Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!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: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 14:19:29 -0500 Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd. Lines: 135 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 21:19:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7f70b9ad86f6900130f095d177b49064"; logging-data="3129322"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LyYSUP3y/OaT+Owq806f7" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:BVU3VhjESOKDsunOW+q1sFybQjw= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7251 On 8/2/2024 1:35 PM, Zen Cycle wrote: > On 8/1/2024 9:04 AM, AMuzi wrote: >> 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: > > I also mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird and The Kiterunner, > to reiterate, you respond with a shrug, if any response at all. > > Happy to help with that. To Kill a Mockingbird is available only to a select few. That is, people with 99 cents to spend: https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=to+kill++mockingbird&hs.x=0&hs.y=0 I am unfamiliar with The Kiterunner but is actually valued more highly. $1 to anyone, 24x7: https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=the+kiterunner&hs.x=0&hs.y=0 Whatever ban you refer to seems to be ineffective so far. -- Andrew Muzi am@yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971