Armed activists show up to library and demand they ban books

[Walker]

*

My oh my, they grow up so quickly, don’t they.

It seems like just yesterday little Timmy was visiting the library to hear stories told by a strange man made up like a demon and wearing women's dresses.

And now look at him, all grown up and cutting off his pecker.

How time does fly like an arrow, although fruit flies like a banana.

[Sculptor]

I find it assuming that the armed banners are saying that its up to God.
So why don't they leave it to him?

[Age]

God knows the religious right can be offended by pretty much anything. If the Bible wasn't their Bible, the sex, violence, incest and aspersions cast upon God would likely get it banned.

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

Probably not what? How does this relate to what I wrote?
Both sides (and they are the ones who think there are only two) can be crazy. Does the idiocy of one excuse the idiocy of the other?

But there is NOT two "sides". So WHY say and write, "Both sides ..."

If there is NOT 'two sides', then the term 'both sides' is a misnomer, and thus moot.

Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?

This appears to be exactly what 'you' are doing here "iwannaplato". That is; arguing or fighting for team 'iwannaplato'.

Seriously, it's like dealing with bots.

It is like 'team iwannoplato' versus 'team bots', right?

[Iwannaplato]

But there is NOT two "sides". So WHY say and write, "Both sides ..."

I like seeming to go along with the logic of a certain two sides who thing they are the only ones. And then pointing out it is false.

Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?

This appears to be exactly what 'you' are doing here "iwannaplato". That is; arguing or fighting for team 'iwannaplato'.

And that seems to be what you are doing here in relation to me.

It is like 'team iwannoplato' versus 'team bots', right?

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Language and communication are a bit more flexible than you believe. I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

[Age]

The trouble with being deeply embedden in religion is that you don't have the option of being open to reason.

A BELIEF of ANY thing does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason.

An ASSUMPTION of ANY thing ALSO does NOT leave the option of being OPEN to reason. But to a lesser extent, as will be SHOWN.

A person who is commited to a religion is bound by its tenets, which are constant.

But ALL 'tenets' can be MISINTERPRETED, as can be CLEARLY SEEN throughout human history, and just within this forum.

If, and WHEN, however, the True, Right, AND Correct INTENDED principle or message of the tenets are CLEARLY and FULLY understood, then following and abiding by those tenets will be something EVERY one will just WANT to be constantly doing, and so WILL constantly do voluntarily anyway.

Obviously the DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the messages within DIFFERENT religions can NOT be the True, Right, AND Correct one for ALL. But, just as OBVIOUS, well for some of us, when this is being written. is that the True, Right, AND Correct messages within ALL religions is the EXACT SAME One, and when that One is constantly being followed then that is what leads ALL into creating and living within the kingdom of Nirvana or Utopia.

A devout Christian has to accord with the Bible, and the Bible isn't going to change.

A devout so-called "christian" would do what the one human being known as "jesus christ" would do, in a particular situation. But, as it will be discovered, human beings make the 'world' a better place by following and being thee True Self instead of copying or following what "others" do or what is imagined "others" would do.

Oh, and by the way, is there some 'thing' within the bible, which a human being should not be doing anyway?

A secular belief does not have the same rigid constraints.

Absolutely ANY BELIEF has the EXACT SAME rigid constraints. That is; while one has or holds a BELIEF they are NOT OPEN to absolutely ANY thing opposing THAT BELIEF.

And again, it does NOT matter what the BELIEF is.

You might believe in Marxism, for example, but if there are some aspects of it that you don't agree with, there is no authority compelling you to accept them.

But while one is BELIEVING in so-called "marxism", then, as you so rightly pointed out, that one is NOT OPEN, to 'reason'.

That is; the BELIEVER, or the BELIEVING one, is NOT OPEN to HEARING and SEEING what parts they are MISINTERPRETING, and WHY those MISINTERPRETATIONS are False, Wrong, or Incorrect.

Also, the ONLY 'authority', which is compelling 'you' to do absolutely ANY thing, including compelling 'you' to accept absolutely ANY thing, is thee One within ALL of 'you', human beings. That is; thee True One, or thee True Self.

In ALL religions the message is to FOLLOW thee True One, which is just thee True Self, which is within ALL of 'you', which has been MISTAKEN, MISCONSTRUED, and MISINTERPRET with the words "your self", along with other oxymorons, misnomers, and other False, Wrong, and Incorrect terms and usage of words. But this WILL all become MUCH CLEARER as 'we' move along here.

[Age]

But there is NOT two "sides". So WHY say and write, "Both sides ..."

I like seeming to go along with the logic of a certain two sides who thing they are the only ones. And then pointing out it is false.

BUT there are NO "two sides". So, supposedly 'going along' with 'that', which does NOT even exist, could be SEEN as being Truly ILLOGICAL or INSANE.

You even went on REINFORCING here that there are ACTUALLY "two sides" by using and writing the words, "a CERTAIN two-sides". There are NO "two sides" here. Full stop. End of story.

Also, saying and claiming there is a 'logic' 'of a CERTAIN two sides' is, again, ILLOGICAL and ABSURD, to say the least.

Why not just POINT OUT the Fact that are NOT ACTUALLY 'two sides' AT ALL instead of wanting to appear as you are 'going along' with what does NOT even exist. This way of misbehaving can be perceived as being VERY DECEPTIVE and DECEITFUL.

Did I somehow seem to have a team and it's not your team so I'm bad? We should all pick a side and turn a blind eye to 'our own' idiocy?

This appears to be exactly what 'you' are doing here "iwannaplato". That is; arguing or fighting for team 'iwannaplato'.

And that seems to be what you are doing here in relation to me.

WHY?

What do you think or BELIEVE I am fighting or arguing here for, EXACTLY?

It is like 'team iwannoplato' versus 'team bots', right?

It's like Age who has no beliefs except all his beliefs or her beliefs about most everyone else.

Make a list of ANY or ALL the BELIEFS, which you BELIEVE I have or hold. Then we, at least, have some thing to LOOK AT and DISCUSS.

Until then I do NOT have ANY BELIEFS AT ALL, except, of course, the ONE that I have mentioned before. And, which I rarely mention to FIND those who are ABLE TO RECOGNIZE and SEE where and when I, purposely, CONTRADICT "my" 'self'.

Oh, and by the way, NO one YET has NOTICED when I do. Or, if they have, then they have NOT YET brought it to light, so that we could then LOOK AT and discuss 'it'.

Language and communication are a bit more flexible than you believe.

ONCE AGAIN, I do NOT BELIEVE ANY thing here, regarding ANY of this.

It could be said you are NOT noticing what you are ASSUMING here.

Also, will you provide some examples of WHERE or WHEN language and communication is meant to be a bit more flexible than what you CLAIM "I believe"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

What are you AFRAID or SCARED OF, EXACTLY?

I do hope you come to notice all your own assumptions.

I would LOVE you to write down ALL of what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS. That way I could TRULY notice ALL of my OWN alleged ASSUMPTIONS.

See, what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, however, is that what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS may well be just your very OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS of what I have ACTUALLY SAID and WRITTEN, and so until you write down what you SEE are my ASSUMPTIONS, so that we can DISCUSS 'them', what you are SEEING and/or ASSUMING may well up just being completely and utterly False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway, from the beginning, understood?

Oh, and by the way, saying or writing, "Seriously, it's like dealing with bots." is a WARNING SIGN of just how much that one ASSUMES or BELIEVES that language and communication is NOT flexible.

Are you NOT YET OPEN to the Fact that it could be YOUR INTERPRETATION of what the "others" are MEANING, which is what is LEADING you to ASSUME that 'you' are, "Seriously, dealing with bots"?

Furthermore "iwannaplato", it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that language and communication among 'you', human beings, WAS VERY FLEXIBLE. This can be SEEN in just about EVERYWHERE in 'your' language and communication. And, which, by the way, is WHY there is SO MUCH CONFUSION, DISAGREEING, ARGUING, CONTRADICTION, BICKERING, and FIGHTING among 'you', human beings.

But SEE what 'you', human beings, are evolving UP TO is coming to FORMING thee GUTOE, and when this ARRIVES what WILL BE CLEARLY SEEN is that for language and communication to be FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN, then there can ONLY be One Truth, which is AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED by EVERY one.

Until then 'your' language and communication is absolutely FREE to be as absolutely FLEXIBLE as 'you' so wish and want it to be. 'you' are absolutely FREE to make 'your' language and communication ABSOLUTELY FLEXIBLE as you would like. BUT, do NOT be to surprised WHY 'you' are NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING 'each other' JUST YET.

[Age]

Are you still OPEN to the fact that homosexuality could be completely and utterly Wrong?

I am not commited to any particular view of homosexuality.

Okay GREAT.

A SIGN of the Truly WISE.

All I can say is that it does not violate my own sense of right and wrong, and although I can't see any reason for that to change, I cannot discount the possibility that it might, just as any other view I have might change.

This is THE BEAUTY of 'views', they are, literally, OPEN to CHANGE. Whereas, BELIEFS, on the other hand, are a VERY DIFFERENT thing.

Is there a BELIEF that you could reason with?

If yes, then what would that BELIEF be, EXACTLY?

A belief that does not have the authority of God behind it is more likely to be such a belief.

Will you provide ANY examples, so then we CAN LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'it/them'. Then, and ONLY THEN, 'my view', or 'your view', could CHANGE here.

Until then I do NOT know of ANY belief that either of us could REALLY 'reason' with.

See, to me, while one BELIEVES;
The earth is flat.
The sun revolves around the earth. Or,
The Universe began and/or is expanding, for example,

Then these ones are NOT OPEN to 'reason' with.

Oh, and by the way, NONE of these BELIEFS necessarily have to have absolutely ANY thing to do with some supposed 'authority of God', at all.

But if you really do know of A BELIEF, which you could really 'reason' with, then I, for one, would LOVE to SEE 'it'.

One of my biggest goals, here in this forum, is to learn how to OVERCOME people's BELIEFS, and if there is A WAY, then I am Truly SEEKING 'it' OUT. So, if you can help me in ANY way AT ALL I would REALLY LOVE to SEE and LEARN 'that way'.

If you really do KNOW how to 'reason' with people with BELIEFS, then will you PLEASE share that knowledge with me?

If i appear to be begging and pleading here, then this is because i AM begging and pleading with you here.

PLEASE HELP me.

[Age]

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

What reason is there to be frightened by such a "caricature" unless you have been taught to be frightened by it?

,
There is NO other reason to be frightened by 'caricatures', other than just because you have been taught to be frightened by them.

And what reason is there to teach children to be frightened by such things?

There is a reason WHY 'you', adult human beings, TEACH children to be frightened by 'caricatures'.

It is a throw-back to the 'older times' when to keep children 'close to the group/mob', the children would be 'frightened' into BELIEVING that there were 'nasty/scary things', 'out there'. This stopped children 'wandering off'.

Horror/scary movies/stories, in the days when this is being written, can still be very or more popular among certain age groups of the population.

Now, WHY there is still an influx of horror/scary movies/stories, in the days when this is being written, is because of the experience one was feeling, when they were being told that type of story. I could go into this in much more detail and elaboration if liked, which, by the way, further leads to FULLY UNDERSTANDING 'you', human beings, and thus how the Mind and the brain work, EXACTLY, as well.

But, ONLY if anyone is Truly INTERESTED.

[Age]

Probably not in the libraries that host frightening caricatures of women to entertain the children, in close physical contact.

What reason is there to be frightened by such a "caricature" unless you have been taught to be frightened by it? And what reason is there to teach children to be frightened by such things?

Children are naturally frightened of those creatures, but are taught to not be frightened.

So, if you dress up as a witch's caricature and stand in front of a new born, then they will be naturally scared, correct?

Or, if 'you', "walker", stand in front of a new born child, and it starts crying or screaming, then this is because it is just naturally frightened of those 'creatures' like 'you', correct?

That's why they're allowed to be up close and personal with the impressionable little children.

So, 'you', adults, make up scary and frightening 'caricatures' so as to then place them, up close and personal, to impressionable little children, so they will learn not to be frightened of what was intentionally made to be frightening, correct?

Seems VERY CONTRADICTORY and ABSURD to me, to say the least.

Also, and by the way, there may be far more Truth in what you said about ALL children being born 'naturally frightened', (of the UNKNOWN). Which would and does explain A LOT about 'your', adult human being, mis/behaviors.

There is A LOT that could be delved into and discussed here, in a much more detail and elaboration, also.

Again, if anyone would be Truly INTEREST in having 'a discussion' here.

[Age]

but nobody seems to be particularly alarmed.

Come on Harbal, pay attention. They have been taught to not be alarmed, which is the purpose of the reading, which is the purpose of close contact.

How does one stop their children getting into cars with adults that the children do not yet know, if those "strangers" are being taught not to be alarmed about?

Do 'you', adutls/parents, teach children to be frightened of 'creatures/strangers', or to be welcoming of 'creatures/strangers'?

Is the first reaction, in "american movies" anyway, when an unidentified flying object is about to, or does enter, earth's atmosphere is to get EVERY available weapon ready, and to, literally, BLAST them out of the sky, or to welcome them OPENLY?

Now, whatever one perceives what that group of people would tend to do, is this because they are born 'naturally frightened', or NOT 'naturally frightened', of the UNKNOWN, or because they have been TAUGHT to be frightened, or NOT frightened of, 'strangers/creatures'?

Again, if anyone is Truly INTERESTED we could delve MUCH DEEPER into ALL or ANY of this.

For example,

Are 'creatures' taught to be 'strange', and thus 'strange creatures' are taught to be VERY AFRAID and FRIGHTENED of? Or, as "walker" is saying/implying here that 'strange creatures' are TAUGHT to NOT to be alarmed about AT ALL?

Do 'you', adult human beings, have a dislike, disgust, fear of, hatred of 'things' 'different' because 'you' were once taught to be afraid or frightened of 'that', which is 'strange/different'.

Do 'you', adult human beings, (want to) HATE and KILL 'those' who are NOT 'us', and the more 'they' are 'of them' and NOT 'of us', then 'you' tend to DISLIKE and/or DISTRUST more?

Is what APPEARS to be 'strange' and feared or not liked because of TEACHING or more so of a NATURAL INSTINCT. And, WHY do some INVITE, WELCOME, and LIKE 'the (so-called) strange'?

[Age]

It's the appropriate humourous response to your deliberate obtuseness.

My obtuseness is natural, not deliberate, and your respose was childish, which is not appropriate coming from an adult.

On the contrary, highly appropriate for it is civilized, and it assumes you aren't as stupid as you sound when you don't recognize that the demonic looking creature is enough to frighten the children, so they must be acclimated, i.e., groomed to weirdness.

So, when the human being here known as "walker" stands in front of a child, and the child starts crying and/or screaming for its mommy, then that child needs to be 'acclimated' to the 'demonic looking creature', and to be 'groomed to weirdness' correct "walker"?

Or does this 'natural phenomena' NOT apply to 'you'?

However, I also realize that you had not seen the picture before you posted your question, since the postings were time-stamped one minute apart, and likely simultaneous.



That's what happens when you condition yourself to asking questions, Quckdraw McGraw.

[Age]

Probably not what? How does this relate to what I wrote?

Because the religious right tolerates crap like that picture, it's likely to tolerate the Bible, and not be offended by the Bible.

This is not to say the bible is crap, which would be a twisted interpretation.

It is to say that Christians are tolerate of even the stuff that happens in that picture, and the evidence is that it happens.

It is to say that Christians are tolerant and wise beyond the limitations you project.

Me? I think that demon-looking thing is a f***** freak.

Are you saying that absolutely EVERY one that was bearing a gun and/or declaring the banning of books would NOT declare 'themself" to be a "christian", nor of the "right"?

[Age]

Me? I think that demon-looking thing is a f***** freak.

It's only a guy in fancy dress; keep a sense of perspective, man.

So, IF 'it' is ONLY 'a guy in a fancy dress', then WHY does "walker" think or believe that children NEED to be 'acclimated' and/or 'groomed' to what "walker" previously called "weirdness", through 'close contact'?

Also, 'you', "walker", also think that, to you, that 'demon-looking thing' IS a "fucking freak" ANYWAY. So, again, WHY introduce children to what 'you' think IS a 'demon-looking thing' and "fucking freak"?

'you', "walker", have OBVIOUSLY NOT YET been 'acclimated' NOR 'groomed' to the Fact that 'it' is just a guy in an outfit.

What is a 'demon' to 'you", anyway walker?

And, why do you think or believe children should be 'acclimated' and 'groomed' to such a 'thing', which is a "fucking freak" and 'demon-looking', to you?

You appear to be completely and utterly CONTRADICTING "yourself" here, well to me anyway.

[Age]

Maybe the reason I am not frightened by him is because I'm not secretly attracted by him. I think you protest a little too much, as they say.

I think you ignore the fact that your deliberate obtuseness, spread in one-liners over many postings, requires many postings to answer when they are not simply ignored, and to this you attribute the label of protest, when actually it is just indulging your meandering trail over time.

The fact that you're attracted to that demon-creature says a lot, and in principle, it's why San Francisco literally smells like shit these days.

"literally"?

Could it be that BELIEF affects the senses, like 'smell', as well as 'intelligence'?

Too much tolerance of both weird, deliberate crap ... and the crap that just come out naturally.

"walker" is it, or is it not, a good thing to introduce children to what you call "weirdness"?

[Age]

Yet the parents are happy for their kids to be groomed to the weirdness of the Bible. I know which I find the most sinister ...

The demon is the most sinister, and the bible is not weird.

Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of how and when one's OWN BELIEFS, then affects the way they then SEE, as well as LOOK AT, 'things', from then on.

So, the bible IS BOTH weird, and not weird. If these writings were taken to be True.

Is it NOT the case that these two people's versions, INTERPRETATIONS, or 'truths' of the bible could just False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect versions, INTERPRETATIONS and so-called "truths". There would, after all, and could ONLY be just One Truth regarding 'this' here correct?