Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

news.bloombergtax.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 220 posts

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#181

Post by gi_jones »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #151
Tossrock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As ammending 1001.42 §8, Paragragh (c)3: "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." This seems to pretty straightforwardly say that schools can't talk about the existence of gay or transgender…

Heterosexuality and traditional male/female rolls are also sexual orientations and gender identities, are they not? You can’t logically ignore half the reality of a statement to claim victimhood.

That's partly the issue of concern, isn't it? Giving children the idea that if they don't fulfil a traditional male or female role, then they must be some alternative gender identity.

Many people don't agree with this stance, both from a conceptual point of view, and that in practice it may lead impressionable children to want to modify their bodies to fit some idea of gender identity they've had instilled.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#182

Post by [deleted] »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #169
rayiner wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality. But that's exactly the problem. Parents want to insulate their young children from discussions of "human sexuality." We…

>We have strong social conventions That isn't how the law is written. They could have, perhaps, actually written it that way but they didn't. I will leave it to the reader to infer their true intentions.

[deleted]

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#183

Post by rayiner »

InitialLastName wrote: post #145
rayiner wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Show me where the Florida law says anything about "families and relationships?" Young kids don't view parental relationships as inherently sexual, and therefore talking about different kinds of families doesn't require talking about sexuality. That is, in fact, pretty much the point of the law--to p…

> An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S. ... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner [0] This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationshi…

This is the relevant text:

> 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3…

I read this to prohibit discussion of sexual attraction with kids third grade and under. I don’t read this to prohibit incidental mention of someone’s same-sex spouse.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#184

Post by mikeryan »

leereeves wrote: post #178
mikeryan wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disney built a world class destination in the middle of, what is basically, a swamp. They built all the necessary infrastructure and paid for it by taxing themselves. In a lot of ways it put Orlando on the map and provided a huge boost to the surrounding economy. I'm not sure who was getting screwed there? It honestly seems like it was a win/win situation.

> I'm not sure who was getting screwed there? Here's one: normally corporate bond payments are federally taxable, but municipal bonds aren't. Everyone in the country is missing out on taxes on payments on that 2 billion dollar debt.

Yeah but that’s a chicken and egg problem. Those bonds wouldn’t exist without the current exemption.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#185

Post by rayiner »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #152
rayiner wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That's a very particular reading of a very particular poll. Contrast with a Gallup poll from more or less the same time frame: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" No: 58% Yes: 32% No opinion: 10% You can slice and dice the court of public opinion many different ways to demonstrate support for your…

Wait—who is “slicing and dicing” the polling here? The main political debate right now is over where to draw the line for elective abortions. Texas draws it at 8 weeks, Mississippi at 15, and Roe at 22-24.

Asking people a question framed in terms of weeks or trimesters produces a much more accurate reflection of the culture than asking them about a legal decision that most people have never read. Most people think that “overturning Roe” means “banning abortion nationwide.” Maybe you think that’s where Republicans are headed with this. I think it would be equally fair to say, given recent laws passed in New York and Colorado, that Democrats want legal abortion until the moment of birth (and after that if the abortion was unsuccessful).

But the actual legal issue in play right now are 8 weeks, 15 weeks, or 22-24 weeks. And public opinion is much closer to what republicans have enacted on those numbers than what Roe requires.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#186

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

rayiner wrote: post #185
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very particular reading of a very particular poll. Contrast with a Gallup poll from more or less the same time frame: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" No: 58% Yes: 32% No opinion: 10% You can slice and dice the court of public opinion many different ways to demonstrate support for your…

Wait—who is “slicing and dicing” the polling here? The main political debate right now is over where to draw the line for elective abortions. Texas draws it at 8 weeks, Mississippi at 15, and Roe at 22-24. Asking people a question framed in terms of weeks or trimesters produces a much more accurate reflection of the culture than asking them about a legal decision that most people have never read. Most people think th…

Your entire comment is slicing and dicing. Making claims about what is "a more accurate reflection of the culture" is slicing and dicing.

Just stand up for what you believe in. Stop trying to speak on behalf of "the culture" which is in most ways not accurately knowable, and even if it was, is of dubious significance. Most major shifts in societies (not all, but most) occur in opposition to "the culture".

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#187

Post by rayiner »

JaimeThompson wrote: post #102
mbg721 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. If the purpose of schools is to undo the instillment of parents' values (or lack of them), we should at least be honest about it. That's the assumption behind most debates of this type. If the purpose of schools is to teach specialized skills that most parents don't have, then we should cut the crap so that kids can learn them. If the purpose of schools is to…

>Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.

> Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings.

How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#188

Post by JaimeThompson »

rayiner wrote: post #187
JaimeThompson wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.

> Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.

The word sexuality has a specific meaning that is much broader than you are giving it credit for.

http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuali...

We are, after all, talking about a law and a legal system where definitions are somewhat important.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#189

Post by danaris »

ethbr0 wrote: post #20
danaris wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translation: "Disney, after massive protests from their own employees due to donating significantly to support the "Don't Say Gay" bill in Florida, donated some to the other side, and because of this, Florida's governor decided to pull out the nuclear option by committing to something he didn't even understand in hopes of hurting Disney." And you think this is...what, normal? The way things should be? That by daring…

Let's not clutch our pearls and act surprised. Florida politics has been a cesspool of graft, with a veneer of tan and teeth whitener, for decades.

I'm not trying to say that politics there aren't terrible.

I'm trying to say that, observing someone (whether human or corporation) fall afoul of that in such a very blatant way, and effectively saying, "Welp, you should've known not to criticize your overlords" helps to both normalize and perpetuate that kind of corruption and self-serving behavior.

Re: The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy Creek

#190

Post by jlmorton »

zmgsabst wrote: post #68
jlmorton wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher…

I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic. It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.

What educational materials are you referring to? In Florida, the responsibility for choosing educational materials, negotiating with publishers, etc, was at the school district level.

Schools need to adhere to the Common Core subject areas, but what materials they use in teaching that was up to the district.

Recently, Florida's state-level Department of Education has been restricting the textbooks that school districts can use, but this is more of a reject list, than an accept list.

Post reply on HN