Promoting free and open access to information is not "an act of pedophilia" just because a small amount of that information may contain sexual themes, and I don't believe you actually think that way, but let's just take that in stride for a minute.

Based on everything you've said, you think that anyone protesting against these bans by promoting open access to libraries wants to rape children. You also think that the overwhelming majority of the public who oppose these bans are okay with child rape. Is this correct?

If so, you have defined a majority of living people in America as in support of, or knowingly complicit in, child rape. Do you think that's accurate or reasonable? Or are you just playing word games to get what you want?

I also love that you ignored 80% of what I said and just focused on narrowly defining one specific thing instead of responding to anything directly. Ignore everything about the structure and language of the laws, the absence of sexual themes in banned works, the extreme levels of unnecessary and vague censorship, etc...

Also you're just wrong, pedophilia is a passive trait while grooming is an active attempt to fuck kids. You're just redefining words at this point.

[+] StaySquared@lemmy.world -9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No one said, "promoting free and open access to information is an act of pedophilia". Providing children direction/guidance/access to pornographic material on the other hand... Is an act of pedophilia. It is a grooming tactic. At best you can call it, "sexualizing children". And that is still fked.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She provided direction to a public library that does not follow the book ban. She is not telling or directing her students to read porn. She is, objectively, promoting free and open access to a public library. There is no other way to characterize that.

Also, even the most controversial books on the banned list are not "pornographic". Containing sexual themes or imagery does not qualify something as porn. Porn exists for sexual gratification, and none of those books exist for that purpose.

You also still have not answered my question as to whether or not you think these people actually want to rape kids, or if you are just playing word games.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let me make it clear.

If you have pedophilic tendencies... not even touching a child, but providing a child ANY sexually explicit material, you are a pedophile. And I have NO mercy for pedophiles.

If that doesn't answer your question, that's your problem, not mine.

[–] Ibaudia@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So if you assign The Catcher in the Rye, A Brave New World, or 1984 as assigned reading to high school seniors you are automatically a pedophile because they contain sexual themes?

If you don't see how fucking stupid that is then that's your problem. What is sexually "explicit" is purely a matter of opinion and these definitions encompass ANYTHING that has ANY mention of human sexuality.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sex education isn't pornography, and as a general rule depictions of nude people isn't sufficient to be considered pornography. Moreover, comprehensive sex education has a strong correlation with reduced teen pregnancy. The only reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from that is that sex education isn't required for teens to have sex, and that sex education increases the odds that teenagers will engage in safe sex rather than unsafe sex.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What does a story about a boy sucking off another boy in some sort of homo-erotica material have anything to do with sex education? That is pornographic material. And if you need examples, go through my comments/replies and review the two youtube videos I posted.