Skip to main content

Parents' Rights legislation: one argument

 


I recently encountered a tweet that said, "teachers should be able to tell a child simply, 'that's something you should discuss with your parents.'" This was intended to defend Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill.

But ... seriously? Imagine a child (of any age) who brings a question about sex/gender orientation to a teacher. Isn't it a good guess that he (I'll say 'he' for convenience) has in fact tried to discuss it at home already and has been shut down there?  

He's likely been treated to some version of "So long as you're under MY roof, Mister, you will not say such things ever again." 

Or maybe, "You'll understand when you're older." 

A teacher is not a confused child's first resort in such matters. Anyone who thinks he is going to benefit from "that's something you should discuss with your parents" is living in a fantasy world a lot stranger than the one DeSantis wants to punish with a loss of municipal self-governance. 



Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltApril 28, 2022 at 4:16 PM

    Ordinarily, I would not get into these matters. But these are extraordinary times---and I thought I had seen and heard it all. I'll give certain credence to the notion of age-appropriateness. That idea is, was, and will be appropriate and justified. But radical conservatism, the sort of blinders-on stance taken by people such as his honor, the governor, is an Orwellian notion of wrong-headedness that makes no sense in the 21st century, flies in the face of free speech and expression, and ought to be unlawful, on the fundamental bases of the Constitution and it's adjuncts. Have I said enough? I think so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul D. Van PeltApril 28, 2022 at 4:27 PM

    Sorry. I almost forgot. Where did I get the term, radical conservatism? It just came to me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti
9 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more