Not The Onion

16108 readers

2090 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

926

Author of Texas bill to ban 'furries' in schools cannot come up with examples of it happening (web.archive.org)

submitted 3 days ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

106 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A Texas bill, known as the FURRIES Act, would ban non-human behaviors in public schools, including the use of litter boxes and wearing animal accessories.

Rep. Stan Gerdes, the bill's author, claimed schools were providing litter boxes for students acting as "furries."

When pressed, Gerdes could not find an example. The bill was left pending in committee.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is the attitude I'm talking about. "Poor people are punks, who will walk up behind you with a .38spl. Guns should be more expensive to keep those filthy poors from getting them."

Centrist, corporatist, elitist crap.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Most punks I know aren't poor, they're just punks. They come from poor, middle class, and rich parents in pretty much equal proportion.

Your attitude is showing in your assumptions.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

That wasn't an assumption. That was your own words:

the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.

Your argument doesn't apply to middle class and rich "punks". They'll still be able to afford their guns. Your "real problem with gun ownership" argument only applies to the poor.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Again: guns are an equal access opportunity for all social classes.

For less than a couple hours' minimum wage anyone can purchase lethal force in a convenient pocket carry size.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Again: guns are an equal access opportunity for all social classes.

Yes, you've said that. You've declared that to be the problem. I quoted you saying that:

the real problem with gun ownership is that guns are so cheap basically anybody can get one if it is the least bit important to them.

Solving "the real problem" as you described makes it no longer "equal access opportunity for all social classes". Solving "the real problem" denies that access to those dirty poors, without substantially affecting the middle class and the rich.

Your "real problem" argument only applies to the poor. I've given you every opportunity to back away from that, but you've doubled down on it twice now. I can only take you at your word that you have a problem with those dirty poors.

For less than a couple hours' minimum wage

Not sure if hyperbole or ignorance. I'll charitably assume the former.