, ad nauseam, just because you don't read the thread?
1
@andysmith1996 Also, people don't have to be deliberately and aggressively harmed for it to cause damage; irresponsible negligence, and the failure to protect a child from harm can cause equal damage. That is obvious to any parent, and should be to responsible adults.
1