jewish authors

Next time you are going to post something so vulgar, can you send a note to my house so I can decide if I want to let my innocent eyes see your post.

I would say it's probably a pretty safe bet that a notice was sent home about this book as well.

As a parent, there are a lot of decisions that are taken out of the parent's hands. Louis CK has a great bit about this and notes that in this country we get to "choose" what and when we expose our children to things. People have this unreasonable righteous indignation when it comes to exposing their "kids" to these types of things (kids is in quotes because 14-15 yr olds aren't kids).

Pretending like this book is an important decision for a parent of a 14-15 year old to decide whether to "expose" their children too is flat out ridiculous. Getting pissed about it even more so.

From the article:

At least the school got it partially figured out, even if too many of those posting here can't.

U HOLOCAUST DENIER!

heh, so a notice was provided and it said if you want your child to opt out then let us know.

If only that "dad" had paid attention earlier in the year.

Actually, that's not what it says at all. Take a minute and read the OP.

Great, a thread full of people telling everyone else how to parent their kids.

That's what the asshole dad that got arrested said. I'm inclined to not believe him.

More Police nonsense. Father arrested for Speaking Against Sexually Explicit...
 

Teenaged psychology is a weird subject.

First, I'd like to state that there isn't a "right" answer. What works for one child may not work for another. Growing up, my mother was about as lax as could be. She was more of a friend than an authority figure. I waited until I was 18 to have sex (just because I felt that was the smart thing to do) and am now about to be 25 with no life ruiners-er, I mean kids. Meanwhile, in the same household, my little sister got pregnant at 17.

Based on my experience, I'd be inclined to not shelter my children from things like sex, drugs and violence but talk as openly as I could with them about those things and the dangers involved.

but i afraid to talk to my kids about teh secks

You should try reading it again.

I had to read Sod and Stubble in high school. I was 3 chapters in before I'd knocked up a sweet girl from town and came down with polio.

Still didn't quite get it.

The article is poorly worded, but it seems that the district "will take immediate action to revise these policies to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial material, rather than opt out.”

When did they issue this statement about taking immediate action? Unknown

The policy apparently requires/required parents to accept controversial information, rather than opt out. So he did not have the opportunity to opt out.

Frankly it's bad journalism and bad writing, since we can't tell what the policy was at any specific time or know what the policy is now.

If they did have a policy in place that let parents opt out, I doubt this would be a story.

Perhaps you should because the only people claiming that there wasn't a notice beforehand were "outraged" parents.

I love it.

No way I would let my kids read that filth.


Kids, shut your mouths and go back to playing COD/GTA (any other mature rated game with sex or extreme violence) and then let them watch game of thrones.

But a book, oh noes.

No, the previous policy was an opt out policy. The new one requires the parent to accept controversial information.

Show me where I missed this information.

He was escorted out for not following rules, him contineousely disobeying the officer to get up and leave is why he was arrested.

And I have a feeling the reading list went out at the start of the year. Some parents just like to ignore those things until someone else tells them about it personally. How the **** do you know how to turn to the exact page to be offended by? Second thought, they can all **** off. 2007 is how long it has been required. Maybe pay attention to your kids.

I am sure the school board is taking immediate action and not rejecting the claims that the parents did not know the material for the fun of it.

And how is it OK that parents are required to accept controversial information?

Because some kids have already been exposed to it so it doesn't matter!

This.

"The pussification of America continues."

Exactly

I'm sure Ben Swann attempted to contact the school board about this and just happened to forget to include that he attempted to contact them.

Exactly what? You didn't answer either of my questions.

I don't care if kids **** like bunnies. The nature of the book is of no consequence to me.

But you're ok with forcing parents to accept controversial curriculum with no option to opt out?

You have so much tolerance for other people's views. :spock:

JFC. Read the shit again.

The policy before "super dad" was one that required the parents to opt out.

Now due to "super dad" the school board will require that parents accept that the kid will be exposed to controversial material.

Please tell us all about how you've read every book ever assigned to the children of this country, so you know all about which are a bit too, let's say, advanced for the children of each particular grade.

If you can't do that, kindly shut the **** up until you finally start to understand the point here.

Even if that's true, (and that is a big if since your comment about what the policy was before super dad is pulled right out of your ass), the current policy requires the parent to have no say in what their kid is exposed to. Which is a pretty big shit they are taking on personal liberty.

So I guess as long as you agree with a policy it's ok to force it on everyone else. It's easy to spot the hypocrites.

FFS learn how to read.

THE POLICY BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING REQUIRED THAT PARENTS OPT OUT OF CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL IF THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR KIDS EXPOSED TO IT.

THE NEW POLICY ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLE REQUIRES THAT PARENTS ACCEPT THAT THEIR CHILD WILL READ CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL.

JFC how hard is that to understand?

Here's a better approach. If a parent wants to have their kid opt out, the parent has to read and submit the book report themselves with a commentary on why, when taken in the full context of the book, their child should be protected from it.

Oh, and if the parent doesn't turn in each report before they get to it in the class...too bad.

I understand it perfectly. It's written in English and the use of caps locks is only mildly annoying.

Your sentence about the policy before the school board meeting is something you made up. It might be true, but it's not mentioned in that article whatsoever.

Your sentence about the new policy requires parents to accept something even if they don't want to. Which is a big **** you to personal liberty, and the fact that you think it's ok tells me a hell of a lot about you.

No, just like most ignorant parents, you just passin by in your kids lives without actually looking at them.

A Book, is what pisses you off. Not the fact that your kids are sexting each other. Playing console games that have visual sex acts, murder or drugs. Allow them to watch television with the same acts. Nope, words is what do it.

Then lets add the fact this has been read in the school since 2007. It went out on the read list at the start of the year. Nope. It is outrageous.

And if you act like the prick dad that cannot follow directions given calmly beforehand and during his tirade to respect others speaking; maybe we know why some of you are sounding so idiotic and would get arrested in public.

And smart parents do not have to read every ****ing book on the list. There is google, or parents that read books.

Apparently you don't understand the phrase "rather than" and the implication that it carries.

They, literally, had the option to opt out. Stop lying.

You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions. Some parents would choose to prevent this sort of thing, in addition to not allowing sexting, violent video games or TV, etc. You seem to be taking this stance that since there are some shitty parents who let their kids play violent games or watch GoT, that we should expose all children to the same things. That's nonsense.

I understand the word. It doesn't necessarily tell you what the policy was before. It may be implied, but it could also be shitty writing. That whole paragraph is a pile of shit that is pretty ambiguous about the whole timeline of things.

But again, not my point. Even if it's exactly as you say ... You seem to be perfectly fine with the school telling the parents that they no longer have a say in what their children are exposed to.

This.

You don't seem to grasp the purpose behind opt in setups, and that's as polite as I can make this response.

Fish covered a lot of the rest of the stupidity of your post.

I don't think that's what is being implied here.

They're replacing the opt-out program with an explicit opt-in program. The school would be required to get parental consent before assigning the material. Any student who doesn't get parental consent would not be assigned the material.

I hope that's what it means, but what's the difference? Teacher sends a note home with options for in or out, pick one. Why make a distinction?

If a parent fails to respond to an opt-out notice for whatever reason, the child is assigned the material.

If a parent fails to respond to an opt-in notice for whatever reason, the child is NOT assigned the material.

It's a fundamental shift from implicit to explicit participation.

They are very different. In an opt-out, no response equals tacit agreement. In an opt-in, no response equals tacit disagreement.

This

Yup. You can agree or disagree with the guy's point (that the book was too much for kids or whatever), but he wasn't kicked out for stating his opinion - he was kicked out for refusing to comply with the meeting's rules. I've got no sympathy for him there.

:thumb:

No, you don't understand the word.

There's thousands of books the teacher could choose. I think it's kind of creepy that this one would assign one with that kind of passage.

I don't have a problem with him being removed.

It's ridiculous that he was charged with a crime, though.

He was asking for it, almost literally:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/0...h-high-school/

I'm with the guy in saying that the school policy was wrong, and the officer didn't have to actually go through with the arrest, but the guy knew that arrest might be coming.

See this is reasonable recourse.

He could of disagreed with the topic. I still state it was listed and it was his duty to look over it. His antics and outburst caused this.

Then my stance on what parents allow their kids to listen to/watch is way worse than this book.

How many of read Romeo and Juiliet, that is a very sexual book. Especially for the older crowd. It is tame to what kids listen/watch now.

No, my point is the video games, music and movies and shows are way worse. And those parents, hell most parents do not care. But once school is involved they become self righteous.

Have you ever had to deal with parents as a teacher or coach setting? the hypocrisy is astounding.

And I will admit I am lumping together, because that is the norm not the exception. Most parents can say they care and prevent it, but do not. Very few I talk to watch over their kids texts. Good parents do.

Those good parents still let them watch GoT though. which I do not have a problem with, just this outrage of a parent over a book. A book that has been read for a while at their school. A book he could have known about. 7 years and no one has had a school meeting before? So no parents cared enough til this guy and lady?

The rest of us shouldn't be penalized because other parents suck ass.

****ing reeruned. Let's leave it up to the kids to report to their parents whether or not they should have to do homework.

"Johnny, did you bring back the note from your dad saying you have to do homework?"

"He wouldn't sign it. He thinks it's offensive."

"Did you actually give it to him?"

"Of course I did! This is opt-in! You can't force me!"

"Okay... Katie? Did you bring your note?"

"My dad thought it was offensive, too. He says I can't read it."

"Okay, well the two of you are excused from class while we discuss page 313."

*they leave and go have anal sex in her car*

:facepalm:

You do know that schools use email and contact parents DIRECTLY with shit like this, right?

I mean, the public schools are run by idiots but even they aren't this ****ing stupid.

I don't have a problem with the content of that page. Our society has incredibly ****ed up views regarding sex and violence. Lord of the Flies, which includes children murdering other children, is far more graphic and heinous than almost any non-rape scene imaginable.

Now, that's not to say that LotF is bannable, because it's not.

The teacher failed, not in choosing some salacious, but by choosing a text from an author known for vacuous, lowest-common-denominator plots.

I have some personal experience with a similar situation. I've had a student who refused to read Choke because he was, in his words, a Christian and it offended him. What I found interesting was that this same student had no issues reading a novel wherein a child describes the graphic murder of three children.

I've also had a student who refused to read "Going to Meet the Man" by James Baldwin. The ignorance of the student bothered me greatly because she didn't consider why there might be value in reading something that makes you uncomfortable because it just may challenge your values and help you better understand yourself and others.

Great point about reading ideas you don't like.

His loss. Choke was great fun.

We had a student who wanted to have a technology class replaced with something else because her religion "didn't believe in technology." I assured her that it existed.

93-year-old Texas woman fatally shot by police
AP 9 hr ago By Associated Press
SHARE
1.2K
TWEET
72
EMAIL
HEARNE, Texas (AP) — A 93-year-old Central Texas woman was fatally shot at her home by a police officer answering a call about a person with a gun, authorities said.

Pearlie Golden, a longtime resident of Hearne who was affectionately known to her neighbors as Ms. Sully, was shot Tuesday night, Robertson County District Attorney Coty Siegert said.

"She did have a gun. ... Now, what she was doing with it, that is the ultimate question," said Siegert.

The investigation is being handled by the Texas Rangers. Once the investigation is complete, the case will be presented to a grand jury, Siegert said.

City attorney Bryan Russ Jr. said the officer has been put on paid administrative leave as is standard protocol when an officer is involved in a shooting. "What we believe is that she was instructed to drop the weapon, that is my understanding," Russ said.

He could not comment any further because the investigation is ongoing.

Hearne is a town of about 4,500 people that's about 140 miles south of Dallas.

I agree wholeheartedly on the above....there are books that were assigned to my daughter that I found personally offensive, but still chose to let her read them because I don't want her to live in a bubble. She is headed off to college next year and the last thing I want her to be is naïve when it comes to reading material.

We only opted out on one book her whole HS career, and the wife & I talked about that one for several days before making that decision. And it was more on a personal level about whether she was emotionally/mentally prepared to understand the message in the book.

My biggest concerns when it comes to the classroom is less the material being read, and more the presenter. Teachers with agendas, while a very small percentage, are still troublesome to me.

Oh come on....what was the book you opted out of?

Call in the Militia.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. There is a large snake which is a direct representation of a penis and all the sexual tension between Harry and Hermione could be confusing to young readers.

The Bible.

Call in St. Joe's MRAP.

Funny as you were trying to be, your joke was out of date.

The Bible isn't allowed in school anymore.

This one made me chuckle....

To be frank I don't even remember.....it wasn't about whether or not I thought it was a book that should be recommended/mandated to be read, it was more about whether or not I thought she was prepared for handling the message of the book.

You know...they are kids and sometimes they don't all assimilate things the same way emotionally/mentally.

It was my choice as a parent, and I don't see any real mental/physical scars she has borne from not being able to read it.

So we're having a disussion about the book, not the officer?

Depends on the school.

WHAT!?!?!

I PROTEST THIS WAR ON CHRISTMAS

A sizable chunk of the students I teach at the college level aren't prepared to handle the message of most texts I assign them, and it's not like I'm dishing out Gravity's Rainbow, either.

Nothing to see here about the gestapo cop. Paid administrative leave. Maybe a promotion. Move along.

Thats truly the bigger story and issue. I only used the COP thing as a headline grabber.

The cop was only following orders. The story mentions that its not even normal for a cop to be at the meetings and he was never replaced after they left. The school board obviously knew something was going to go down.

Yeah....but to me there is a big difference in the mental makeup of a Freshman in HS and a college student.

There are books that I have no issue with my daughter reading now that she is preparing to head to college.....but when she was a Freshman I just didn't believe she was prepared for it.