Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on June 13, 2006, 10:56:42 PM
-
Anyone seen this kinda stuff at their child's school?
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2006/june/0613_libraries1.shtml
Not sure children need this much education at such an early age?
-
Most likely children at that age would just say "Ewwwee!! Grosss!" and check out another book. Not going to change their sexuality or their behavior. Slippery slope to ban things, whether it be guns, abortion, books, what's next? Rather our government didn't decide what is best for us. We'll survive just fine.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Most likely children at that age would just say "Ewwwee!! Grosss!" and check out another book. Not going to change their sexuality or their behavior. Slippery slope to ban things, whether it be guns, abortion, books, what's next? Rather our government didn't decide what is best for us. We'll survive just fine.
Did you read the article? The ages go from quite young up to highschool.
No REQUEST was made to BAN anything according to the article.
A request was made by concerned PARENTS, NOT the Government, to place the books in question in the parental overview section. In other words if the student wanted the book the parent could OK or not.
Perhaps reading an article before commenting is worth doing some times?
-
BURN THE LIBRARIES! We don't need these vendors of SMUT to be dragging our children down to their level. Sex on TV, Hollywood race mixing, satanic rock music, mighty mouse promoting drugs, we must BAN EVERYTHING. We have no power, we must allow our government to BAN EVERYTHING. So send off your checks to Pat Robertson, because unless you spread the word, America will turn into a nation of Blasphemy. Blacklist all the books, remove all the records with tipper stickers, because if you don't, we will ruin you.
Seriously, it would be surprising to me if your 3rd grader didn't know that a woman caused him to become suddenly more aware. It would surprise me if your 3rd grader wasn't calling some other kid the more explicit form of homosexual. Where did they learn those words at? The first graders today will be learning calculus their freshmen year. Your kids are growing up faster then you think, they are exposed then more then you think. Shelter them or put them in a religious school. Perhaps then you can teach them what sex is when you are ready.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Did you read the article? The ages go from quite young up to highschool.
No REQUEST was made to BAN anything according to the article.
A request was made by concerned PARENTS, NOT the Government, to place the books in question in the parental overview section. In other words if the student wanted the book the parent could OK or not.
Perhaps reading an article before commenting is worth doing some times?
I did.
"snip~ thereby allowing parents to exercise their God-given (and constitutionally protected) rights to oversee the moral upbringing of their children."
On the surface it looks innocent enough, but who decides what's "offensive" and what's not?
Putting books on the restrictive shelf is a ban on those books. The effect of restricting books might not have the results some of the parents are looking for. Now the kid's will want to check out those books if nothing more than they're restricted.
Once those parents find kids "reading" those restricted books, they'll push for removal.
It's a slippery slope.
I think it's much ado about nothing.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
who decides what's "offensive" and what's not?
My guess... parents?
-
"Just keep asking yourself: 'What would Jesus not do?'"
*giggles*
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I did.
"snip~ thereby allowing parents to exercise their God-given (and constitutionally protected) rights to oversee the moral upbringing of their children."
On the surface it looks innocent enough, but who decides what's "offensive" and what's not?
Putting books on the restrictive shelf is a ban on those books. The effect of restricting books might not have the results some of the parents are looking for. Now the kid's will want to check out those books if nothing more than they're restricted.
Once those parents find kids "reading" those restricted books, they'll push for removal.
It's a slippery slope.
I think it's much ado about nothing.
So you are for FORCING views on the children of others?
I get real tired of people telling others how. This is NOT freedom to me. Telling someone anyone the manner in which they shall bring up their children is NOT freedom.
Do it for their own good? OK it's good for you to have sex with someone that has AIDS so you will do it?
The parent is held accountable for the actions of the child. But the parent MUST raise their children your way?
I don't think that is fair or RIGHT! To the parent or for that matter to the children.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My guess... parents?
How many parents? What books specifically? What ages are we talking about?
-
Originally posted by wrag
So you are for FORCING views on the children of others?
I get real tired of people telling others how. This is NOT freedom to me. Telling someone anyone the manner in which they shall bring up their children is NOT freedom.
Do it for their own good? OK it's good for you to have sex with someone that has AIDS so you will do it?
The parent is held accountable for the actions of the child. But the parent MUST raise their children your way?
I don't think that is fair or RIGHT! To the parent or for that matter to the children.
Actually the irony is kind of funny.
We have a group basically telling other's how to rear their kids.
Everyone should raise their own kids, not other's.
You tell your own kids what books are okay and what isn't.
As to having sex with someone with AIDS....where is this coming from...really wierd.
Sure every parent must be held accountable for their child, not others.
What you're supporting is the censorship of some books that you have a problem with, that other parents might not.
I speak from experience of seeing literary classics such as 'Raisin In The Sun' and some others being banned from some schools because of a minority of parents' objection to a few sentences.
Kids are smarter and tougher than you're giving them credit for. You want to insulate them from the real world? Isn't going to happen no matter how many things you ban via books, tv, movies.
-
Its okay...they just need to get some good old violence in there to replace those evil immoral sex books.
-
public schools is all about forcing one viewpoint and banning some things while not others. It is also about indoctrinization and propoganda.
This is fine as private schools would be similar but... there is a difference... Parents and taxpayers are not given choices. Vouchers would allow parents to have more of a say in what material was allowed.
A private school may have the NRA firearms instructors in for instance to teach children firearms safety with their excellent programs.. this is impossible in political motivated socialist public schools.
A private school may not want to use the new textbooks that are being considered that stress the importance of gays in history...
A private school would simply expel or holdback troublesome or slow students... A private school could teach and test only in english.
The public schools would be free to sell their brand of snake oil in the same manner they do now, complete with abysmal test scores.. or.... they could compete.
Sorta like breaking up ma bell. It needs to be done.
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
So you are for FORCING views on the children of others?
I get real tired of people telling others how. This is NOT freedom to me. Telling someone anyone the manner in which they shall bring up their children is NOT freedom.
Do it for their own good? OK it's good for you to have sex with someone that has AIDS so you will do it?
The parent is held accountable for the actions of the child. But the parent MUST raise their children your way?
I don't think that is fair or RIGHT! To the parent or for that matter to the children.
He never said or even remotely hinted at forcing views upon others' children. He just stated that relocating these books might not have the intended effects.
When these books remain in their current section noone forces anyone else to read these books, the other way around is far more intrusive, by relocating these books one makes them inaccessible to others, i.e. it is forced upon them.
Wonderful AIDS comparison though. And I love how you play around with those CAPS, it makes your post so much more powerful and telling.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A private school may have the NRA firearms instructors in for instance to teach children firearms safety with their excellent programs.. this is impossible in political motivated socialist public schools.
:rofl
You just need to add something about hotrods now lazs.
-
Yep... auto shop. Private schools could cater to kids who might not want to be accountants ar graphic artists or even continue higher education.
Truth is... we will allways need machinists and mechanics and construction workers.
Self centered Public schools have been ignoring this fact for decades.
lazs
-
That book only has cartoon images in it.
My mom had gotten it for my brothers..
It's rather mild.
-
Nevermind the books.
Link (http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=23446&sid=52623&bw=hi&cat=2)
-
Yep... auto shop. Private schools could cater to kids who might not want to be accountants ar graphic artists or even continue higher education.
Gotta disagree here, lazs...
I went through a lot of trouble to get my son the best public education I could find. I haven't the money for private.
What used to be our county Vo-Tech high school has, over the last three years, entirely rebuilt itself into a multi-disciplinary, multi-curricula advanced placement and magnet high school. High school kids select their 'major' as freshmen, must apply, interview and be selected to attend, and are generally introduced to the dynamics and responsibilities they'll face as college students.
They offer Automotive Sciences, Visual & Performing Arts, Hospitality Management, Networking and Information Systems, Digital Design and Production, and are expanding with a couplea-three new fields next year. All with the same core subject grounding across the board. Very, very strong stuff for a public high school.
I'm not saying your wrong about the need for improved public schooling...there are definitely not enough places like this, but there are some shining examples of public schools gone right.
I think public schools will advance by untold leaps in quality and performance, as soon as unionized teachers are prepared to prove competency and expertise in their field. Regular and decisive competency testing, accountability...all those things the rest of us deal with daily.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Actually the irony is kind of funny.
We have a group basically telling other's how to rear their kids.
Everyone should raise their own kids, not other's.
You tell your own kids what books are okay and what isn't.
As to having sex with someone with AIDS....where is this coming from...really wierd.
Sure every parent must be held accountable for their child, not others.
What you're supporting is the censorship of some books that you have a problem with, that other parents might not.
I speak from experience of seeing literary classics such as 'Raisin In The Sun' and some others being banned from some schools because of a minority of parents' objection to a few sentences.
Kids are smarter and tougher than you're giving them credit for. You want to insulate them from the real world? Isn't going to happen no matter how many things you ban via books, tv, movies.
The way this is working, if I read the report correctly, is the school is allowing the child access to the books.
So the parent telling the child what book is OK and what isn't has very little or even no affect.
I don't see it as censorship so much as control of WHEN and HOW a child is introduced to some things.
You see irony here and think it's funny? How interesting. So you are saying leave the books out? To place them anywhere else is banning them?
I see something much different.
Insulate them from the real world? Most people are already there. Few actually truely understand the REAL world. Most when they come close to understanding the REAL world start coming up with avoidance tactics in their mind. Like the famous "it won't happen to me", or "it can't happen here", "that happens to other people", "this court order will protect me", "the people will never let that happen", "the police will protect me", that list is a long one.
Ya the child will learn it. The child needs that information in order to proceed through life safely and hopefully with some happiness.
Again the books are not banned.
What is happening is parents are trying to control access to certain information for their children. Should a parent wish it so, their child will be granted access to these books.
Kids are smarter and tougher then I think? That may be correct. Then again exposing someone to something they are not ready for can cause considerable problems for them down the road. Some children are NOT ready but leaving those books out for a curious mind can cause some harm.
Isn't it scientifically proven that children develope both mentally and physicaly at different speeds?
By Thud
"Wonderful AIDS comparison though. And I love how you play around with those CAPS, it makes your post so much more powerful and telling. "
OK, glad you like it.
BTW You actually believe this???
by SaburoS
"Most likely children at that age would just say "Ewwwee!! Grosss!" and check out another book. Not going to change their sexuality or their behavior. Slippery slope to ban things, whether it be guns, abortion, books, what's next? Rather our government didn't decide what is best for us. We'll survive just fine."
Huh? Most children I know are curious. They'll look. They wanna know things. Expose them at a young enough age and YES it will alter their behavior. As the twig is bent so grows the tree. BTW there is Scientific evidence to prove this. It is also part of the argument used by the NEA for putting certain teaching practices into place.
Where do you keep coming up with BAN???
You wanna read any of those books who is gonna prevent you?
-
Liberals seem to have no problem forcing their values on others. Let there be even the slightest perception of role reversal though and they scream like stuck pigs. Why isn't the ACLU helping these parents preserve their parental influence and authority? :rolleyes:
-
Lukster, help me out: Which specific civil liberties are the ones that say one parent can restrict another parent's child from reading something? I'm flipping through my bill of rights here and just not seeing it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, help me out: Which specific civil liberties are the ones that say one parent can restrict another parent's child from reading something? I'm flipping through my bill of rights here and just not seeing it.
The liberty of the parent to control what their child reads is what is being restricted. Liberals apparently have decided that they know what is best for everyone and that prudish or religous people should have no say in the values instilled in their kids.
-
When our government approves school vouchers this whole argument goes away. Until then, it's my money, my child, and the school's damn well better teach them what I want.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The liberty of the parent to control what their child reads is what is being restricted. Liberals apparently have decided that they know what is best for everyone and that prudish or religous people should have no say in the values instilled in their kids.
That's some convenient reasoning you've got there.
If there are any people who feel that their children should not be exposed to a certain medium, it should be restricted immediately?
Hell, if that view is adopted nothing would ever be available to children anymore...
(http://www.panos.org.uk/images/features/dotingfathers.jpg)
Again the forcing upon others is perpetrated by those restricting, not those allowing...
-
Originally posted by Thud
That's some convenient reasoning you've got there.
If there are any people who feel that their children should not be exposed to a certain medium, it should be restricted immediately?
Hell, if that view is adopted nothing would ever be available to children anymore...
(http://www.panos.org.uk/images/features/dotingfathers.jpg)
Again the forcing upon others is perpetrated by those restricting, not those allowing...
All these parents are asking is that the sexually explicit books be placed in an area that requires parental consent for access. Why would anyone without an agenda have a problem with this? It's not like they're demanding that prayer be banned in school or anything like it.
There are many people who believe that sexual taboos are religious nonsense and would very much like for society to share their values. These are the people that would force their values on the children of others. These people have no respect for the parental authority of others that don't share their values.
-
Lukster, with respect, since the group you support is the one that's trying to restrict access to these books, wouldn't _they_ be the ones pushing the agenda?
BTW, lukster, are you a parent? I ask because I am, and I'm curious about the origin of your viewpoint.
-
if you've raised your children well, then you don't need to be afraid of a book.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, with respect, since the group you support is the one that's trying to restrict access to these books, wouldn't _they_ be the ones pushing the agenda?
BTW, lukster, are you a parent? I ask because I am, and I'm curious about the origin of your viewpoint.
These parents discovered that there are books in their childrens school library that they consider inappropriate for their children. What's the difference between asking that they be given control over whether their own kids have access to them and asking that they have control over whether their kids see R and X rated movies?
I raised 2 boys and 2 girls and now have 8 grandkids. While I no longer have any school age children (youngest is in college) I still pay taxes which operate public schools and will always support a parent's right to instill their own values in their offspring.
-
Originally posted by Furious
if you've raised your children well, then you don't need to be afraid of a book.
Part of raising your children well is controlling what movies they see and what books they read.
The only people that want the state to have control over their kid's minds are the one's whose agenda is currently being espoused by the state. They better beware, the state may not always represent their interests.
-
Originally posted by lukster
There are many people who believe that sexual taboos are religious nonsense and would very much like for society to share their values. These are the people that would force their values on the children of others. These people have no respect for the parental authority of others that don't share their values.
I don't have the slightest intention to force my view upon those of other opinion, I merely advocate keeping those books there. Forcing the contents upon others is not a motive or consideration in the matter.
-
Originally posted by Thud
I don't have the slightest intention to force my view upon those of other opinion, I merely advocate keeping those books there. Forcing the contents upon others is not a motive or consideration in the matter.
We aren't talking about adults, if we were I would be in complete agreement.
I find the argument that morals and values should be taught only at home to be dishonest or ignorant, invalid at best. Kids never stop learning and are influenced by everything they see and hear. They need to be guided and protected all of the time. Parents should be the ultimate authority in this respect. The school should not be at odds with the parents. Every children's library should have a parental approval section. How hard would it be to establish guidelines for book placement? Like I said, they do it with movies, why should books be any different?
-
goomba... sorry...gotta disagree with you.
While I am glad that you were able to work it so that the public school your kids attended was a good one...
Most are not so fortunate. They have no choice whatsoever. If there were vouchers and everyone could choose then there would be many schools to choose from... You might still feel that the public school you managed to get your kids into is the best bet.... you would be welcome to stay. even so... competion would only make your school more "responsive" eh?
The family that lives half a mile away from you might not like the sleazy school infested with illegals that their kids have to attend tho. They could take their vocher money and give their kids (and American taxpayers) a choice that would increase their chances to learn.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
:rofl
You just need to add something about hotrods now lazs.
Actually, our high school mechanic's shop class built a hot rod each year. It was a class project. The body shop class would do the body and paint work.
EDIT: Vouchers. It is one thing you and I will never agree on Lazs. You say it allows you to put your kid in another school with a potentially better demographic. Well, it also allows all those other kids you are trying to get your kid away from to there as well.
There are solutions to public school problems, but they will never be tried nor done.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, help me out: Which specific civil liberties are the ones that say one parent can restrict another parent's child from reading something? I'm flipping through my bill of rights here and just not seeing it.
Chairboy help me out here: where exactly do you see one parent restricting any other parents right here?????? If the book is placed in the parental control section THEN A PARENT CAN ALLOW THEIR CHILD access to the books.
-
Originally posted by Thud
That's some convenient reasoning you've got there.
If there are any people who feel that their children should not be exposed to a certain medium, it should be restricted immediately?
Hell, if that view is adopted nothing would ever be available to children anymore...
Again the forcing upon others is perpetrated by those restricting, not those allowing...
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
Please someone save this! Save it for the next liberal attempt to.... let's restrict something for their own good ..... thing that comes along!
-
Originally posted by lukster
We aren't talking about adults, if we were I would be in complete agreement.
I find the argument that morals and values should be taught only at home to be dishonest or ignorant, invalid at best. Kids never stop learning and are influenced by everything they see and hear. They need to be guided and protected all of the time. Parents should be the ultimate authority in this respect. The school should not be at odds with the parents. Every children's library should have a parental approval section. How hard would it be to establish guidelines for book placement? Like I said, they do it with movies, why should books be any different?
Did you even read the article? At first it begins talking about books in a high school library --these are young adults--not six year olds--and then goes on to say that a method of tracking books the kids read is needed.
Frankly if by high school you have not established solid morals and values within your children then I submit you have failed horribly as a parent.
Parenting and active involvement in child raising is what is needed here, NOT censorship under the guise of "oh my God the children!"
Chairboy help me out here: where exactly do you see one parent restricting any other parents right here?????? If the book is placed in the parental control section THEN A PARENT CAN ALLOW THEIR CHILD access to the books.
Might want to read the article you posted, champ:
"A federal judge in Fayettteville has recently ruled in a similar case that restricting access of library books only to students who have obtained parental permission infringes upon the First Amendment rights of the students."
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Lukster, with respect, since the group you support is the one that's trying to restrict access to these books, wouldn't _they_ be the ones pushing the agenda?
BTW, lukster, are you a parent? I ask because I am, and I'm curious about the origin of your viewpoint.
I see something here. Trying to aim it at the parents that want control over their children.
So are you then anit-parental control over what sexual material will be shown to the children of all other parents here Chairboy?
Waiting for the classic dem-lib claim of others being "mean spirited" here.
-
Allllllllrightyyyy then!
Soooosss...... When are the majority of parents actually going to raise their own childen then? :huh
The little beasties I keep seeing running the streets at all hours seem to be raised by wolves.
Then there are all those parents using the VCR/DVD/Internet as a babysitter, or in some cases an au pair. And those folks with little round hypertensive beach balls that are bribed to be good with candy oh so often.
Yet another theoretical argument that falls short in the face of reality..... like defending marriage as being sacrosanct.... how can in institution that fails more than half the time be argued thus? Maddness...utter maddness.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Thud
I don't have the slightest intention to force my view upon those of other opinion, I merely advocate keeping those books there. Forcing the contents upon others is not a motive or consideration in the matter.
The books are there. The books can, with parental permission, still be accessed. So.......................
-
Originally posted by wrag
The books are there. The books can, with parental permission, still be accessed. So.......................
I guess you missed it: What you are proposing has been ruled to be against the First Amendment by a Federal judge.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Did you even read the article? At first it begins talking about books in a high school library --these are young adults--not six year olds--and then goes on to say that a method of tracking books the kids read is needed.
Frankly if by high school you have not established solid morals and values within your children then I submit you have failed horribly as a parent.
Parenting and active involvement in child raising is what is needed here, NOT censorship under the guise of "oh my God the children!"
Might want to read the article you posted, champ:
"A federal judge in Fayettteville has recently ruled in a similar case that restricting access of library books only to students who have obtained parental permission infringes upon the First Amendment rights of the students."
I did read it. Try the 1st paragraph... the words "elementry aged students" mean anything here?
Once children reach a certain age then I'm in agreement with the Judge. Until they pass a certain age I firmly disagree with the Judge. What that age should be will vary with each child. Some don't SEEM to reach that age until well past 17. If one only considers their actions, words and deeds and ignores their age sadly they may never reach that age.
If this Judge is refering to elementary school children, possibly even some middle school children, then I find myself inclined to say, perhaps that Judge should NOT be a Judge. Not so much because I disagree with the Judges ruling but find myself questioning the Judges reasoning in reaching that ruling.
Judges are people just like the rest of us. They do make mistakes.
-
Originally posted by wrag
I did read it. Try the 1st paragraph... the words "elementry aged students" mean anything here?
Um, this quote?
"It's Perfectly Normal, aimed at elementary age students, she did what any concerned parent would do: she went to the administration and asked that it be removed, along with two other books with similar themes.."
It just says she has "school age children"--is that what you mean?
Ahh you edited a bit so here's mine:
Once children reach a certain age then I'm in agreement with the Judge. Until they pass a certain age I firmly disagree with the Judge. What that age should be will vary with each child. Some don't SEEM to reach that age until well past 17. If one only considers their actions, words and deeds and ignores their age sadly they may never reach that age.
So you would feel comfortable dictating, for all parents, everywhere, what could and could not be read in a school? How did you manage to get so qualified? See what I'm getting at? Your bias--like mine--gets in the way. You have a problem allowing anything sexual in schools. I don't--within already legislated obscenity laws-- and my trust in school boards and their mostly native conservatism because I taught my kids at home what was right and what wasn't and I trust them to make decisions.
Will they always make smart decisions? No. They must be allowed their own mistakes, however. Besides, what are you really protecting them from?
Not so much because I disagree with the Judges ruling but find myself questioning the Judges reasoning in reaching that ruling.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to read the actual ruling as opposed to forming your judgement from one sentence on an ultra-right website?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep... auto shop. Private schools could cater to kids who might not want to be accountants ar graphic artists or even continue higher education.
Truth is... we will allways need machinists and mechanics and construction workers.
Self centered Public schools have been ignoring this fact for decades.
lazs
As a product of a public school auto shop class, I can say it does what it's there for, to teach basic stuff. When I go through advanced auto technology next year i'll let you know. Truth is, they are all jobs that require backbreaking work and kids these days....they expect to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.
-
Like I said, liberals are fine with letting the state control what kids learn so long as they are in control of the schools. They were a bunch of obnoxious loud mouths when they weren't in control though. I submit school prayer as exhibit "a". There will come a time when the libs aren't in control of the schools. When that happens, don't say you weren't warned.
-
I wish I frequented a website that told me about which issues I should become righteously indignant.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by lukster
I submit school prayer as exhibit "a". There will come a time when the libs aren't in control of the schools. When that happens, don't say you weren't warned.
You wish there to be prayer is schools? Would you start off with a Jewish prayer or something from Islam?
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I wish I frequented a website that told me about which issues I should become righteously indignant.
-- Todd/Leviathn
LMAO
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Most likely children at that age would just say "Ewwwee!! Grosss!" and check out another book.
nope, in the 5th grade everyone talks about crap like that. there always hunting for those books and porno sites and CRAP. in the fourth quarter this year (ended on tuesday) me and my parents were sick of it so they took me out of school:aok the only bad thing about it is that i might have to do 5th grade again:cry . well at least i had a quarter and a summer off;)
-
Parents who want to brain wash their child know better then to send them to public schools.
Public School = Free Choice
Easy said, easy done.
If you want to shelter your child from the world, and life, and never let harm come to them..
By all means do it, but don't let them into society, ever, and don't complain about what is in the society.
Most of your psychos come from those so called, 'super safe' families.
-
by Horn
"So you would feel comfortable dictating, for all parents, everywhere, what could and could not be read in a school? How did you manage to get so qualified? See what I'm getting at? Your bias--like mine--gets in the way. You have a problem allowing anything sexual in schools. I don't--within already legislated obscenity laws-- and my trust in school boards and their mostly native conservatism because I taught my kids at home what was right and what wasn't and I trust them to make decisions. "
I feel comfortable placing such things within the control of each individual parent, NOT in control of the school. I THINK I see what you are getting at and I say....
No one is dictating what any parent can or cannot teach their children here. Nor what can and can not be read in a school. So your statement is inaccurate IMHO. I DO NOT have a problem letting anything sexual into school. If it is age appropriate fine. Children need to know things as they grow. I DO have a problem with taking parental control away from the parents. I DO have a problem with the school or any school for that matter that dictates what children will learn regarding sexual subjects when it is against or overrules parental wishs.
Further as TAX payers IMHO we should remind all those who are paid FROM the taxs collected that in effect we are their employers. That as employers we do have SOME rights.
As to native conservatism. Sorry! Seen to many so called "progressive" school boards in my time. Such like to scream about the Christian religion intruding into schools and then turn around and require the children study then play act as if they are Muslims for a day or a week? This is, or was, being done in Kalifornia.
Not against children understanding or studying any religion. But IMHO you gonna study one then you should study many if not all. Give the student a well rounded education not an aimed one. And IMHO no student should EVER be required to play act for ANY religion.
As to your teaching your children at home bravo!
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I wish I frequented a website that told me about which issues I should become righteously indignant.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Unlike some of you who have or have had no school age kids I've found reasons in the public schools to become indignant about long before there was a "web". That's why I am much in favor of vouchers.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Parents who want to brain wash their child know better then to send them to public schools.
Public School = Free Choice
Easy said, easy done.
If you want to shelter your child from the world, and life, and never let harm come to them..
By all means do it, but don't let them into society, ever, and don't complain about what is in the society.
Most of your psychos come from those so called, 'super safe' families.
Only the most washed of brains believe they have "free choice" when it comes to public schools.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Parents who want to brain wash their child know better then to send them to public schools.
Public School = Free Choice
Easy said, easy done.
If you want to shelter your child from the world, and life, and never let harm come to them..
By all means do it, but don't let them into society, ever, and don't complain about what is in the society.
Most of your psychos come from those so called, 'super safe' families.
You have proof regarding these psychos? Like Columbine maybe?
As to the brainwashing, many parents see it as exactly the opposite. Perhaps you should research home schooling before making such statements. It was for many years within the U.S. the standard way to educate ones children. Many schools, anymore, skip lightly over the Declaration of Independence (dang it speeling here) if they bother to teach it at all. World geography it SEEMS is not well covered either.
It might interest you to know that many home schooled students SEEM to get better scores in testing for what has been learned then their public school counterparts.
Public Schools = Free choice? Sure doesn't SEEM that way to me.
Many home schooling parents OBJECT to what they see as a national disgrace when it comes to public schools. For having SO much money thrown at them our national public schools DO NOT score high when compared to the worlds, or perhaps a better way of saying it other countries, schools.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Unlike some of you who have or have had no school age kids I've found reasons in the public schools to become indignant about long before there was a "web". That's why I am much in favor of vouchers.
That's a mighty ubiquitous "you" there, Lukster. Do "they" fly around in black helicopters too?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
well... I don't agree with the super strict and protecting parents on what my kids should see or read and I don't agree with what most public school teachers think.
I would rather see a school teach... how would that be? basic skills in math, history,reading and science. They don't need to teach morality or lack thereof. They don't have time in any case since they can't even get the basics taught.
The point is... basic morality and sex and ethics should be taught at home and basic math and science should be taught at school.
Public school is extremely dangerous in that is has no competition and takes away all choice from parents.
Not to mention... it is probly the most wasteful and bloated tax money sink next to the military. There is no excuse for how badly public schools are doing their job.
I have never heard the arrogant, overpaid part time workers called teachers ever..... get on tv or tell me in person that "since I have your kid most of every day... it is probly at least partly my fault that he is not learning"
Have you? Nope... mostly I get the arrogant "I am a saint that only appears to be working part time and how dare you question that!"
lazs
-
No response on the islamic prayer in schools?
-
Lasz,
As a former public school teacher, I should take offense at some of the things you just said...
...but I don't.
I may be something of an oddity in my profession...I favor the school voucher program and the expansion of the private school system, as well as home schooling.
The public school system in the United States can't do a proper job of educating the young because it has become a bastion of political correctness and a testing ground for every squirrel-headed educational "fad" spawned by arrogant, without-a-clue instructional "experts."
The near total abandonment of the phonetics approach to teaching reading in favor of the "whole word" method, and the demonization of "rote" memorization during the late '60s and early '70s has bequeathed to our society two generations of citizens unable to read, spell, locate nations on a map, or understand the history of our country.
The same instructional "experts" who pushed these fads on the educational system refuse to learn from their mistakes. Talk about the necessity of returning to phonetics and "rote" memorization of facts and they get belligerent. Rather than return to educational methods that have worked for thousands of years, they push new programs that emphasize testing, testing, and more testing. The paperwork mandated for the teaching profession leaves us with precious little time to teach.
School consolidation is another of those "trends" touting efficiency that have played havoc with education. It makes little sense to close down small neighborhood and rural schools (Curse you Huckabee! :mad: ), stuff 2000 kids onto a single campus, and then attempt to reduce class size.
Frankly, I'm glad that, after 30 years of a public school teaching career I no longer have to deal with all that feather-headed nonsense.
There...I feel much better.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Here's something I don't get about school vouchers, and maybe someone can explain to me: Since the vast majority of private schools are religious, parents using vouchers would be facilitating public funding of religious institutions.
The most common response to this I hear is "I pay taxes, I should be able to control where the money goes", but that argument seems to overlook folks who don't have kids that pay the same into the system. If voucher parents should be able to aim their school money at private schools, then why shouldn't child-less taxpayers be able to say "no mas" and keep that portion of their money?
I see this as first and foremost another failure of taxation (why aren't parents paying for education?) and secondly another example of religious folks trying to take advantage of the tax situation to weasel public funding of religious schooling.
-
If we let the socialists have control of our schools they win, simple as that. They are winning.
-
shukins... thank you.
That is perhaps the closest I have ever seen a public school teacher come to admiting that public schools are not "off limits" for critisism.
lazs
-
That's an interesting perspective, Shuckins. My mother-in-law is a principal at a very poor, urban magnet school in Northern Virginia. She's found that two major things severely hamper the ability of the children to learn: parents and teachers.
The former cause problems because so many of the poor, inner city parents take no interest in their children's educations, and many actually approach schooling with hostility. When one kid (and we're talking elementary school here) brought a knife to school and threatened to behead other kids, his parents were happy that he showed how tough he was rather than aghast at such sociopathic behavior. Apparently that's pretty typical, and the PTO (i.e. the group filled with parents who actually should care about the quality of their children's eductation) mostly consists of whiny, obnoxious parents who care more about how they look to one another than about what they can do for the educational community.
Now, teachers cause problems because they're all about protecting turf and digging niches for themselves. So when my mother-in-law first took over, there was a strong element of vested, older teachers who resisted any type of cirriculum change because they saw it as taking them away from whatever type of teaching made them essential. In other words, they saw it as a plan to remove them and replace them with newer, cheaper teachers. More junior and newer teachers formed their own cliques, and teachers also split along racial lines. I'm pretty sure that balkanization of the teaching corps does not benefit a school district, nor do petty sabotage and the other sorts of things that result when teachers try to undermine the principal in order to have her removed.
So before guys like Wrag or Lukster become righteously indignant about lack of prayer in schools or some silly library book, let's look at some actual reasons why some public school districts fail. Here's a hint, guys: It's not the school library, not by a long, long shot.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
So todd... you are saying that the older ways of teaching are really the "problem" with teachers?
That new methods and...I presume... More money will make it all better?
That the kids who were taught by the older methods of say... the 50's knew less when they graduated than the recipients of new methods today do?
lazs
-
Levi, your mother-in-law is absolutely, one hundred percent, dead-on correct in her assessment.
There is a lot of truth in the old adage, "Education begins at home." Yet, that statement is incomplete. It should read "Education begins at home...and continues at school."
Talented, caring teachers have to fight the pop-culture educational trends that took hold during the late '60s. The supporters of these fads are heavily entrenched in the system and are almost impossible to dislodge. When my own small rural district tried to implement a return to the phonetics approach to teaching reading and spelling the elementary teachers responsible for its implementation dug in their heels and fought it, tooth and claw.
Even after the change began to bear fruit, some refused to admit that they had been wrong.
It is this obstinancy toward change, toward a return to what worked in the past, that so frustrates those that support that change out of concern for the children affected by it.
Paents wrapped up in their self-centered interests...who fight any attempts to rein in their spoiled brats and establish the discipline necessary to facilitate the education of ALL the children in a classroom...only complicate an already difficult situation.
As I said before, thirty years was enough...I am WELL OUT OF that mess.
Regards, Shuckins
-
I know why schools fail and our lack of holding people accountable is largely to blame. If parents aren't involved in raising their kids then there can be no hope for a free and prosperous society. Relinquishing parental authority to the state is a huge step toward socialism or fascism.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Relinquishing parental authority to the state is a huge step toward socialism or fascism.
Agreed. But I assert that the parental authority applies to your own child, not everybody elses.
The book banning (call it by any other name, that's what it is in the end) is an attempt for Parent A to make decisions about Parent B's children. Those of you who feel comfortable making those decisions might want to ask yourself: How would you like it if other parents were making the decision for YOURS? Parent X doesn't believe in the Holocaust, so they lobby the school to not talk about that 'hoax'. Parent Y thinks that Huckleberry Finn is racist and demands that it be pulled from the shelves (or at least filed on a special 'restricted area'). Parent W says "Violence is bad, dodgeball should be forbidden because it teaches kids to hunt one another". Parent Z feels that the US is 'imperialistic' and sues to have the US history properly spun to indicate this.
...and so on. I'm pretty sure all of this has actually happened, and it's no different from the book issue this thread started with.
I parent my own children, not everyone elses. They have no right to tell me how to raise mine, and I'll keep my nose out of how they raise theirs.
-
Can we stick to the facts? These parents are not asking for books to be banned from the school library. They are asking that their values be respected by allowing them some say over what their kids have access to in school. What is wrong with an area for books that require parental approval? This is not a rhetorical question?
It would seem that some of you are so afraid that my values will influence your kids that you're willing to relinquish your parental authority to the state to prevent it. Big mistake imo.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Can we stick to the facts? These parents are not asking for books to be banned from the school library. They are asking that their values be respected by allowing them some say over what their kids have access to in school. What is wrong with an area for books that require parental approval? This is not a rhetorical question?
Please re-read my post. Most of the examples I used(Huck Finn, Dodgeball, Holocaust) have actually happened, some of them multiple times. The only one I don't know about is the american history one.
Do you think those other parental restrictions should apply to all the kids at YOUR school? No Twain? No Holocaust? No 'violent' sports? If so, then I think you're doing your child a terrible disservice, but it's your choice. If not, then what gives you the right to be the parent that says "BAN IT!" when none of the other parent's opinions count? And it _IS_ a ban. If it's technically "available" with written parental consent, then is basically doesn't exist. When I went to middle school, there was a shelf that the librarians controlled that had that restriction on it (Oooh, "Catcher in the Rye"! Dangerous!) and NOBODY read anything from it because of the hassle and the work needed to get to it.
It's all or nothing. The schools can't play favorites. Teaching your kids starts at home, using the schools to push agendas is wrong, and a well raised kid should be immune to it when it happens.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Please re-read my post. Most of the examples I used(Huck Finn, Dodgeball, Holocaust) have actually happened, some of them multiple times. The only one I don't know about is the american history one.
Do you think those other parental restrictions should apply to all the kids at YOUR school? No Twain? No Holocaust? No 'violent' sports? If so, then I think you're doing your child a terrible disservice, but it's your choice. If not, then what gives you the right to be the parent that says "BAN IT!" when none of the other parent's opinions count? And it _IS_ a ban. If it's technically "available" with written parental consent, then is basically doesn't exist. When I went to middle school, there was a shelf that the librarians controlled that had that restriction on it (Oooh, "Catcher in the Rye"! Dangerous!) and NOBODY read anything from it because of the hassle and the work needed to get to it.
It's all or nothing. The schools can't play favorites. Teaching your kids starts at home, using the schools to push agendas is wrong, and a well raised kid should be immune to it when it happens.
Teaching your kids starts at home and continues at both school and home. All teachers have values and morals. If they spend any time with your kids they cannot help but influence them based on those. This may be good or bad but it's foolish to believe otherwise.
Are you saying that we should trust school administrators to determine what's best for our kids? Is that what you mean by "all or nothing". You unarguably relinquish at least some of your parenting rights when you send you kid to someone else to be taught but that does not mean you should not stand up and insist that your values be respected in that teaching.
-
by Dead Man Flying
"So before guys like Wrag or Lukster become righteously indignant about lack of prayer in schools or some silly library book,"
That is an assumtion Sir. Wondering how you got to that?
Thinkin, from what I've seen posted so far, allot of people are making similar assumtions.
I am NOT for forcing anyone to PRAY! I am for allowing those who so wish, a time for silent prayer. Why? Because we are supposed to be a free people. Our government should neither promote nor prevent.
I am NOT for forcing any religion on ANYONE.
I posted this thread because IMHO I saw the schools removing parental control from the parents by FORCING certain books into the public domain of the library.
I could have said "so what" like so many have said. Hey mine are pretty much all grown up and out on their own. My Grandchildren are pretty much their parents concern as to how they will be brought up. No I do not always agree with what I see my Children doing with my Grandchildren.
As to our school system. WHAT A MESS! It needs overhaul BADLY! Much of what IMHO is the cause of our education mess started in the 60s and 70s along with all the other new style teaching garbage previously refered to in this thread.
I am in agreement with laz! Schools should stick to reading, writting, rithmatic, n geography. Leave the morality to the parents. IMHO the books mentioned would not even be present but for the Politically Correct New Style Teaching Group that wants everyone to be accepted and their behaviour made acceptable. We must not hurt anyones feelings. Comments have been made about sheltering the young from the real world here. So what do you call forcing everyone to find everyone, as well as their behaviour, acceptable? Forcing everyone to NOT hurt the feelings of others? What about the we must not compete or someones feelings will be hurt when they lose?
Excuse me! (NO NOT REALLY) In the real world your feelings get hurt. In the real world you and your behaviour are NOT always found acceptable to everyone. In the real world we sometimes lose! (BULLYS keep shooting me down in the MA, BULLYS I tells ya!) Hey if there is a winner is there not 1 or more losers? That is life. My referal to BULLYS in the MA on 200 is a POKE at the NEW style! Perhaps it's too subtle for some. I make such comments silly and unbelievable ON PURPOSE! Because to me the NEW style I see is just that!
I blame NwBie for all kinda stuff when there is NO WAY he could be responsible. Pretty sure everyone is aware of that. If not then there ya are! NwBie really isn't responsible for any of it. He is my Squadie and fortunatly for me he puts up with me! Great guy IMHO. But then so is the rest of my squad.
When I posted this thread I expected most of the responses I saw. IMHO many of the responseders came into this thread determined to have their say WITHOUT really reading the thread posted.
SCREAMS of BAN, censorship, etc all over the place. When IMHO all the post said was parents wanted a SAY regarding certain books that were being made availble to their children without their permission. IMHO that permission/right is/was being ignored by the NEW Style Teaching Group that seems bound and determined the world will be as THEY envision it no matter what you or I think!
Got this thing about what IMHO is arrogant people that have proven over and over that they are failing. Many I think will agree. They ARE failing our children and us. Further they, the New Style Teaching Group, SEEM now to be under a TOO great of an amount of control by special interest groups that APPEAR to have a private agenda. That agenda SEEMS to be being pushed without regard for any consequnces or potential harm to others.
I'm not against enlightenment for anyone. IMHO Enlightenment is a GOOD thing. A necassary thing! But HEY, give the FULL story PLEASE! Don't try to shove some suger coated, media doctored lie at me or mine! And before you do that DON'T EVEN try to control me or mine! We get REAL onery when people do that! You wanna live your life a certain way NO PROBLEM. I have no interest in controlling you or yours (well... unless you happen to be a family of serial killers... then I might want to take some sort of action). Now give us our space to live our lives our certain way.
NOTHING IS FREE! NOTHING! TANSTAAFL
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Agreed. But I assert that the parental authority applies to your own child, not everybody elses.
The book banning (call it by any other name, that's what it is in the end) is an attempt for Parent A to make decisions about Parent B's children. Those of you who feel comfortable making those decisions might want to ask yourself: How would you like it if other parents were making the decision for YOURS? Parent X doesn't believe in the Holocaust, so they lobby the school to not talk about that 'hoax'. Parent Y thinks that Huckleberry Finn is racist and demands that it be pulled from the shelves (or at least filed on a special 'restricted area'). Parent W says "Violence is bad, dodgeball should be forbidden because it teaches kids to hunt one another". Parent Z feels that the US is 'imperialistic' and sues to have the US history properly spun to indicate this.
...and so on. I'm pretty sure all of this has actually happened, and it's no different from the book issue this thread started with.
I parent my own children, not everyone elses. They have no right to tell me how to raise mine, and I'll keep my nose out of how they raise theirs.
My problem with what you put forth is this.
Who are you to decide WHEN my children are ready for something? Your method IMHO can be LIKE leaving a LOADED firearm about for a 5 year old. The knowledge we have available at our fingertips is incredible. Giving it to our young before they are ready, before they reach a certain level of maturity, can create some serious problems for them and us.
If my child wishs to know a thing, and I think they are ready, or I think it is time they know a thing I will take the steps needed to insure they get the information they need.
By your method this will NOT happen. By your method any effort I put forth in trying to raise my children responsibly goes right out the window.
No one IMHO is telling YOU how to raise your children. They are telling you that you will have to do just abit of extra effort to teach them certain things if you think your children are ready early. BUT IMHO you are telling everyone else HOW to raise their children.
-
Wrag, what's the firearm?
Do the parents who think the holocaust is a hoax have the right to prevent all kids at school from learning about it?
Do the do-gooder new age parents who think Huckleberry Finn is a terrible racist book have the right to pull the book from the library shelves?
Do the parents who don't want "violent sports" have the right to have them all pulled from the school?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wrag, what's the firearm?
Do the parents who think the holocaust is a hoax have the right to prevent all kids at school from learning about it?
Do the do-gooder new age parents who think Huckleberry Finn is a terrible racist book have the right to pull the book from the library shelves?
Do the parents who don't want "violent sports" have the right to have them all pulled from the school?
The "firearm" in this case is explicit sexual language.
We have had sex education in the schools for decades now. While I don't see that this has done anything to curb teenage pregnancy or promiscuity, it's not quite the same as putting explict books in grade school libraries. Maybe you don't think that the all time high teen pregnancy rate is a problem?
The rate did decline, not sure where it is today. Too high imo.
-
Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0763624330/sr=8-9/qid=1150478243/ref=sr_1_9/002-5797229-5609614?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Also, I sometimes feel that liberty is a fairweather concept for many. "As long as I agree with it, it's ok" is NOT how our country works. This book is innocuous. It's a tough subject to talk about. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for the children of people who get worked up in knots over something like this. What _do_ they learn, and from whom?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Here's the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0763624330/sr=8-9/qid=1150478243/ref=sr_1_9/002-5797229-5609614?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Also, I sometimes feel that liberty is a fairweather concept for many. "As long as I agree with it, it's ok" is NOT how our country works. This book is innocuous. It's a tough subject to talk about. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for the children of people who get worked up in knots over something like this. What _do_ they learn, and from whom?
Children do not enjoy the same liberties as adults. Would you let a 10 year old drive a car or join the Army? It is at best disingenuous to compare restricting children to denying adults their liberty.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The "firearm" in this case is explicit sexual language.
We have had sex education in the schools for decades now. While I don't see that this has done anything to curb teenage pregnancy or promiscuity, it's not quite the same as putting explict books in grade school libraries. Maybe you don't think that the all time high teen pregnancy rate is a problem?
The rate did decline, not sure where it is today. Too high imo.
Actually according to the CDC, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest it has been since 1976 so you might want to update a bit. That statistic also pokes some holes in your argument that sex ed hasn't "done anything."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/trendpreg.htm
-
Originally posted by Horn
Actually according to the CDC, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest it has been since 1976 so you might want to update a bit. That statistic also pokes some holes in your argument that sex ed hasn't "done anything."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/trendpreg.htm
That report is nearly 10 years old. I'd like to see an updated version.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Actually according to the CDC, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest it has been since 1976 so you might want to update a bit. That statistic also pokes some holes in your argument that sex ed hasn't "done anything."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/trendpreg.htm
Uh, I edited my post long before you or anyone else responded, maybe you didn't read to the end? Your link is 5 years old, I found one newer than that but still not current.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Actually according to the CDC, the teen pregnancy rate is the lowest it has been since 1976 so you might want to update a bit. That statistic also pokes some holes in your argument that sex ed hasn't "done anything."
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01news/trendpreg.htm
In regards to your sex ed statement, which btw I didn't see you quoting me, when did the increased pregnancy rate begin? I could easily tie the increasing pregnanacy rate to that period. I won't though becuse I don't believe that sex ed promoted teen pregnanacy. I do believe that our relaxed and declining morals in this regard is the cause. The preganancy rate in the US is still far higher than that of any other country. I will admit that sex ed has produced limited success in it's contraceptive efforts. That, along with the fear of aids.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Uh, I edited my post long before you or anyone else responded, maybe you didn't read to the end? Your link is 5 years old, I found one newer than that but still not current.
You mean this edit?
The rate did decline, not sure where it is today. Too high imo.
No, I saw it.
Are you claiming that after drastic decreases since 1976 the rate of teen pregnancy has somehow shot up in the last 5 years?
Whatever. Here's a 2004 article that says much of the same thing. You are incorrect in your assumption.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html
-
Originally posted by lukster
The preganancy rate in the US is still far higher than that of any other country.
Huh? Not even remotely nearly or even possibly accurate.
-
Originally posted by lukster
In regards to your sex ed statement, which btw I didn't see you quoting me, when did the increased pregnancy rate begin? I could easily tie the increasing pregnanacy rate to that period. I won't though becuse I don't believe that sex ed promoted teen pregnanacy. I do believe that our relaxed and declining morals in this regard is the cause. The preganancy rate in the US is still far higher than that of any other country. I will admit that sex ed has produced limited success in it's contraceptive efforts. That, along with the fear of aids.
I was quoting you directly. I can't tell you when teen pregnancy began to rise but I would guess soon after women got the vote --but really--the question is: When did it begin to drop? Looks like somewhere around 1976 and it has been decreasing every year since.
Therefore, contraception, education and decreased sexual activity seems to be the factors most responsible for bringing the rate down.
Your "relaxed and declining morals.." argument is antithesis to the facts as represented by the government survey and the statistics quoted above.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Huh? Not even remotely nearly or even possibly accurate.
Actually I was thinking European country. My bad.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Huh? Not even remotely nearly or even possibly accurate.
No, I think he's totally right on that stat. Here's the chart:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita
Remember though--this isn't UNMARRIED teen pregnancy, just pregnancies before age 20 so many cultural issues arise--look at Iceland for instance.
-
Originally posted by Horn
You mean this edit?
No, I saw it.
Are you claiming that after drastic decreases since 1976 the rate of teen pregnancy has somehow shot up in the last 5 years?
Whatever. Here's a 2004 article that says much of the same thing. You are incorrect in your assumption.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/02/19/index.html
You might want to read more than just the date of the article. Your article covers a period from 1990 to 2000.
Like I said, I will admit that sex ed may be responsible for successfully promoting contraceptive use, no proof of that though. I doubt it has done anything to reduce sex among teens though. I'm betting you don't care about that. that's ok by me, just don't force your values on others.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You might want to read more than just the date of the article. Your article covers a period from 1990 to 2000.
Like I said, I will admit that sex ed may be responsible for successfully promoting contraceptive use, no proof of that though. I doubt it has done anything to reduce sex among teens though. I'm betting you don't care about that. that's ok by me, just don't force your values on others.
I read the article. Unlike the first one I gave you which showed a decrease in teen pregnancy for 21 years, this one said the same thing and then added an additional three years. Do you see a trend here?
But anyway:
ROFL. That's pretty funny though. You are confronted with evidence from several disparate sources, each refuting your "belief." Now I'm "forcing" my values on you.
Your only riposte is to say that now, "I don't care about sex between teens"--brilliant!! And you know what? I don't care. I and my wife educated our girls on the birds and the bees at home, explained how it all works and sent informed, erudite women out in the world to make their own way and their own decisions.
The last one is just finishing college and I'm not a grandfather nor have I financed any abortions. I'm pretty sure the education works as opposed to screaming about the "relaxed and declining morals."
Heh. Sorry about the rant--it is just that having a conversation that descends into illogic and victimization because you have nothing but "faith" to support your position makes me laugh.
-
You posted that link claiming it was more up to date than the first. It wasn't and now you're tap dancing.
I admit when I'm wrong and I did so before you or anyone else pointed it out.
I applaud these people standing up to their government demanding their rights. Without people of all backgrounds willing to fight for their rights, we all lose.
-
Originally posted by Horn
No, I think he's totally right on that stat. Here's the chart:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita
Remember though--this isn't UNMARRIED teen pregnancy, just pregnancies before age 20 so many cultural issues arise--look at Iceland for instance.
No way. When in Denmark, it was unusual to meet a girl that didn't have a kid before 20 - usually unmarried. Usually 2 kids. Stats quoted by Danish people to me when I mentioned it would have made that chart a blip. It was not on the order of <1 per 1000... it was on the order of 50-100 per 1000.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No way. When in Denmark, it was unusual to meet a girl that didn't have a kid before 20 - usually unmarried. Usually 2 kids. Stats quoted by Danish people to me when I mentioned it would have made that chart a blip. It was not on the order of <1 per 1000... it was on the order of 50-100 per 1000.
Search for yourself, of course these agencies that track this sort of information may all be liars. Who knows?
-
Did anyone else actually look at the "sexually explicit" book this article is about?
LOL
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did anyone else actually look at the "sexually explicit" book this article is about?
LOL
The article mentioned that one of the books being protested contained the "F" word many times on one page. Does that sound like the kind of book you want your child reading in school? Maybe you don't care. While kids will inevitablly be exposed to that sort of vulgarity sooner or later we don't have to endorse it by publishing it in our school libraries. If a librarian thinks it has some redeeming educational value fine, put it in the section where the kids with progressive parents can read it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You posted that link claiming it was more up to date than the first. It wasn't and now you're tap dancing.
I admit when I'm wrong and I did so before you or anyone else pointed it out.
I applaud these people standing up to their government demanding their rights. Without people of all backgrounds willing to fight for their rights, we all lose.
(sigh) I gave you a link for teen pregnancy from the years 1976 to 1997. You said that was old, do I have another. I provided one written in 2004 that detailed the same information, this time from 1990 to 2000, adding three years to the statistics. I was unable to find anything that addressed the last five years. No tap dancing, straight facts.
Please refute if you can. Remember, "Too high imo."?
Enough derail. I was interested enough to go find the book that irritated Wrag in the first place.
It is cartoons with explanations of puberty, physical changes and such. Written in simple easy to understand terms. I can't believe the hoopla.
EDIT: haha, MT beat me to it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
put it in the section where the kids with progressive parents can read it.
Will there be a sign at the entrance so everyone will know that those kids have (dun dun dunnnnnn) progressive parents?
hehe... this is the funniest thread in days.
-
I'm not arguing whether a specific book should be allowed in the school library. Afterall, my kids are grown and what my grandkids read is not my responsibility. I'm arguing for parents to have the right to control what their kids read. Not everyone can afford private schools. Grant vouchers and the source of conflict likely goes away.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Will there be a sign at the entrance so everyone will know that those kids have (dun dun dunnnnnn) progressive parents?
hehe... this is the funniest thread in days.
I would imagine that in some towns around here the sign would read "Abandon all hope ye who enter here". ;)
-
See Rule #4
-
Whoa, calm down. Lots of shouting there.
If you disagree with me, it doesn't mean I'm some sort of 'conversational terrorist'.
I stand by my posts and invite you to provide a single instance of dishonesty in what I've written. Something better than "But... I just FEEL it!" please.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
No way. When in Denmark, it was unusual to meet a girl that didn't have a kid before 20 - usually unmarried. Usually 2 kids. Stats quoted by Danish people to me when I mentioned it would have made that chart a blip. It was not on the order of <1 per 1000... it was on the order of 50-100 per 1000.
The pre 20 pregnancy rate among australopithecines was nearly 100%... luckily for us.
We are still animals and the drive to procreate is inherent. It is strongest when our hormones are the strongest... the teen years. The social more has changed to make bad what is a natural occurance .
-
Originally posted by lukster
Can we stick to the facts? These parents are not asking for books to be banned from the school library. They are asking that their values be respected by allowing them some say over what their kids have access to in school.
When granted their wish they also have some say over what others' kids have access to in school... Probably an added benefit in your opinion, keeping kids from being coorupted by that vile poison found in today's childrens and adolescent books.
-
Originally posted by Thud
When granted their wish they also have some say over what others' kids have access to in school... Probably an added benefit in your opinion, keeping kids from being coorupted by that vile poison found in today's childrens and adolescent books.
That attitude has much in common with the attitude that has resulted in our standards sinking to the lowest level so that all children can meet that standard. The only way we can turn this around is for everyone to see the folly in it, set higher standards, and place the blame where it belongs. Those parents and kids who want to excel should be encouraged and supported.
-
So you're flat out saying "Yeah, I _DO_ want to control how other people raise their kids". With respect, what gives you that right? Is it the bible?
How would you feel if other people did that to you?
-
I have no problem with letting adults read whatever they like. I have no problem letting parents decide what children are exposed to.
I guess my point is about public schools tho...
If they are the only game in town and we are all forced to pay for them and nothing else and we are forced to send our children there then...
Public schools should do their best to give us our monies worth while at the same time..... stay neutral on any ethics or morality and not teach anything that might offend any segment of the population that is forced to use them.
This is not all that difficult and yet... they don't and won't do it. Teachers investment in their own sainthood makes em feel obligated to indocrtinate.
The sole support by taxes of public schools needs to go away. Truth is... a lot of teachers are very dedicated and fair but.... none are saints. Some are of the worst humans on the planet.
The majority of the teachers do not share the morals and political views of the parents....
This is a recipe for conflict and is to be expected.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you're flat out saying "Yeah, I _DO_ want to control how other people raise their kids". With respect, what gives you that right? Is it the bible?
How would you feel if other people did that to you?
You're missing it completely. I want parents to have more say in how their kids are educated. I want standards raised. You don't don't want that in public schools? Fine, give us vouchers.
-
I challenge your assertion that banning books "raises standards" in any measurable way. Additionally, moving books on biology to a restricted shelf violates Lazs' professed desire for neutrality.
Have you even seen the book in the link I posted? Or are you going off the description of the woman with the agenda? She's fabricated things, like saying that it contains 'bestiality', what else is she lying about?
-
Do they have relegious books?
-
Seems like they should, any good reference library would have them. Having the books in the library is not the same as having class prayer, I'd support it.
-
Originally posted by lukster
That attitude has much in common with the attitude that has resulted in our standards sinking to the lowest level so that all children can meet that standard. The only way we can turn this around is for everyone to see the folly in it, set higher standards, and place the blame where it belongs. Those parents and kids who want to excel should be encouraged and supported.
Nonsensical statement, it only shows something that you've been trying to masquerade through the entire thread. You don't want higher standards upheld. You want to uphold your standards, preferably for all and especially your moral standards, the rest is just a smokescreen...
-
Originally posted by Thud
Nonsensical statement, it only shows something that you've been trying to masquerade through the entire thread. You don't want higher standards upheld. You want to uphold your standards, preferably for all and especially your moral standards, the rest is just a smokescreen...
I'm talking about academic standards. However, it is hard to separate the two. If we let our kids behave like animals as suggested in this thread they will learn less if at all. Apprantly you want no standards, moral or otherwise. Glad you can't vote in this country.
-
I don't really care what any of you have said. It's a parents responsibility to keep track of what their kid's are doing. However, there are times during school when the parent can't be there, thus it would be logical for their wishes to be carried out.
The following passages really pissed me off because of this:
The Fayetteville librarians, in accordance with the principles of the American Library Association, testified that they believed in "intellectual freedom" for all students. This sounds very noble on the surface, but what it means in practice is that the librarians do everything possible to obscure the reading habits of students -- who are required by law to attend school -- from any attempt by parents to learn what their children are reading. This is done by virtue of a computerized system for tracking books in circulation that automatically erases all data concerning who checked out what books immediately upon the books being returned to the library. Unless a parent actually finds her child reading an objectionable book, that parent has no way of discovering what the child has been reading.
But it won't be easy. A federal judge in Fayettteville has recently ruled in a similar case that restricting access of library books only to students who have obtained parental permission infringes upon the First Amendment rights of the students.
Scary. In the first passage, librarians are saying that they will delete all evidence of what a student checks out from a library. In the second, they are saying we can't restrict access for students because they have first amendment rights.
When the **** did children get first amendment rights, and why didn't anyone tell me?
-
Originally posted by lukster
1. If we let our kids behave like animals as suggested in this thread they will learn less if at all.
2. Apprantly you want no standards, moral or otherwise.
1. Please enlighten me to where this was stated,
2. Because I don't share your moral standards or lack thereof you conveniently label me as opposing academic standards and/or excellence. Please re-read my previous post and you will acknowledge (if honest) that your statement here litterally conforms everything I wrote there on your point of view on the matter.
-
Originally posted by Thud
1. Please enlighten me to where this was stated,
2. Because I don't share your moral standards or lack thereof you conveniently label me as opposing academic standards and/or excellence. Please re-read my previous post and you will acknowledge (if honest) that your statement here litterally conforms everything I wrote there on your point of view on the matter.
Read the thread for yourself.
You confirm nothing but your own agenda which thankfully has no influence on matters here.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Read the thread for yourself.
You confirm nothing but your own agenda which thankfully has no influence on matters here.
I have and it wasn't expressed anywhere, a factual observation that humans are animals with a procreational drive was the only thing resembling your statement. Have you twisted that statement into one promoting that children should behave like animals, you altering others' words to fit your own motives? Say it ain't so!
As for the latter part of your post, calling agenda on someone has become a cliche that goes coupled with running out of arguments on this board. Aren't you overlooking the starting point of our discussion where you were promoting to restrict acces to certain books not corresponding with your high moral standards? Almost enough to label you with the A-word, hm?
-
Originally posted by Thud
I have and it wasn't expressed anywhere, a factual observation that humans are animals with a procreational drive was the only thing resembling your statement. Have you twisted that statement into one promoting that children should behave like animals, you altering others' words to fit your own motives? Say it ain't so!
As for the latter part of your post, calling agenda on someone has become a cliche that goes coupled with running out of arguments on this board. Aren't you overlooking the starting point of our discussion where you were promoting to restrict acces to certain books not corresponding with your high moral standards? Almost enough to label you with the A-word, hm?
Ad hominem? Well, when you have no argument I guess it'll just have to do.
This is the animal post I was referring to.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The pre 20 pregnancy rate among australopithecines was nearly 100%... luckily for us.
We are still animals and the drive to procreate is inherent. It is strongest when our hormones are the strongest... the teen years. The social more has changed to make bad what is a natural occurance .
Without morals we would likely become no different from animals. Surviavl of the fittest would prevail over protecting the weak. Is this what you are advocating?
-
There's a certain amount of irony here. It would seem that those who are in favor of a completely socialized educational system also favor a moral free society in which we all act on our most base animal instincts. Maybe it's not irony at all but just a plain old contradiction.
-
I have not seen the books in question but even in my day they had biolodgy books ... we seen our first cutaway drawing of male and female bodies in books it seemed like in about 5th- 7th grade as I recall. They didn't do much for us purient wise... less you were really strange. They even sold plastic models of the human body that had transparent skin.
I would think that the subject is too complex for that/those grade levels even tho.... I would think it is unimportant if the kids can't read or write or do simple math also.
In any case... It can be done in such a way as to not offend 99% of the populace of parents. vouchers would assure that there were schools that taught in such a way.
A description/book of the human reproductive organs can be pretty boring and factual or... it can appeal to purient interests or offend. The latter should be avoided in order to not go against the wishes of the parents.
Same for religion... it can be taught that many people believe in creativism and many believe in the big bang or evolution or whatever. It hurts no one to put out all the theories and beliefs.
Public schools are overstepping their bounds and their obligations and because of that... doing a really poor job. They do it with supreme arrogance.
We are not getting our moneys worth and they are stepping on parents toes while they are cheating Americas youth out of a decent education.
Vouchers are the only solution at this point.
lazs
-
luckstrer... What you speak of is the irony of liberalism... they hate big government intruding in their lives unless....
It is their big govenment and it is intruding into only other peoples lives... They look to govenment as a way to make/force people think as they do.
They don't mind tyranny... so long as it is the "right kind" of tyranny. they don't mind rules, embrace them in fact..... so long as none of the rules apply to them.
If you don't buy it they create a crisis that can only be solved by a bigger govenment.
lazs
-
So true lazs.
I don't think most of 'em realize this. If they saw themsleves the way others see them I suspect many would change their attitudes. Of course that can be said about everyone.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Without morals we would likely become no different from animals. Surviavl of the fittest would prevail over protecting the weak. Is this what you are advocating?
Lol, there was no other post even mentioning the animal instinct but thanks for quoting the statment you've bended to fit your own argument.
As to your assumption above, although the category of people I confidently place you in usually regard morals differing from yourself's as none whatsoever, it is still telling that you are putting the words "morals do not matter" in my mouth. The only point I made was that all your sidestepping into academic standards aside this was just another morals crusade on your part and you have been proving my point irrefutably within your last few posts.
Thank you, you now may recommence feeling morally superior...
-
Look Thud, I'm asking that parents be allowed to have the final say as to what their kids read in school. If you want to make this about morals then fine. I think parents should have the final say on that too. I wish we all shared the same moral values but we obviously don't and I'm not asking that anyone's be forced on another. Your insistence on the state having the say over what kids read is usurping a parent's rights. Why won't you see this?
-
I would say that there are textbooks that will teach that will not offend 99% of the parents.
You can never get 100% but you should strive to do the best you can. The 1% that is offended by their child being taught biology... at any age, and with any kind of textbook... that 1% can home school or seek other alternatives.
My point is that with vouchers we could see what parents want not what teachers want.
My point is that it is proven that politicaly, teachers are not in touch with parents. they, the majority of them, do not hold the political and moral views of the majority of the parents of the children they teach.
It would be much better if there were some competition that catered to the wishes of the parents.
vochers are the only logical answer. Public schools are as anachronistic as ma bell being the only way to make a phone call.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lukster
Your insistence on the state having the say over what kids read is usurping a parent's rights. Why won't you see this?
And once again you are attributing some statement to me that I neither made nor discussed. I stated that I find it ridiculous that a puritan witchhunt by some disgruntled parents could lead to the restriction of certain books within a library.
If you would have read this thread with just a miniscule bit of extra attention you would've noticed that I never touched the subject of analyzing or altering the procedure by which the books that are within that particular library are selected in the first place.
If you'd like to discuss that topic, please do so by all means.
-
I don't know the details but I would imagine that books are selected based on what a board or panel decides appropriate. Presumably, this panel is ultimately accountable to elected officials. While our officals are democratically elected in this country we are nonethless a nation of law where individual rights are supreme. Regardless of how these specific books were selected, the fact remains that some parents find them objectionable. I want their right to protect their children from what they obviously find to be subversive respected by our government.
We will just have to disagree on this.
-
Originally posted by wrag
See Rule #4
Originally posted by Chairboy
I stand by my posts and invite you to provide a single instance of dishonesty in what I've written. Something better than "But... I just FEEL it!" please.
Wrag, still waiting.
-
See Rule #7
-
So you make an accusation, then don't back it up? When you reference those other threads, are you citing instances where you feel I was dishonest? Or were you disagreed with me? Because you may be confusing the two.
BTW, I'm a registered Libertarian, contribute to the lp, and the candidates that represent my views are usually Libertarian too. Not sure what you meant.
-
Which comedian's routine goes:
"But I don't believe in hitting my children!"
"Well I believe in hitting your children! Step outta the way there!"
:D
Personally I agree with an old WKRP in Cincinnati skit.... we outta lock them all up!
And I repeat my earlier question: When are all these parents given the right to raise their own kids as they see fit actually going to start doing it? Or maybe things would go better all around if breeding required a test and a license?
-
Keep it civil folks.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Which comedian's routine goes:
"But I don't believe in hitting my children!"
"Well I believe in hitting your children! Step outta the way there!"
:D
Personally I agree with an old WKRP in Cincinnati skit.... we outta lock them all up!
And I repeat my earlier question: When are all these parents given the right to raise their own kids as they see fit actually going to start doing it? Or maybe things would go better all around if breeding required a test and a license?
If parents don't raise 'em then they leave it to other kids or the state. Not sure which is worse. Just because the state may take it upon itself to take over for negligent parents is certainly no reason or excuse to deprive those who want to raise their own.
-
Originally posted by Furious
if you've raised your children well, then you don't need to be afraid of a book.
AMEN FURIOUS! That was the best comment on this entire thread.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
AMEN FURIOUS! That was the best comment on this entire thread.
So, only kids with bad parents use illegal drugs? Get pregnant while in highschool? Commit crimes?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you make an accusation, then don't back it up? When you reference those other threads, are you citing instances where you feel I was dishonest? Or were you disagreed with me? Because you may be confusing the two.
BTW, I'm a registered Libertarian, contribute to the lp, and the candidates that represent my views are usually Libertarian too. Not sure what you meant.
Posted twice now but my post are being removed. Not sure what for. Rule #7??? I posted NO pornography I did not curse. As to Rule # 4 I guess that is correct as Chairboy due to his posting technique/manner/method does NOT have my respect. In fact if Charboy is earning anything Chairboy is beginning to earn my contempt due to his method/manner/technique of posting.
I was NOT disagreeing with you. I repeatedly expressed that I WAS NOT DISAGREEING with you.
Read the threads you started that I referenced in my earlier post. I made statements within those threads that you never replied to or you did your best to change the meaning of what I expressed when you did finally you reply.
Your technique, or the manner in which you respond to others, or your method of communicating, is IMHO unhonest/dishonest/disingenous.
Why?
I'm pretty sure you FULLY understand what is being said to you. The questions and statements made to you are pretty straightforward. I'm pretty sure you actively chose to appear to NOT understand. Your replies SEEM convaluted and APPEAR to be aimed at avoidance and suggest you are aware of what was intended and rather then reply in what most people would consider an honest answer you APPEAR to seek to twist the question or avoid giving any answer all together.
NO I'm not going to go look it up for you. Why? Because IMHO you know exactly what I am expressing.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
So you make an accusation, then don't back it up? When you reference those other threads, are you citing instances where you feel I was dishonest? Or were you disagreed with me? Because you may be confusing the two.
BTW, I'm a registered Libertarian, contribute to the lp, and the candidates that represent my views are usually Libertarian too. Not sure what you meant.
I have backed it up.
I was NOT disagreeing with you. I repeatedly expressed that I WAS NOT DISAGREEING with you.
Read the threads you started that I referenced in my earlier post. I made statements within those threads that you never replied to or you did your best to change the meaning of what I expressed when you did finally reply.
Your technique, or the manner in which you respond to others, or your method of communicating, is IMHO unhonest/dishonest/disingenous.
Why?
I'm pretty sure you FULLY understand what is being said to you. The questions and statements made to you are pretty straightforward. I'm pretty sure you actively chose to appear to NOT understand. Your replies SEEM convaluted and APPEAR to be aimed at avoidance and suggest you are aware of what was intended and rather then reply in what most people would consider an honest answer you APPEAR to seek to twist the question or avoid giving any answer all together.
NO I'm not going to go look it up for you. Why? Because IMHO you know exactly what I am expressing.
I've made this 2nd post in reply because I appear to have upset a moderator.
-
Wrag, you're entitled to your opinion, but I feel you may be confusing disagreement for dishonesty. I try my darndest to answer things people ask me, if you aimed a question at me that I didn't, I apologize for having missed it, it wasn't on purpose. There's a lot of posting going on here, and sometimes it's easy to miss a message.
In regards to the twisting words around, please give me an example when you have the time, I'm always looking to improve my communication. Life's too short to be a jerk, and I really try not to be one. I still believe that you may be mixing up my disagreement with me being ingenuous, but I won't know until you can provide a cite.
In the meantime, I'll continue to assume good faith on your part.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Wrag, you're entitled to your opinion, but I feel you may be confusing disagreement for dishonesty. I try my darndest to answer things people ask me, if you aimed a question at me that I didn't, I apologize for having missed it, it wasn't on purpose. There's a lot of posting going on here, and sometimes it's easy to miss a message.
In regards to the twisting words around, please give me an example when you have the time, I'm always looking to improve my communication. Life's too short to be a jerk, and I really try not to be one. I still believe that you may be mixing up my disagreement with me being ingenuous, but I won't know until you can provide a cite.
In the meantime, I'll continue to assume good faith on your part.
Thanks!
Go look. I repeatedly express I had NO PROBLEM with your viewpoints!
I stated that IMHO you had EVERY RIGHT to them and I repeatedly stated I had NO PROBLEM with your viewpoints/opinions/manner in which you view the world.
I expressed repeatedly I objected to your technique/manner/method of communicating.
An example? Go look at the threads refered to. If you do then PLEASE by all means consider this post to be such an example!
I have always reponded in "good faith", in that I made my statements in honesty and expected the same in reply. IMHO you however APPEAR to have NOT done so.