ChiefsPlanet
Page 9 of 11 « First 5678 9 1011
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Books More Police nonsense. Father arrested for Speaking Against Sexually Explicit Book (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=283464)

htismaqe 05-07-2014 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 10607786)
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.
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.

Beef Supreme 05-07-2014 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 10607794)
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?

Just Passin' By 05-07-2014 03:32 PM
Quote:
The school department sent WBZ a statement explaining it has revised its policy for letting parents know about books being read. “The district will take immediate action to revise these policies to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial material rather than opt out. Furthermore, the notification will detail more specifically the controversial material,” wrote Sue Allen, Chair of the Gilford School Board.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/0...h-high-school/

htismaqe 05-07-2014 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 10607805)
I hope that's what it means, but what's the difference? Teacher sends a note home that 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.

Pitt Gorilla 05-07-2014 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 10607805)
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?
They are very different. In an opt-out, no response equals tacit agreement. In an opt-in, no response equals tacit disagreement.

BigMeatballDave 05-07-2014 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish (Post 10607784)
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.
This

DaFace 05-07-2014 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 10607635)
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.
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.

htismaqe 05-07-2014 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla (Post 10607816)
They are very different. In an opt-out, no response equals tacit agreement. In an opt-in, no response equals tacit disagreement.
:thumb:

KC native 05-07-2014 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet (Post 10607786)
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.
No, you don't understand the word.

blaise 05-07-2014 03:42 PM
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.

BigMeatballDave 05-07-2014 03:48 PM
I don't have a problem with him being removed.

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

Just Passin' By 05-07-2014 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCD (Post 10607855)
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:

Quote:
Gilford’s acting Police Chief, Lt. James Leach, said he had no choice but to make the arrest. “There were repeated attempts to ask him to stop,” Lt. Leach said. “I asked him to leave. He refused. He said, ‘arrest me or I’m not going to’…so I did.”

Baer was released on $700.00 personal recognizance, and is due in court in June.
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.

Valiant 05-07-2014 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10607884)
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.

Valiant 05-07-2014 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish (Post 10607784)
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.
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?

htismaqe 05-07-2014 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 10607926)
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.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:34 PM.
Page 9 of 11 « First 5678 9 1011
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.