Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Some bicycle paths...
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:53:58 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <v85pim$3t78k$7@dont-email.me>
References: <l1p1aj9vhplp4r2qqb2seed6dmmdvletls@4ax.com>
 <v7r3r1$1nug0$1@dont-email.me> <v7r6v6$1q2ff$1@dont-email.me>
 <cn63ajhof05ufg9beuuoksdar1uqqrj66k@4ax.com> <v7s82e$1va65$2@dont-email.me>
 <etc4ajp3jdeq2c6tmn73v98rq7ftuqddkm@4ax.com>
 <g1g4aj90e4codctdhummefsm8okc8dkt45@4ax.com>
 <h0j4aj5g5l4hq49o71uhmh6adagrf348q0@4ax.com> <v7tktu$29r88$3@dont-email.me>
 <vvo4ajpca8kdg1td6ulshk7n7j1q2icvtl@4ax.com> <v7toqq$2arnn$1@dont-email.me>
 <v7tq4u$2auhe$4@dont-email.me> <kds4ajhouscrcitgric150lsec4ak8ho19@4ax.com>
 <v7u3tc$2cr61$2@dont-email.me> <v7u8v8$2dql1$3@dont-email.me>
 <v7v3bl$2lkdi$3@dont-email.me> <v807f4$2rh3h$1@dont-email.me>
 <v80r3n$2v4bh$2@dont-email.me> <v80s9v$2v1s1$1@dont-email.me>
 <v82l3k$3bfnc$3@dont-email.me> <v82qhk$3cqj7$3@dont-email.me>
 <v858vf$3t78k$3@dont-email.me> <v85jl0$3uupi$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 17:53:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b6ea8f52d90b2052d8185556294998de";
	logging-data="4103444"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/E9hqLXxmNuyZ+vKYn5ZjO7rh/H+MT8+U="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BooIXPFRUhzafs5orevsRxcQ+0g=
In-Reply-To: <v85jl0$3uupi$5@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4735

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.