ThreePointTakedown

So you're saying that people are better off less informed, with less exposure to other cultures and perspectives? This will lead to more ethical behavior and better health decisions? I have never heard of something so blatantly dishonest or ignorant. You are rationalizing yourself into your little bubble and trying to keep out anything that might influence your spawn(in any way whatsoever) for FEAR(yes, I said it) of the things you listed(which are always a risk with kids). Seems like you want to be your own Mennonite cult. Keep your kids sheltered from everything(read your examples, seems like every single thing). Cut them off from all society or outside community. Then when they try to go out into the world and fail, they come back to you. Have fun with that! Primary responsibility to raise kids. But government does have an incentive to have a robust population to pass the government on to. If you'd rather have a theocracy what would you do? Squeeze public education, nominate judges that rule to knock down the wall between church and state so public funds can go to church business, allow churches to advocate for political candidates,... shall I continue cuz a lot of those things seem to be happening. Lest I forget, nominate and elect an authoritarian orangutan that has vowed to prosecute his political enemies. Y'all might not be for all those things, but they don't seem like deal breakers when the darn well aught to be! No one from the non-conservative side is offering up ideas like these at all. Let's see, better health care, better education, better infrastructure, lets try to get along with countries instead of committing war crimes to get reelected,... ya know the normal stuff.

I think that is ridiculous. The 'evil' theme of Halloween can go, sure. Because there is no such things as evil. But they can still have kids dress up and have fun. Lame!

No. They are wrong too and for the same if not a better reason. But as usual context is king. Who is challenging the book and for what reason? People that have been and continue to be on the wrong end of those slurs have some trauma that need to be addressed. Those words falling out of favor to the general public would help. They would have more of a leg to stand on then just a difference of opinion about sex or religion. Whereas their trauma has been experienced and would hope their children wouldn't have to suffer beneath it as well. Not just perceived like the other parents. Generational trauma is a tricky thing. We try to ignore it and wave it away as weakness(as a country, we're not great at coming to terms with and seeking help for our trauma) or someone trying to get a handout. But its real. This is kind of like the argument against your kids swearing. Words don't have power in and of themselves. The usage and the cultural significance is what gives them power. Slurs should not be tossed around in polite society. If works of literature use them in service of education, then I feel they are fine to keep and kids should have those conversations with THEIR PARENTS as to when and how they are appropriate. Pro-Book

As I think of 'conservative' as attempting to maintain current norms and culture rather than exploring the possibilities that come with change and cultural diversity. That is what I was trying to imply. Conservativism is not evil or wrong in and of itself. You like what you like and you want to keep it that way. Fine, but you live in a society. We're not broken into tribes, scratching and clawing for the survival of our offspring, from marauders. That some people try to take advantage of others is unfortunate but can be dealt with and the thirst for power and influence only helps those that would burn it down to serve their own purpose to do just that. If we work cooperatively to advance society and keep in check those that would do it harm, things can and have gotten better. Its when the pendulum swings too far one way(usually conservative) that things get out of control and bad things happen.

No. Because in this scenario we don't know what it is that is offensive. Mentioning a round Earth could be the offending topic. And kids are kids, they can't be held accountable for things they do, legally, to an extent. Similar in this case. That they are offended is not a reason to take away a book. We would need to have more detail. How many books would be left if it to 2 or 3 parents from taking a book off the shelves? As it turns out we have an idea. Parents challenging books and getting them taken off the shelves left and right. Then the Bible is challenged and all hell breaks loose and it is one of if not THE worst offender of all.

Ok. We've gotten in trouble for speaking in generalities. Some NC's might do that, I tend to disagree with you there. But if they do, there might be a reason and we shouldn't paint with a broad brush to make ourselves feel better, as easy as that might be to do. But misgendering a person on purpose is disrespectful and a bullying tactic that shouldn't be tolerated. If you can call someone by their name you can refer to them the way they want to be referred. Mistakes are made, but correct them. No one has ever answered the question of how a same sex marriage effects their non-same sex marriage? I'd love to have that conversation. Not likely though. Its not a minority. It is the VAST and growing majority. You are the one swimming upstream now. Changing your mind on this topic effects you and everyone else, not one bit. Except you want to hold your breath and kick the wall that someone is making you do a think you just don't wanna do. Imagine a world where marriage means everyone gets to have it? Its not that bad. If you can't think of it, Grow up! Excusing your closemindedness away is a bad look. You're giving up. Fine, then stop bringing it up and go sulk in peace. Come back when you want to rejoin society. We'll be here with updates for you to take in, as always. They are everywhere and doing their darndest to drag us backwards because they can't or don't want to keep up.

Based on what?

Being able to imagine others less fortunate than yourself is important when making decision for a society. We can't let our privilege deny someone else of critical resources that could help them make their way into a better place. Stop getting hung up on feeling attacked. You don't know me I don't know you. I don't care what you think of me. I try to remain civil but can get carried away in the editing process. My points are all that matter. Are they legit or not. Can I defend them or not. Motivated by fear? That's what it seems like. Because I have not heard a single good reason come from the side of taking books out of schools that stands up to even a little bit of scrutiny. If you can't admit that parents don't act out of fear when they invoke 'protect the children' you're lying to yourself. Because they are not experts and rarely if ever bring in a credible expert to study or advocate for their positions. Amateurs should not be in charge of deciding what stays and goes. And you're going to say that they aren't in charge of that. Its the school board members that make those decisions. That's a distinction without a difference. Because you do not need any qualifications to be on those boards(or congress and look at the faces those leopards are eating) and many have run(recently for sure, lots of money has been funneled into school board races from conservatives groups) just so they can have the authority to force their will on topics of books and curricula. Protecting a purity culture has been the motivation for horrendous things in the past. You have mentioned that your circle is fairly progressive in their thinking. I hope that is true. But it is not indicative of the leaders you elect as a whole. By trying to keep this information from kids is a way of avoiding the conversations and acknowledgement of adults. We know(it has been studied) that traveling and meeting new and different people with different experiences causes us to become less conservative in our own thinking. By keeping our children from this information it is a way to avoid it in our adult lives. These things need to be addressed. Wrongs need to be righted and at a quicker pace then you are probably comfortable with. Putting your head in the sand is not going to stop the train of progress from coming. My opinion that someone is weak for supporting a book ban is simple. If you can't handle the information, fine. Then tell your kids not to read it. If they don't or can't listen to you and read it anyway. You have to deal with it. Will the child be permanently scarred? Not likely. But some parents are fine with their children exploring and reading about the topics your so SCARED to have your children read. So therefore, you have no right to expect the book to be taken off the shelf. If you have these conversations, then how could you support book bans? Is it a community thing? You enjoy the community support of the people who do want books banned? Because that is a thing. But you can find that sense of community somewhere else less harmful to society. Confrontational: not sure, probably a few. I'm probably wrong about a good amount of conservatives. But if you let these people be your voice and your leaders then those are your ideals. If you don't stand up and vocally admonish these people then you give them power. They will not stop. You know that, because conservatives never do. Their grip is slipping and they are getting more and more desperate. Which has lead to an increase in violence aimed at those opposed to conservative views(look at the current Speaker race, death threats to family members of reps that voted against certain candidates, you're eating yourselves but still not willing to break for fear of losing community and death threats will do that too). Why do you think that is? I am pro-book and knowledge. Again, are you and expert? Are the parents, you blindly support, experts? No. More than likely, and I could be wrong, they are acting out of fear of something they know little about. Rather than sympathy and understanding. Kids make us all emotional. I want kids to be safe and cared for and learn about the harsh world they live in. It seems to me, and this is not a new opinion(George Carlin), that those who identify themselves as pro-life rarely are for the whole life. Just birth. After that, they don't want kids to get the funding a rich society could or should provide them to get ahead in life. Often cloudy by a sense of morality. That often manifests itself in a 'I made it without that stuff so you should too'. Which is not beneficial or moral, its just selfish. Like spanking, 'I was hit and I turned out fine!' NO! You probably didn't. And we know now that that stuff doesn't work on kids. But we can't see these things because we're always in damage control and to admit it would open up wounds we couldn't possibly handle.

C'mon. That you have a more openminded group is a feather in your cap, no doubt. Those that lead the conservative movement are interested in shrinking government so much so that public education is no longer a viable option. Some want an outright theocracy to take over. Ignore the ugly parts of our history so we can go on and marginalize minority groups. Many more are changing their minds on the issues of the day but it always comes in the same pattern: who are these new/scary people I have to consider? Do I know any of them? Turns out I do. I guess their ok. I guess they deserve the bare minimum of civil rights like everyone else. Its exhausting to watch this happen over and over. Fighting a carbon copy of the same fight to get the same outcome. When they could just be openminded in the first place and we can move on to more important things.

If you had any examples to site, that would be handy. But considering you didn't include any, if seems as if you can't because they don't exist or you won't because you just can't be bothered. Which tells me the amount of conviction you have with this conversation.

To the privileged, equality feels like oppression. How is what you said differ from this saying? Because it seems like that is exactly what they fight against. If everyone is equal then their wealth doesn't equate to as much power. Why should people have as much power as wealthy people do? And you can't say that they don't because one vote is one vote. Money has been ruled to equal speech. 735 people own as much speech as the bottom 50%. The top 1%(or 3m+ people) own 16x more speech than the bottom 50%. And you know(or at least I hope you do) that some of those 50% have no choice in where or how they grow up and what kind of opportunities they get in their situation. Can they get lucky? Sure. But that's a crappy way of dismissing their fixable situation. If they had more money for education to start(free breakfast and lunch at school to every student, UBI for kids). Many wealthy people did not earn their wealth but still benefit from it, work to increase it, and use it to help loosen the rules in order to make it easier to build and maintain. Some of the horrendous things they do to horde their wealth should make you sick. Why doesn't it? Who is in a better position to learn, influence, and benefit from the complicated rules of finance? The wealthy. With all things being equal, I support the side with less power and influence.

Rebut them or be quiet. The handwaving of points that disprove your own is tired. Its a trick to get noncritical thinkers that already agree with you to agree with you and to not have to address the actual points because you think you can't and will look foolish to even try. I'm calling you out and will continue to challenge you to back it up or handwave yourself to another site to troll someone else.

I can appreciate that. But this will be the only thing that he can't say wasn't a witch hunt if he has to sign something saying he is guilty. Him not being able to spin it is the best way to cut the head off the hydra. Its happening already with other wannabees. This will be a big nail in a the BS coffin.

Conservative averse to change. We are flawed; individually, societally, and governmentally. Conservatives work to stymie the new ideas, technology, cultural advancement, and/or governmental assistance meant for the bettering of those flaws. Fragility. Why try to keep things from changing if not for fear of breaking either, themselves or the group? I am not of that mindset. If I am wrong please offer another point of view as an option? Any specific examples, how conservatism helped, and the benefit in the outcome? If you are honest, even asking the third question is laughable. But maybe you are, in that case. Examples: no immigration reform ideas and , tax cuts that benefit the rich and super rich, Government ID's for voting, Gerrymandering(granted not exclusive to that political ideology, but haven't heard a State or Federal court strike down a liberal election map because it was discriminated on racial lines with Surgical Precision ), conservatives 'otherize' just about everyone, trying to scare their supporters into thinking that the next boogie man(gay people, immigrants, trans people, homeless people) is coming for them and that they are the only ones that can stand up to them. Doesn't seem very inclusive. So again, I laugh in your general direction and eagerly anticipate your rebuttal.

When is your guess as to when big D pleads guilty in Georgia, DC, and/or NYC? Once he does that, fund raising will stop. So I think he'll try to hold off as long as possible. *Price Is Right Rules* My guess: Georgia, 3.15.24 'Beware the Ides of March'

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Protecting fragility is the hallmark of conservatism. Embracing difference and the struggle to grow is not a conservative principle. These accusations sounds an awful lot like confessions.

1). You are 'Otherizing' parents for having different opinions and/or approaches. Do you realize how dangerous that is? If you do it here, chances are you do it in other areas to justify your dislike. Dehumanizing someone for any reason makes it easier to disregard their mistreatment. All your other points are just a cover so you can feel comfortable with your HORRIBLE approach to a topic. You are a prime example of Godwin's Law(not gonna explain it, find it yourself), insults, then I imagine you'll jump both feet into the final bucket. 2) Maybe I missed the specifics of your conversation, you seem upset so I won't ask you to describe EXACTLY what was being presented. I'm sure it was ghastly and not acceptable to beetle brains. *yes I included a link, so you can read to see how much your are shoveling while its snowing and maybe rethink your approach

What exactly is being pushed?

Why can't we figure this out? The 'Cancel Culture' your all up in arms about was the 'Find out' part. Y'all been effin around for long enough. To the privileged, equality feels like oppression. You're complaining about having the same consequences as everyone else for a change. How messed up is that?

Define 'Pushes'?

Except the recent speaker of the house. The attorney general of Texas suing the members of his own party that started the impeachment proceedings. 'En Masse' is a relative term. The Leopards Eating Faces Party are running out of faces because for decades they refused to let anyone else in the club. Leaving a scant amount of faces to eat.

Please explain that last line? How does that math work?

Should change the title of this thread to 'Perfect Is The Enemy of Good'. Cutting weight is bane of this sport. Its a tragedy that we still allow it. No one is winning or losing a scholarship at U8 Tulsa Nationals. But I guarantee, someone is running to make weight. Think about that? That should be a crime.

I'll take vague statements for $600, Alex?

Its always an arms race. With hydration, athletes and more than a few coaches figured out how to side step the protocol. They were able to participate in a way that we all agree is unhealthy, both physically and mentally. I think this should be implemented for that reason. Its not been done and not be shown to work. A little planning, staggering the weights which wouldn't be difficult to do considering the amount of data we can sift through from tournaments run over the last decade. How long does it take to run x number of matches in a weight class? Average it out for the last 1000 tournaments run. Extrapolate or compile or whatever... Done. I imagine Track could do this and put together a table or algorithm to help optimize this tournament format. Then build a tournament format from that. Will there be weight cutting, probably. But considering the immediate impact to your performance going from scale to mat. A weight cutter will rethink the ROI of cutting as much or any weight to sacrifice performance in that first match. Side note: Will they make us pay for it using their development and thus reduce the chance of it being implemented? Maybe. Discussion for another day. Tweak the format as needed, build in some safeguards(ie. rounds may start later but never earlier, kinda thing). I doubt I'm the only one that doesn't mind sleeping in on competition days. Randomize the weight classes ahead of time, really make it fun. Lets jump into quell some naysayers, 'but I don't like change!' Tough! Just sit down and shut up! Will there be some growing pains? Yes. Growth is like that sometimes. But to keep kids focused on getting better at skills and strategy rather than limiting water, is a win regardless of how we get there. Let participation numbers drop. They'll come back. The game is great, it will survive.