Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Some bicycle paths...
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 11:22:46 -0500
Organization: Yellow Jersey, Ltd.
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <v85r8m$ioo$3@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>
 <v85pim$3t78k$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2024 18:22:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="868da7efbb6e7c529e94a5dfc8f6c813";
	logging-data="19224"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/8jLrAK5qMHmIixJlU01cM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rrqJ5/iXLgX8xTAsoBhzd1fngB8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v85pim$3t78k$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5580

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.
-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971