More Cultural and Moral Decay

[Amulek]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

When the land was purchased from the federal government, one of the conditions required public access to that land

Reasonable public access - not unrestricted public access. Plenty of federal lands have access restrictions. I don't see how Y mountain is any different.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When the land was purchased from the federal government, one of the conditions required public access to that land

Under the bill, BYU would have to pay for an appraisal of the land and the price that results from that evaluation. The school would also have to guarantee public access to the mountain.

 

BYU nor the Provo police had grounds to arrest anyone 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not sure. Given that BYU is required by law to maintain public access, and the so called “trespassers” were just individuals with flashlights, the Provo PD may have just told BYU to go pound sand. 

Given the requirement for public access, what does a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given the requirement for public access, what does a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it could possible relate to a post about hikers with flash lights. 

[jkwilliams]

22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it could possible relate to a post about hikers with flash lights. 

Wait, you didn’t hear about the drag show for kids up on the Y? It must have been murder hiking up there in heels. 😂😂😂

Edited September 7, 2022 by jkwilliams

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Reasonable public access - not unrestricted public access. Plenty of federal lands have access restrictions. I don't see how Y mountain is any different.

 

We are not talking about the laws governing other pieces of federal property.  We ARE talking about Y mountain. It is required by law to have public access  Not sure how much cleared that can be. 

I would love to hear BYU make the court case that people carrying flashlights at night was unreasonable access

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

We are not talking about the laws governing other pieces of federal property.  We ARE talking about Y mountain. It is required by law to have public access  Not sure how much cleared that can be. 

Are there any groups you would not approve to demonstrate or celebrate on Y Mount?

Edited September 7, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it could possible relate to a post about hikers with flash lights. 

33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Wait, you didn’t hear about the drag show for kids up on the Y? It must have been murder hiking up there in heels. 😂😂😂

It's a hypothetical / possible opportunity -- if DEI celebrants and activists took advantage of public access to the Y, which you feel the arrangement allows, and which BYU should follow, what would a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement. The post about hikers with flashlights relates directly to any who might wish to access the Y for DEI-related protest, activism, celebration and entertainment in the name of these (or vice versa), etc. If you'd rather stick to the mechanics of navigating the slope, I understand, but thought my question was more germane to the last 17 pages or so.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

It's a hypothetical / possible opportunity -- if DEI celebrants and activists took advantage of public access to the Y, which you feel the arrangement allows, and which BYU should follow, what would a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement. The post about hikers with flashlights relates directly to any who might wish to access the Y for DEI-related protest, activism, celebration and entertainment in the name of these (or vice versa), etc. If you'd rather stick to the mechanics of navigating the slope, I understand, but thought my question was more germane to the last 17 pages or so.

I was making a silly joke. I haven’t said one word about access to the Y.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is required by law to have public access  Not sure how much cleared that can be. 

Go look up the actual law. The conveyance requires that BYU, "continue to allow the same reasonable public access [...] as of the date of the enactment of this Act that Brigham Young University has historically allowed."

Same reasonable public access as has been historically allowed. Not unrestricted public access. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be.

 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I would love to hear BYU make the court case that people carrying flashlights at night was unreasonable access

Has BYU historically allowed unrestricted access to the Y? Has BYU historically allowed protests or other demonstrations not supported by the university to take place at the Y?

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Amulek

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I was making a silly joke. I haven’t said one word about access to the Y.

The joke (three cry-with-laughter emojis, no less! good one!) was about physical access in drag, relating to the conversation about legal access for the purposes indicated, no? Here's someone asking your opinion germane to the joke, but if you'd rather deflect, fine.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The joke (three cry-with-laughter emojis, no less! good one!) was about physical access in drag, relating to the conversation about legal access for the purposes indicated, no? Here's someone asking your opinion germane to the joke, but if you'd rather deflect, fine.

That’s just it: I don’t have an opinion about access to the Y. When I lived in Provo, I don’t recall any restrictions regarding who could hike the Y. I used to do it all the time. If someone in drag hikes up there, more power to them.

Again I wonder why I came back here. I guess I’ve worked through my feelings toward the church, and there’s not really any reason to talk about it other than the occasional odd stuff I hear in sacrament meeting. 

[Tacenda]

Here's a history of the "Y". And a c/p of the last portion of it.  https://www.provo-utah.us/the-y-hike.html

Brigham Young University has become the sole owner of its signature landmark — and all it took was $180,000, four years and an act of Congress. With Y Mountain now the exclusive property of the private Provo school, students, alumni and outdoors enthusiasts are celebrating. The transfer of  land-ownership from the U.S. Forest Service to BYU improves safety on the steep one-mile path that leads to the block letter. The additional 80 acres surrounding the top two-thirds of the letter cost $180,000, according to Utah County records of the transfer dated February 16th.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Tacenda

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Go look up the actual law. The conveyance requires that BYU, "continue to allow the same reasonable public access [...] as of the date of the enactment of this Act that Brigham Young University has historically allowed."

Same reasonable public access as has been historically allowed. Not unrestricted public access. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be.

 

Has BYU historically allowed unrestricted access to the Y? Has BYU historically allowed protests or other demonstrations not supported by the university to take place at the Y?

 

Historically yes.  BYU students have always been able to climb up to the Y.  I used to climb up there regularly with friends when I went there.  My parents did as well.  No permits or special approval was ever required.  
Never been an issue until a bunch of LGBT advocates decided to bring colored lights to show support for LGBT students and thought up the most peaceful way of doing that I can imagine 

 

what I would really like to understand is why does it matter to you or BYU   Honestly the bigger issue BUU makes of this peaceful protest the more anti LGBT they look.  At some point other schools are not going to want to have anything to do with BYU.  They are bringing this animosity themselves over literally nothing of importance. 

Edited September 8, 2022 by california boy

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are there any groups you would not approve to demonstrate or celebrate on Y Mount?

No. As long as it was peaceful. Are there groups you would prohibit from shining flashlights?  Especially given the legal agreement on  the land that was purchased 

[Bernard Gui]

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

No. As long as it was peaceful. Are there groups you would prohibit from shining flashlights?  Especially given the legal agreement on  the land that was purchased 

Of course not. Unless they were a bunch of drug dealers signaling their suppliers.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

No. As long as it was peaceful. Are there groups you would prohibit from shining flashlights?  Especially given the legal agreement on  the land that was purchased 

If it is a bunch of Nazis they need some extrajudicial punching.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s just it: I don’t have an opinion about access to the Y. When I lived in Provo, I don’t recall any restrictions regarding who could hike the Y. I used to do it all the time. If someone in drag hikes up there, more power to them.

Again I wonder why I came back here. I guess I’ve worked through my feelings toward the church, and there’s not really any reason to talk about it other than the occasional odd stuff I hear in sacrament meeting. 

But my question isn't about the Church or access to the Y, but your opinion about DEI celebrants and activists taking advantage of public access, if/when/as permitted, to the Y, what would a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement. Not the Church or the legal aspects of the access laws/rules/regulations/agreements.

[CV75]

What is the connection between access to the Y and the topic of the OP, if not the ramifications of a drag DEI celebration for children being held there?

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

BYU students have always been able to climb up to the Y.  I used to climb up there regularly with friends when I went there.  My parents did as well.  No permits or special approval was ever required.  

You can walk around federal property in Washington, D.C. without needing a permit or special approval as well - same with tons of federal parks - but that doesn't mean you can have an organized demonstration or protest anywhere or anytime you like.

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Never been an issue until a bunch of LGBT advocates decided to bring colored lights to show support for LGBT students and thought up the most peaceful way of doing that I can imagine 

So what? Lots of things weren't issues...until someone devises a clever way to subvert the system and makes that something into an issue.

I remember back when taking pocketknives on airplanes had "never been an issue;" well, that is until a few guys decided to bring box cutters that one time.

For additional examples of things that have "never been an issue," please see just about every employee handbook in corporate America (or even the missionary handbook for that matter).

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

what I would really like to understand is why does it matter to you or BYU  

It matters to me because I believe BYU has a property-based right to put their own message on the Y or to have none at all if that is what they desire. And the protesters are interfering with that right.

Let's say, for example, that instead of the Y we were talking about a private, San Fransisco based company which manufactures rainbow flags for use at gay pride events.

A small group of miscreants from the Westboro Baptist church then shows up and gathers along the public sidewalk in front of the building for a peaceful protest. However, rather than holding up placards or signs they instead use a laser projector to beam a message onto the side of the building which faces the street; the message covering the entire facade reads "God hates flags!"

If that were to happen, would you be here defending their use of "colored lights" and praising it as being one of the most peaceful ways of protesting you can imagine?

Personally, I would be standing up for the property owners and their right to control the messages being displayed on their own property, just like I am doing for BYU.

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Honestly the bigger issue BUU makes of this peaceful protest the more anti LGBT they look.  

Meh. I don't think BYU has an obligation to allow people to use it's property to convey any message it doesn't want to send.

If students from the University of Utah decided to light the Y red, I would be fine with BYU putting a stop to that as well. And such behavior would have nothing to do with hating the Utes - justifiable as that may be.

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

At some point other schools are not going to want to have anything to do with BYU.  

Doubtful. The god of collegiate sports is the all-mighty dollar, and so long as BYU has an active, loyal fan base (read: market) that won't be left untapped.

Sure, you may get individual schools here and there who try to protest or boycott, but I don't think it will ever be a widespread thing.

 

12 hours ago, california boy said:

They are bringing this animosity themselves over literally nothing of importance. 

If it's really nothing of importance then why does it bother you that BYU is doing anything to stop it? I think we all know the answer to that though.

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Amulek

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the connection between access to the Y and the topic of the OP, if not the ramifications of a drag DEI celebration for children being held there?

No connection. It's a side conversation / derail. Feel free to ignore.

 

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But my question isn't about the Church or access to the Y, but your opinion about DEI celebrants and activists taking advantage of public access, if/when/as permitted, to the Y, what would a “Drag Celebration for Kids on the Y” mean for children? I’m thinking in terms of their exposure to sexual culture and activism via overtly and exaggeratedly sexualized personae of all genders providing entertainment under parental supervision and encouragement. Not the Church or the legal aspects of the access laws/rules/regulations/agreements.

I will just repeat what I've said before: drag does not necessarily involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae as far as I can see. I didn't attend the event in Provo (being more than 1600 miles away), so I can't really comment on it other than that active church members I know who attended said they did not believe it was inappropriate for their children. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I will just repeat what I've said before: drag does not necessarily involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae as far as I can see. I didn't attend the event in Provo (being more than 1600 miles away), so I can't really comment on it other than that active church members I know who attended said they did not believe it was inappropriate for their children. 

But I am talking about the type of drag which does "involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae" -- the kind typically performed in DEI events, including story time for kids and family-friendly events. I am also not talking about the recent event in Provo, or your friends, but asking your opinion on the ramifications of exposing children to sexual culture and activism through celebrations that "involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae" for the main entertainment.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

But I am talking about the type of drag which does "involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae" -- the kind typically performed in DEI events, including story time for kids and family-friendly events. I am also not talking about the recent event in Provo, or your friends, but asking your opinion on the ramifications of exposing children to sexual culture and activism through celebrations that "involve exaggeratedly sexualized personae" for the main entertainment.

It's pretty simple to me: something that involves exaggerated sexualized personae is inappropriate for kids. I don't see that all drag does that.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's pretty simple to me: something that involves exaggerated sexualized personae is inappropriate for kids. I don't see that all drag does that.

And I was asking about the kind of drag that does.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And I was asking about the kind of drag that does.

So, your question is whether I think drag that is inappropriate for children is inappropriate for children? I really don't know what you're asking.