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.