Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: AMuzi Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Some bicycle paths... Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 08:04:37 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 112 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2024 15:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b0c13662ae9bd87dc61c58d7b92bbaf9"; logging-data="2292749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DlG1jdphppLp/MdPkcWJh" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:guRHkXpnITNM71f5Wt4ralev6Zw= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6352 On 8/1/2024 4:00 AM, zen cycle wrote: > On 7/28/2024 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote: >> On 7/28/2024 10:53 AM, zen cycle wrote: >>> On 7/28/2024 10:12 AM, AMuzi wrote: >>>> On 7/28/2024 6:10 AM, zen cycle wrote: >>>>> On 7/27/2024 8:52 AM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>> On 7/27/2024 6:19 AM, zen cycle wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/25/2024 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Purposely irritating others is fun to people >>>>>>>>>>>>> who are childish and obnoxious. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And yet, autos with political candidate stickers >>>>>>>>>>>> are common. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting viewpoint. So expressing approval for >>>>>>>>>>> a candidate in an election is childish and >>>>>>>>>>> obnoxious? Really? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I see many more right wing examples than left >>>>>>>>>>> wing examples. And when it comes to obscene >>>>>>>>>>> examples, it's not even close. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "> I see many more right wing examples" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's because you take offense at them and >>>>>>>>>> blithely disregard the left wing stickers. >>>>>>>>>> Perfectly normal response BTW, nothing wrong with >>>>>>>>>> that but see it as it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I know what confirmation bias is, thank you. I >>>>>>>>> suppose this fine side point could be settled by >>>>>>>>> actual counts. You know, data. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But the fundamental point is that candidate >>>>>>>>> stickers are not necessarily intended to irritate >>>>>>>>> others, as you implied. Most are intended to >>>>>>>>> express support for a candidate, just as similar >>>>>>>>> ones saying "Vote for the [police, or fire, school >>>>>>>>> or library] levy." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And they've been ruled a first amendment right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Excellent analysis. >>>>>>>> Now just extend your argument one Amendment further... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ok. how about SCOTUS has repeated ruled the right to >>>>>>> free speech is not absolute. Let's extend that to the >>>>>>> 2nd amendment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personally I think they are wrong on both counts but >>>>>> that hasn't stopped them from either. >>>>> >>>>> except when it comes to banning books in school >>>>> libraries....You're fine with that, but you're not fine >>>>> with banning guns in schools. Gee I wonder how many >>>>> kids have died over the years from reading Catcher in >>>>> the Rye? >>>> >>>> You conflated limits on prurient materials to minor >>>> children in State funded facilities with 'book banning'. >>>> Utterly different things. >>> >>> No, it isn't. Book banning is book banning regardless of >>> the motive or source of funding for the materials. Nice >>> try at defection, especially considering much of the >>> books being banned in school libraries aren't 'prurient' >>> by even the loosest definition of 'prurient'. Books with >>> discussions on slavery and experiences of racism are >>> hardly prurient, yet you have made no distinction between >>> those and books depicting graphic sex. >> >> You mistake my position.  I oppose ideological book >> censorship and have been carping about the loss of >> Huckleberry Finn to younger generations for decades. >> >> [People who haven't actually read it get incensed at >> certain words out of context while ignoring that it is >> among the most beautifully, powerfully crafted anti racism >> works ever.] >> >> I could not phrase it better than this: >> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/reading.jpg >> >> That said, normalizing sexual deviance to preteens is >> different in kind. > > That's funny becasue every time I've mentioned actual works > of literature being lumped in with bans on sexually graphic > material, you respond with a shrug, if any response at all. If I recall you only mentioned Catcher in the Rye (a work I have not read) which is $1.63 up to anyone as of this morning: https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=catcher+in+the+rye&hs.x=0&hs.y=0 Or just get the SparkNotes for 99c -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971