You're projecting your shadow and misrepresenting reality.
No, I am not imposing my morals anywhere, although that's what the ALA does
No, you are not imposing your self-righteous lunacy on others, you are merely attempting to seduce them into taking your para-schizophrenic world view onto themselves. The ALA, on the other hand, is, generally, encouraging people to hold onto the authority over and responsibility for themselves that they already have.
I am not telling people what to do.
Only, I'm sure, because you have no legal authority to do so. I have no doubt whatsoever that you would take great joy in usurping the authority free persons have over themselves if you thought for two seconds that you could get away with it. However, the statement is factual as it stands, because what you are doing, in reality, is simply screaming hysterically against the underlying foundation of freedom and liberty.
Hyphens are not letters, they are punctuation. And if you are not emotionally mature enough to write a word out because you are embarrassed by it, then you are not emotionally mature enough to be let out on your own.
That aside, however, it is not the ALA, writers, publishers or booksellers, or any country's supreme court that is sexualizing children, it is people like you. It is people like yourself that see them as sexual objects as much as preferential child molesters do.
children are being s-x-alized by the ALA, in my opinion,
Can you define the term "sexualized"? Do you actually know what it means? You certainly don't appear to.
. . . I am not infuriated, and instead it works to my advantage to point out that your ad hominem attacks, even if true, are irrelevant to the underlying issues.
Another half-truth. Even though this statement is correct, you are merely playing the wounded innocent. You are misrepresenting the full truth in an effort to direct attention away from the issues. This is not to your advantage, because most of the readers of this site can see for themselves that you doing that, and they are not fooled by it.
The rest of your bleating posturing is just more of the same, so I'm not going to bother with it. Instead, I'm going to demand that you define your terms. For instance, when you talk about children not being safe in public libraries, how do you define a child so as to differentiate him or her from one who is not a child, and what do you mean by "safe". Do you mean safe from criminal harm, safe from physical harm, or safe from ideas -- particularly to ideas that you do not agree with and do not want disseminated?
What objective criteria do you have by which something can be determined to actually be offensive instead merely offending your hypersensitivities?
Why do you reject and repudiate all those Supreme Court rulings that uphold the principles of personal freedom and liberty, cherry-picking instead only those that can be subverted to censor materials by which you are embarrassed?
(Due to technical difficulties I cannot post this to the Comments section of the Johnston County Libraries story.)