For our children?

[lukster]

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.

[lasersailor184]

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?

[Thud]

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.

[lukster]

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.

[Thud]

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?

[lukster]

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?

[lukster]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[lazs2]

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

[lukster]

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.

[Thud]

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...

[lukster]

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?

[lazs2]

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

[Thud]

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.

[lukster]

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.