NationStates Jolt Archive

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

People these days... :rolleyes:

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

It comes from morality, but I wouldn't expect a liberal like you to know anything about that.

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

because it is perverting and corrupting the minds of our innocent, perfect, angeic children...or something like that.

lets face it...within the first few hours of birth, a baby has seen a vagina, inside and out, and breasts.

Ban all vaginal births and breast feeding!

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

It's not sex in general that causes the panic. It's the thought of children gaining sexual knowledge that panics people.

That's why the problem was the teacher's field trip rather than the museum itself.

Wow. Hard to believe this happened in an enlightened place like Texas.

;)

Wtf? They approved the trip, then decide not to renew her contract? What on earth is wrong with these people? It's just the human body. It's not like she took them to a porn flick, and even if she had I don't see how that would scar them for life. :rolleyes:

The parents signed a slip consenting to their children being taken to this muesuem, if they didn't research into its there own fault.

It's not sex in general that causes the panic. It's the thought of children gaining sexual knowledge that panics people.

But why? Why should information about bodies and sex and natural human activities be taboo?

Why should seeing a human penis be considered offensive or inappropriate, when seeing a human male's bared chest is not? Why are women's nipples to be hidden from view, while the male nipple may be displayed at will? These are body parts, nothing more and nothing less.

It's not like they were taking the kids to a live sex show. They were taking them to a museum where works of art are featured. Some art depicts the human body. Why should this provoke any ill response at all?

The parents signed a slip consenting to their children being taken to this muesuem, if they didn't research into its there own fault.

...their own fault. :rolleyes:

Jesus.... Some people are so fawking stupid. Where they some sort of Christian parents? because if so they should also make sure that their kids aren't reading the bible...like the song of solomon or crap about adultery. It might corrupt the kids or something ;)

Why should this provoke any ill response at all?

Cuz people are stupid? Surely we've been over this.

We have all become so obsessed with sex here that people instantly see nudity and think "sex". I actually beleive that if more nudity were shown people would be less obsessed with it.

Ban all vaginal births and breast feeding!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW6kGqL2tMI

Cuz people are stupid? Surely we've been over this.
But why are so many people stupid in this particular way? I just don't get it.

Art is evil!

I'm proud to announce that I'll take the whole class on an educational trip to a Tijuana Donkey Show to make up for the loss of their teacher. I just need signed permission slips from the parents.

The parents signed a slip consenting to their children being taken to this muesuem, if they didn't research into its there own fault.

It's never the parents' fault, trust me on this.

And His Holiness is correct, the human body is a source of shame and ... grossness. To wit, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans):

Some suggested that it is a "Puritan spirit" in the United States' political culture that create a tendency to oppose things such as alcohol and open sexuality. Historically speaking, the Puritans were not at all opposed to drinking alcohol in moderation or to enjoying their sexuality within the bounds of marriage as a gift from God, though they did publicly punish drunkenness and sexual relations outside of marriage.

Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in Democracy in America that the Pilgrims' Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for American democracy, and in his view, these Puritans were hard-working, egalitarian, and studious. The theme of a religious basis of economic discipline is echoed in sociologist Max Weber's work, but both de Tocqueville and Weber argued that this discipline was, not a force of economic determinism, but one factor among many that should be considered when evaluating the relative economic success of the Puritans. In Hellfire Nation, James A. Monroe suggests that some opposing tendencies within Puritanism—its desire to create a just society and its moral fervor in bringing about that just society, which sometimes created paranoia and intolerance for other views—were all at the root of America's current political landscape.

So, basically, it's all the fault of the English. :p

But why? Why should information about bodies and sex and natural human activities be taboo?

Why should seeing a human penis be considered offensive or inappropriate, when seeing a human male's bared chest is not? Why are women's nipples to be hidden from view, while the male nipple may be displayed at will? These are body parts, nothing more and nothing less.

It's not like they were taking the kids to a live sex show. They were taking them to a museum where works of art are featured. Some art depicts the human body. Why should this provoke any ill response at all?

It's mostly the fear that if children know about sex (and our culture has equivocated sex and nudity), they'll start having sex. By keeping them ignorant, parents "protect" their children from "the evils of sex".

Ignorance is strength.

It's mostly the fear that if children know about sex (and our culture has equivocated sex and nudity), they'll start having sex. By keeping them ignorant, parents "protect" their children from "the evils of sex".

Ignorance is strength.

And bliss.

We have all become so obsessed with sex here that people instantly see nudity and think "sex". I actually beleive that if more nudity were shown people would be less obsessed with it.
I totally agree. After all, somebody on this thread has already said that the problem with this museum trip was rooted in the fact that "the thought of children gaining sexual knowledge that panics people."

What "sexual knowledge" would have been disclosed at the museum? Yes, the kids might have seen a penis or two, but isn't the penis used for peeing a whole lot more frequently than it is used for sex? Sure, the kids might have seen boobies, but the female breast evolved for the purpose of feeding young rather than for sexual stimulation.

It's mostly the fear that if children know about sex (and our culture has equivocated sex and nudity), they'll start having sex. By keeping them ignorant, parents "protect" their children from "the evils of sex".

I get that, but WHY is sex "evil"? Why do people believe this? Why are they so afraid of sex and bodies?

I totally agree. After all, somebody on this thread has already said that the problem with this museum trip was rooted in the fact that "the thought of children gaining sexual knowledge that panics people."

What "sexual knowledge" would have been disclosed at the museum? Yes, the kids might have seen a penis or two, but isn't the penis used for peeing a whole lot more frequently than it is used for sex? Sure, the kids might have seen boobies, but the female breast evolved for the purpose of feeding young rather than for sexual stimulation.

So, you're okay with the panic over children gaining sexual knowledge, just pissed off that nudity is equated with sex in our culture?

I get that, but WHY is sex "evil"? Why do people believe this? Why are they so afraid of sex and bodies?

You've got me there. It doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no reason children need to be protected from this at all.

Amazing. In trouble because kids see a nude sculpture on a school approved field trip that parents signed permission slips allowing the kids to go to. Now she is fired? I hope she sues that school for every cent it has.

I get that, but WHY is sex "evil"? Why do people believe this? Why are they so afraid of sex and bodies?

Because God said ... do I really have to go on? And we've had the "original sin" discussion somewhere else, I think. I agree, it's absurd and sad at the same time. I can just imagine the parents, "Well, shoot, sure I signed the permission slip, but nobody told me there'd nekkid statues and paintings in the museum!"

I have a better one for you. Last year, I think or early this year, a creationist group led some teenagers on a tour of the Denver Museum of Science and Nature during which they explained, in humorous and condescending ways, how just about everything on display was wrong. Can't stop 'em, of course, but I had a headache for days after hearing about that.

Amazing. In trouble because kids see a nude sculpture on a school approved field trip that parents signed permission slips allowing the kids to go to. Now she is fired? I hope she sues that school for every cent it has.

Why the school? Why not the parents?

We have all become so obsessed with sex here that people instantly see nudity and think "sex". I actually beleive that if more nudity were shown people would be less obsessed with it.


Exactly, nudity does not equal sex despite what society thinks. The funny thing is the more we block the naked body the more problems we cause with regards to sex.

I get that, but WHY is sex "evil"? Why do people believe this? Why are they so afraid of sex and bodies?

I think it has to do with conservative Christians that say sex is the ebul. I suppose they beleive that talking about it will lead kids to do it more out of wedlock, and obviously that leads to the downfall of society.:rolleyes:

I tend to see it where as we hide kids from sex, and when they do hear about it, then they become too curious about it, but if we expose them to sex or nudity, there won't be as much curiousity, and probably would have a plateaued or decreased young teen sex rate.

So, you're okay with the panic over children gaining sexual knowledge, just pissed off that nudity is equated with sex in our culture?
No, I think it's stupid to give kids the message that sex is bad or icky or taboo. I think the best way you can ensure that kids will get hurt or will hurt somebody sexually is to keep them ignorant about sex.

However, I'm willing to accept that reasonable and well-meaning people might have concerns about exposing kids to sexual content, because most people are edgy about situations where kids might be sexually exploited or abused. I'm willing, for the purposes of this discussion, to just let that go.

But even when I do so, we're still left with a situation where the kids would only have been "exposed" to depictions of naked human bodies. The fact that this is automatically classified as "sexual" in some way is deeply twisted. Kids who are taught that message are being sexualized far more than kids who are taught that sex is simply one of the many natural activities the human body may engage in.

Why hasn't anyone put a fatwa on that museum?

Seriously, though - I mean, WTF? Things like that make me believe that many, way too many, people in the U.S. need some real attitude adjustment.

I've had the first sex ed in 4th grade, and a nude sculpture didn't raise any hackles whatsoever. We were glad we didn't have to sit in a classroom when we went on field trips to museums - and really, nude sculptures were just boring. Nothing more, nothing less.

Besides, if the parents complained after they signed the permission slips, it their problem entirely. They would have had enough time to check on said museum beforehand.

Jesus Fucking Christ! Retards for t3h win?

I really hope that teacher finds another school with parents who appreciate her work in the field of arts better than what happened here. She sure as hell deserves it.

Why the school? Why not the parents?

The parents don't have control over her employment do they? It is the school who caved in to their stupid complaints. It is therefore the school that should pay for firing her for no acceptable reason.

The parents don't have control over her employment do they? It is the school who caved in to their stupid complaints. It is therefore the school that should pay for firing her for no acceptable reason.

I know, I know.

But I just hate the idea of the school taking the fall and loosing money that could otherwise be used to educate.

Some more parents who would live a much happier life in Iran, it seems.

I think it has to do with conservative Christians that say sex is the ebul. I suppose they beleive that talking about it will lead kids to do it more out of wedlock, and obviously that leads to the downfall of society.:rolleyes:

I just don't get where these ideas come from. They are so obviously and demonstrably false...so why don't people figure that out? Why are they so set-and-determined to be freaked out about sex? Of all things, why pick that one?

And why would conservative Christianity teach sex-phobia in the first place? Sex ignorance is directly linked to increased STD rates, increased rates of unplanned and unsafe pregnancies, and increased rates of maternal and infant death during pregnancy and childbirth. What is gained by this kind of willful stupidity?

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

Compare and contrast this thread and your Perv Punchers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500687) one.

But even when I do so, we're still left with a situation where the kids would only have been "exposed" to depictions of naked human bodies.

but everyone knows that mere exposure is enough to turn the little bastards into raving sexaholics. even worse, it'll make them all gay sexaholics. the only proper way to expose a child to nudity is to shower with them. dr. james dobson, medicine woman, said so.

I just don't get where these ideas come from. They are so obviously and demonstrably false...so why don't people figure that out? Why are they so set-and-determined to be freaked out about sex? Of all things, why pick that one?

And why would conservative Christianity teach sex-phobia in the first place? Sex ignorance is directly linked to increased STD rates, increased rates of unplanned and unsafe pregnancies, and increased rates of maternal and infant death during pregnancy and childbirth. What is gained by this kind of willful stupidity?

They themselves are ignorant. They beleive that talking about it will make kids think about it all the time. Stupid I know, but thats how people believe.

If you go through the news article linked in the OP to the teacher's profile on the school's site, you'll see this sentence: "My teaching career started in Klein ISD (north Houston/Conroe area), being hired originally by Dan Rather's brother, Don Rather." Need I say more?

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

I remeber going to various museums in Houston on field trips in elementary school w/o any such problems...

(Somthing bad was posted here...)

but everyone knows that mere exposure is enough to turn the little bastards into raving sexaholics. even worse, it'll make them all gay sexaholics. the only proper way to expose a child to nudity is to shower with them. dr. james dobson, medicine woman, said so.


:p I really do dislike that man A WHOLE LOT. I listen to a christian radio station all the time, and then he comes on with a half hour program, i have to turn it off or face getting sick to the stomach.

Compare and contrast this thread and your Perv Punchers (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=500687) one.

So in your mind there is no difference in taking kids to a museum and grooming kids for molestation by showing them porn on a playground?

If you go through the news article linked in the OP to the teacher's profile on the school's site, you'll see this sentence: "My teaching career started in Klein ISD (north Houston/Conroe area), being hired originally by Dan Rather's brother, Don Rather." Need I say more?

Yes, you need to.

I have no idea who or what Dan Rather's is.

If you go through the news article linked in the OP to the teacher's profile on the school's site, you'll see this sentence: "My teaching career started in Klein ISD (north Houston/Conroe area), being hired originally by Dan Rather's brother, Don Rather." Need I say more?

Yes. What you've said so far tells me nothing of importance.

So in your mind there is no difference in taking kids to a museum and grooming kids for molestation by showing them porn on a playground?

Did I say that?

Did I say that?

No, but I reserve the right to interpret other people's posts any way I want.

Yes, you need to.

I have no idea who or what Dan Rather's is.

Gosh, where does one begin? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather)? Ou ici (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather)? He's a US TV newsman who has been, from time to time, controversial.

No, but I reserve the right to interpret other people's posts any way I want.

Your comments about grooming and molestation indicate that you also utilise that right when it comes to reading news reports.

Gosh, where does one begin? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather)? Ou ici (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather)? He's a US TV newsman who has been, from time to time, controversial.

And what has he got to do with this?

Yes. What you've said so far tells me nothing of importance.

Think of the children! This woman was originally hired by Dan Rather's brother in what is now an obvious attempt to expose our innocent Texian children to pornographic European art, thereby corrupting their minds so they will grow up to be dope-smoking, drug-injecting, promiscuous liberals! :rolleyes:

And what has he got to do with this?

It's kind of an in-joke for Americans. And apparently, an overly subtle one.

I know, I know.

But I just hate the idea of the school taking the fall and loosing money that could otherwise be used to educate.

It is understandable but that teacher doesn't deserve what happened to her. The school basically sold her out. She deserves compensation.

Parents being so uptight about their kids seeing a nude piece of art makes me really worried about this country. I mean if there was an actual nude person there then I can understand them being a little peeved. But this is really stupid.

Parents being so uptight about their kids seeing a nude piece of art makes me really worried about this country.

And hey, we all know that the nude as portrayed in art oft bears little relation to a real naked person - look at Ruskin's wedding night.

It is understandable but that teacher doesn't deserve what happened to her. The school basically sold her out. She deserves compensation.

I agree, I just think it would be more just that the parents who complained and had her sacked take the fall, not the school.

Excuse me, but FUCK YOU! :upyours: Anyone who advocates killing me deserves the return.

Chill, Daisy.


KILL THE TEXANS!!!! (and don't forget those in the White House)

East of Eden is Nod, I just officially warned you for trolling not long ago, and here you are at it again, and upped the ante by advocating violence. I'm giving you a week off. Your next offense will result in deletion.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

And hey, we all know that the nude as portrayed in art oft bears little relation to a real naked person - look at Ruskin's wedding night.

Maybe if the nude was a Picasso there wouldn't be a problem. :D

The parents signed a slip consenting to their children being taken to this muesuem, if they didn't research into its there own fault.

Interestingly you can see many of the pictures online here (http://collections.dallasmuseumofart.org/), the parents wouldn't even need to slog all the way to the museum.

Incidently I'd laugh if this was a picture they'd object to

http://collections.dallasmuseumofart.org/media/previews/1990'145'FA.jpg

Interestingly you can see many of the pictures online here (http://collections.dallasmuseumofart.org/), the parents wouldn't even need to slog all the way to the museum.

Incidently I'd laugh if this was a picture they'd object to

http://collections.dallasmuseumofart.org/media/previews/1990'145'FA.jpg

Anyone would find that picture offensive. I mean just look at it! I tell you I think my blood is boiling just seeing it...

Chill, Daisy.



East of Eden is Nod, I just officially warned you for trolling not long ago, and here you are at it again, and upped the ante by advocating violence. I'm giving you a week off. Your next offense will result in deletion.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Thank you. You are correct. I got too hot there. (And thanx for the fast hand w/ the jolt multiplier...)

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

Those barbaric mus.....

O....wait......

Those barbaric mus.....

O....wait......

Muslims may well have stoned her.

You had to expect me to say something like this. Who am I to disappoint you?

Muslims may well have stoned her.

You had to expect me to say something like this. Who am I to disappoint you?

Somehow the difference between a poor, mostly third world- and largely uneducated group and the nation that put men on the moon still doesn't strike me as being sufficiently large enough to allow you to throw proverbial stones at them......

Amazing. In trouble because kids see a nude sculpture on a school approved field trip that parents signed permission slips allowing the kids to go to. Now she is fired? I hope she sues that school for every cent it has.

Unfortunately Texas ascribes to the "At will doctrine" for employment, meaning that either an employer or an employee can terminate the relationship at any time without reason (subject to certain statutory limitations). If this is the only reason she was terminated, then she really has no action she can bring against the school district.

But what about those poor children who have to live in such godforsaken places such as Napoli or Firenze.There subjected to sex everywhere.
On a serious note this is going to go badly for the school if it goes to court.Alhough this is in Texas...

What is wrong with this teacher letting the pupil see a naked body? Why not something more wholesome like a movie where people are decapitated and blown apart? Will wonders never cease???

Unfortunately Texas ascribes to the "At will doctrine" for employment, meaning that either an employer or an employee can terminate the relationship at any time without reason (subject to certain statutory limitations). If this is the only reason she was terminated, then she really has no action she can bring against the school district.

That is awful. Nice to see how the rights of the employee are protected in Texas.

That is awful. Nice to see how the rights of the employee are protected in Texas.

Well it's supposed to allow for more freedom on both sides (Texans are all about freedom to do what they want), the employee also has the right to quit without giving reason. Whether or not it's a balanced freedom (or fair, or whatever) is probably up to the person considering it.

Will Somebody Please Think Of The Children!

Well it's supposed to allow for more freedom on both sides (Texans are all about freedom to do what they want), the employee also has the right to quit without giving reason. Whether or not it's a balanced freedom (or fair, or whatever) is probably up to the person considering it.

As far as I know people can quit their job whenever they want anyway. Or does it mean that the employer still has to give whatever money that is owed to the employee? Retirement, etc.?

Will Somebody Please Think Of The Children!

No. ;)

As far as I know people can quit their job whenever they want anyway. Or does it mean that the employer still has to give whatever money that is owed to the employee? Retirement, etc.?

I really don't know. That seems to be the "intent" of the at will doctrine (society may have been different when they decided to use it), but it seems like it doesn't really confer any real benefit on the employee.

www.dallasmuseumofart.org


* snigger *

Some people can't tell the difference between art and pornography.

Somehow the difference between a poor, mostly third world- and largely uneducated group and the nation that put men on the moon still doesn't strike me as being sufficiently large enough to allow you to throw proverbial stones at them......
Are you suggesting that we shouldn't criticise human rights abuses?

Indeed, many of the fundamentalist clerical advocates of woman-stoning are not at all uneducated.

Some people can't tell the difference between art and pornography.

Which presumably why a great deal of pieces expressly created as pornography are on display in museums and gallerys as art, yes?

Which presumably why a great deal of pieces expressly created as pornography are on display in museums and gallerys as art, yes?

Larry Flynt is a lover of the arts! :eek:

Unfortunately Texas ascribes to the "At will doctrine" for employment, meaning that either an employer or an employee can terminate the relationship at any time without reason (subject to certain statutory limitations). If this is the only reason she was terminated, then she really has no action she can bring against the school district.

At will doctrines are not typically in play against employees of the state, which she would be as a public school teacher.

Because state employees are bound by stricter hiring/firing standards, at will employment does not typically come into play.

At will doctrines are not typically in play against employees of the state, which she would be as a public school teacher.

Because state employees are bound by stricter hiring/firing standards, at will employment does not typically come into play.

I'm actually studying a case on wrongful termination of a teacher in the state of Texas right now, and so far I have seen nothing to indicate that the at will doctrine does not apply.

I'm actually studying a case on wrongful termination of a teacher in the state of Texas right now, and so far I have seen nothing to indicate that the at will doctrine does not apply.

that's....pretty surprising. Typically government employment doesn't allow for that.

HOWEVER even an at will doctrine does not necessarily bar a case of wrongful termination, it is possible, though difficult.

If she can make a case stating she was fired for doing something that the school, and the parents, consented that she do, there may be a case there.

that's....pretty surprising. Typically government employment doesn't allow for that.

HOWEVER even an at will doctrine does not necessarily bar a case of wrongful termination, it is possible, though difficult.

If she can make a case stating she was fired for doing something that the school, and the parents, consented that she do, there may be a case there.

from teknolaw.com

"In many states, including Texas, an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason (unless it violates a constitutional right). This is known as the "employment at will doctrine." This means that you could work at a company for 40 years and show up one day and your boss could say, "I don't like your tie. You're fired." This is rude, offensive, humiliating and not fair. But it is not illegal!

One of the first questions I ask clients is "Do you have a written contract in which your employer agreed to employ you for a specific period of time?" If not, then you are an "employee at will."

The fact that you can be terminated for no reason does not mean that your employer will terminate you for no reason. In fact, most employers try to find some legitimate reason for termination so that they don't have to pay unemployment fees.

In Texas, and in many states, if you are terminated for cause, you are not entitled to unemployment wages. Therefore, most employers will try to create a "paper trial" showing that you were terminated for cause. You employer may suddenly start giving you poor performance reviews for no reason at all, or place unreasonable demands on you that you are not capable of meeting. Again, although this is rude, offensive and not fair, it is not illegal.

Are there exceptions to the employment at will doctrine?

There are, however, exceptions to the employment at will doctrine. You cannot be terminated on the basis of your age, sex, disability or race. You also cannot be terminated in retaliation for exercising certain statutory rights. For example, in Texas, if you file a worker's compensation claim, your employer cannot retaliate against you by firing you. If you file a sexual harassment claim or any kind of discrimination claim, your employer cannot retaliate against you by firing you. If you work for Texas state agency, and you report that agency for a violation of the law, then the Texas Whistleblower Act protects you from retaliation from the state. However, the Whistleblower Act only applies if you were working for a state agency.

However, the best way to avoid the employment at will doctrine is to get a written contract from your employer in which it agrees to employ you for a defined period of time (i.e. one year or more, depending on what you negotiate). This is especially important if you are taking a job, which requires you to move from another city or state.

There have been many horror stories in which an employee sold his/her house, uprooted his/her family, and left a lucrative job in another state to come to work for a company, which subsequently fires him/her a few weeks after he/she begins working. If you are considering taking a job in another state, always ask your potential employer if they are willing to sign an agreement to hire you for a specific period of time in order to make the move worth your while. If you currently find yourself in the position of having moved from another city or state in reliance on a verbal representation that you would have this job for a while, and you have been terminated shortly after you started work, there are other legal doctrines that may protect you. Don't give up."





Even if the teacher has a lawyer willing to argue the case, I personally think it would not be as strong a case as many of the people here think it ought to be and it would be fairly easy for the school district to just say "we weren't satisfied with her performance" or come up with other arguments that work under the at will doctrine.

Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Of course, we are living in a country where an art teacher was pushed out of her job for posing for nude photographs on her own time. Essentially, an art teacher was fired for *gasp* participating in the making of art.

Another teacher lost her job because, as a side job, she modeled lingerie. She even did so under another name, but once a teacher who didn't like her found the pictures and showed them to students, she was out too.

We do live in a country where a magazine for new mothers was blasted for *daring* to have a picture of a breastfeeding baby on the cover. Moms were so worried that their children might see it, some of them shredded it or got rid of it.

We live in a country where parents are often so inept they want the government to raise their kids for them, as long as "raise" in this case means "keep completely ignorant of the world and lie to on a regular basis."

:rolleyes:

/end rant

that's....pretty surprising. Typically government employment doesn't allow for that.

HOWEVER even an at will doctrine does not necessarily bar a case of wrongful termination, it is possible, though difficult.

If she can make a case stating she was fired for doing something that the school, and the parents, consented that she do, there may be a case there.

The problem with this is that she isn't being fired - at least not according to the article. She is being paid until her contract runs out, and the school is simply not going to renew the contract. This tactic might be precisely to avoid any type of lawsuit.

Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Of course, we are living in a country where an art teacher was pushed out of her job for posing for nude photographs on her own time. Essentially, an art teacher was fired for *gasp* participating in the making of art.

Another teacher lost her job because, as a side job, she modeled lingerie. She even did so under another name, but once a teacher who didn't like her found the pictures and showed them to students, she was out too.

We do live in a country where a magazine for new mothers was blasted for *daring* to have a picture of a breastfeeding baby on the cover. Moms were so worried that their children might see it, some of them shredded it or got rid of it.

We live in a country where parents are often so inept they want the government to raise their kids for them, as long as "raise" in this case means "keep completely ignorant of the world and lie to on a regular basis."

:rolleyes:

/end rant

I totally agree that it is ridiculous. Teachers may (and maybe should) be held to higher degrees of moral behavior in their lives as teachers (aka when at school and when involved in school related functions), but I also think that they should be allowed personal freedom as private citizens (especially when they make attempts to have minimal connection with their teacher name and the private things they do).

Ah well, such is the country in which we live.

Which presumably why a great deal of pieces expressly created as pornography are on display in museums and gallerys as art, yes?
What are you talking about. The parents in question obviously think that this art is pornography. Which is a mistake.

Are you suggesting that we shouldn't criticise human rights abuses?

Indeed, many of the fundamentalist clerical advocates of woman-stoning are not at all uneducated.

Yes, as a left wing athiest and critic of fundamentalist religon, I'm obviously for stoning seven shades of shit out of people for a whole host of reasons.

We do live in a country where a magazine for new mothers was blasted for *daring* to have a picture of a breastfeeding baby on the cover.

I thought that was actually some sort of 'onion-esque' style thing when I first saw it.

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

It's not like they took the kids to a whorehouse, and had them be prostitutes for Career Day.

It comes from morality, but I wouldn't expect a liberal like you to know anything about that.

Well, no. It doesn't come from morality. It comes from ignorance and self-righteousness. It ultimatly comes from fear. That's not morality.

It isn't moral to blame a teacher because you were too lazy a parent to take an interest in what your kids were doing. There were permission slips for this trip that the parents signed. If they were concerned that a museum was the destination, they should have checked it out first or not signed the slip. If they're too stupid to know that an art museum is going to have nude paintings or sculptures... Well, that goes back to the ignorance thing I mentioned at the top.

It also isn't morality for a principle who encouraged the trip in the first place to fire a teacher for his plans. If he had any courage. If he had any morality, he would have said "the trip was my idea and I will answer to the board." But instead, he let the teacher take the heat. Gutless immoral ass.

The problem with this is that she isn't being fired - at least not according to the article. She is being paid until her contract runs out, and the school is simply not going to renew the contract. This tactic might be precisely to avoid any type of lawsuit.

She's still being fired. She's just being fired in March. Sure this could be viewed as a nice vacation, but still, it is wrong to force this on her.

Well, no. It doesn't come from morality. It comes from ignorance and self-righteousness. It ultimatly comes from fear. That's not morality.

It isn't moral to blame a teacher because you were too lazy a parent to take an interest in what your kids were doing. There were permission slips for this trip that the parents signed. If they were concerned that a museum was the destination, they should have checked it out first or not signed the slip. If they're too stupid to know that an art museum is going to have nude paintings or sculptures... Well, that goes back to the ignorance thing I mentioned at the top.

It also isn't morality for a principle who encouraged the trip in the first place to fire a teacher for his plans. If he had any courage. If he had any morality, he would have said "the trip was my idea and I will answer to the board." But instead, he let the teacher take the heat. Gutless immoral ass.

You get a star for that one.

Some people can't tell the difference between art and pornography.

No. They really can't. (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/07/23/they-called-me-a-child-pornographer/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fmwt%2Ffeature%2F2006%2F07%2F18%2Fphotos%2F&frame=true)

She's still being fired. She's just being fired in March. Sure this could be viewed as a nice vacation, but still, it is wrong to force this on her.

Effectively, yes. Technically, no. Her employment was only contracted until March. For it to be a firing, they would have to end her employment early. They are not. They have simply decided not to rehire her.

americans such as those mentioned in the article who take offence at art simply because it has nudity (and the human body is an organism which is brilliantly designed...) are no different the fundamentalist muslims they invoke to justify their little crusades in the middle east. I bet there is plenty of behind the scenes sexual hijinks which are expressed in such hysteria.

What are you talking about.

http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/dennis/Visual_Arts/03-Rococo_Fragonard_The-Swing.jpg

Erm...WTF

And the school should not be held responsible, nor the teacher, that's why they have a permission slip.

http://www.luc.edu/depts/history/dennis/Visual_Arts/03-Rococo_Fragonard_The-Swing.jpg

My goodness!!! A picture of a "swinger."

You know what swinger means don't you?

Another teacher lost her job because, as a side job, she modeled lingerie. She even did so under another name, but once a teacher who didn't like her found the pictures and showed them to students, she was out too.


I think it sucks that teachers have to take side jobs. I thought I kept on hearing from some US citizens that the teaching unions were uber-strong :confused:

What are you talking about. The parents in question obviously think that this art is pornography. Which is a mistake.

He's commenting on the fact that there are some things in art galleries which were created as porn.

Though incidently, how do you the difference between art and porn?

I think it sucks that teachers have to take side jobs. I thought I kept on hearing from some US citizens that the teaching unions were uber-strong :confused:

The unions are strong. The pay is still shitty.

On top of that, depending on the state, school is not always year-round. Quite often, students (and thus, most teachers) get the summer off. You'd be hard pressed to find any job that pays for a three-month vacation, teaching or no, so teachers often need summer jobs.

The unions are strong. The pay is still shitty.

On top of that, depending on the state, school is not always year-round. Quite often, students (and thus, most teachers) get the summer off. You'd be hard pressed to find any job that pays for a three-month vacation, teaching or no, so teachers often need summer jobs.

Of course, not really on the ball tonight

Damn pruitans, screwing up the minds of their decendents in North America....

My goodness!!! A picture of a "swinger."

Who is looking where?

You've got me there. It doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no reason children need to be protected from this at all.

Of course, you're not saying that because you're a pedophile, are you?

Ok, seriously folks, I don't get it.

What is the big deal about naked bodies and sex?! Why are so many people so freaked out about their own organs and their own bodily functions? Why are we so terrified of the thought that somewhere, somehow, there might be naked humans doing "it"?

I just can't figure out where this weird sex-panic comes from. I've never felt anything like it. Please, somebody explain it to me.

It's a method of controlling the power women have over men. Men are afraid of their reactions to women and how easily they are controlled by sex and female beauty so they censor that power by attaching shame to sex.

No. They really can't. (http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/07/23/they-called-me-a-child-pornographer/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fmwt%2Ffeature%2F2006%2F07%2F18%2Fphotos%2F&frame=true)

Oh, that's bad. That's really bad... :(

Yes, as a left wing athiest and critic of fundamentalist religon, I'm obviously for stoning seven shades of shit out of people for a whole host of reasons.
I don't know about that, but you've already stated that we have no right to criticise such. Which may be as bad as supporting it.

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

This illustrates the number one argument I have for getting the government out of education. In _any_ private school, the principal would have called the parents of this offended child and suggested that maybe he isn't quite ready for this school. Government schools can't do that, so a lot of kids suffer the consequences of having to educate an ignorant few with loud spoken parents.

This illustrates the number one argument I have for getting the government out of education. In _any_ private school, the principal would have called the parents of this offended child and suggested that maybe he isn't quite ready for this school. Government schools can't do that, so a lot of kids suffer the consequences of having to educate an ignorant few with loud spoken parents.

Of course, that just means that those kids would suffer. With parents like that, they'd be likely to get kicked out of every school. As such, those children would be (a) fundamentally disadvantaged and (b) most likely grow up just like their ignorant parents, having never been exposed to anything else. In the end, it's better for everyone if those kids *do* get an education.

This illustrates the number one argument I have for getting the government out of education. In _any_ private school, the principal would have called the parents of this offended child and suggested that maybe he isn't quite ready for this school. Government schools can't do that, so a lot of kids suffer the consequences of having to educate an ignorant few with loud spoken parents.

To my mind the problem is a lack of spine in the public school administration. It's become so fashionable to bash them that they've been conditioned to cower in the corner if a parent looks at them sideways. What the principal should have done was responded by reminding the parent that he or she signed the permission slip, and what did he or she expect would be seen in an art museum?

I agree, sex is nothing but a natural function like any other, in fact, I don't see why rape is a crime, it's really more of an inconvenience. People should get a $50 fine for it like they do if they steal a hadicapped parking spot.

I agree, sex is nothing but a natural function like any other, in fact, I don't see why rape is a crime, it's really more of an inconvenience. People should get a $50 fine for it like they do if they steal a hadicapped parking spot.

Uhm ... what?

To my mind the problem is a lack of spine in the public school administration. It's become so fashionable to bash them that they've been conditioned to cower in the corner if a parent looks at them sideways. What the principal should have done was responded by reminding the parent that he or she signed the permission slip, and what did he or she expect would be seen in an art museum?

Precisely!

Of course, that just means that those kids would suffer. With parents like that, they'd be likely to get kicked out of every school. As such, those children would be (a) fundamentally disadvantaged and (b) most likely grow up just like their ignorant parents, having never been exposed to anything else. In the end, it's better for everyone if those kids *do* get an education.
The other hand that a private school can play is to tell the parents that "this is the way we run our school". Then it's the parents decision to stay or go. Either way, it eliminates the public school problem of universal inclusion.

I agree, sex is nothing but a natural function like any other, in fact, I don't see why rape is a crime, it's really more of an inconvenience. People should get a $50 fine for it like they do if they steal a hadicapped parking spot.

You know, shitting is a biological function too, but if someone shits on me I want him/her killed. Then again there are some folks who like that shit. See Scat Porn. Kind of like sex. If everyone involved is cool with it, it ain't shit, but if someone is forced into it, that shit won't fly. Someone should be punished for that shit.

Uhm ... what?

i was demonstrating the slippery slope falacy by sarcastically taking that notion to an extreme

To my mind the problem is a lack of spine in the public school administration. It's become so fashionable to bash them that they've been conditioned to cower in the corner if a parent looks at them sideways. What the principal should have done was responded by reminding the parent that he or she signed the permission slip, and what did he or she expect would be seen in an art museum?

That's the right answer, but schools around here are so afraid of litigation that they don't take the kids anywhere. Just showing a movie that isn't G rated takes more signatures than buying a house.

Uhm ... what?

i was demonstrating the slippery slope falacy by sarcastically taking that notion to an extreme

The other hand that a private school can play is to tell the parents that "this is the way we run our school". Then it's the parents decision to stay or go. Either way, it eliminates the public school problem of universal inclusion.

I don't see universal inclusion as a problem. I do see any system that does not do everything it can to provide an education to each and every child in this country as being a problem.

A private school can tell the parents that. A private school can also decide that certain students won't get in because they can't pay, because they wouldn't "fit in", because they aren't the right religion, or any other number of reasons. Luckily, even if private school isn't an option for them, children aren't necessarily going to end up without an education.

i was demonstrating the slippery slope falacy by sarcastically taking that notion to an extreme

perhaps that would be clearer if you quoted what you were responding to.

I don't see universal inclusion as a problem. I do see any system that does not do everything it can to provide an education to each and every child in this country as being a problem.

A private school can tell the parents that. A private school can also decide that certain students won't get in because they can't pay, because they wouldn't "fit in", because they aren't the right religion, or any other number of reasons. Luckily, even if private school isn't an option for them, children aren't necessarily going to end up without an education.
These kids were probably the last class to go to an art museum. Is that school now providing a proper education? What about the wackos around here that object to evolution being taught? Are the schools that edit their textbooks now providing a proper education? What if someone objected to addition and the schools gave in? Is that school providing a proper education?

We don't need a government board to tell us what's necessary in an education. In fact, it's only a relatively recent development that governments have anything to do with education, anyway.

Private accreditation agencies do a very good job of evaluating higher education. I'm sure if we were to abandon the meddling that the government does in our secondary and elementary education, these, or similar, accreditation agencies would become just as valuable in rating our schools -- ours, not the governments -- as consumer reports is in rating our appliances.

As far as universal inclusion goes, I think you have to go with the 99% rule. There are kids that don't belong in school because they are disruptive. The process to get rid of them is way too difficult and time-consuming for the teachers. It should be easy to get rid of kids that don't want to learn and whose parents don't support the efforts that the schools make to teach them.

*snip*
Couldn't agree more. :D I thought you were more left-wing economically though, or am I wrong?

It is to laugh.


...and later, it is to sue the school board for wrongful dismissal.


...and then it is to laugh again, more heartily than before.


Good times.

Couldn't agree more. :D I thought you were more left-wing economically though, or am I wrong?

Bite your tongue! I don't do the silly political compass thing, but I'm a pretty solid social and economic libertarian.

Bite your tongue! I don't do the silly political compass thing, but I'm a pretty solid social and economic libertarian.
Anyone who thinks they are libertarian solely based on that test is a fool. :) It's quite hilarious to hear of libertarians nowadays who don't even know of Mises (or Hayek or Friedman for that matter).

At any rate, good to know. ^^

It is good to see those poll results, though. 98% of respondents wouldn't care if their kids saw nude sculpture on a field trip.

Anyone who thinks they are libertarian solely based on that test is a fool. :) It's quite hilarious to hear of libertarians nowadays who don't even know of Mises (or Hayek or Friedman for that matter).

At any rate, good to know. ^^

While I'm not claiming to be a Libertarian, nor am I claiming to be even remotely knowledgable about the history of the Libertarianism... Uhm... Isn't it more of an ideology, as opposed to an exclusive club? :rolleyes:

Ohmigod, you aren't familiar with all of the founders?! You can't possibly ever be a Libertarian, then!

It's probally better to know your figures before professing belief in a system, I agree, but the ideas are more important than the names who conceived them, aren't they?

While I'm not claiming to be a Libertarian, nor am I claiming to be even remotely knowledgable about the history of the Libertarianism... Uhm... Isn't it more of an ideology, as opposed to an exclusive club? :rolleyes:
Adhering to the ideology presupposes an actual knowledge of it - in this regard, it is a sort of club. I look at all ideologies this way - for instance, with Marxism, I do not consider some anarchist punk without a knowledge of Marx's ideas to belong to said "club."

Ohmigod, you aren't familiar with all of the founders?! You can't possibly ever be a Libertarian, then!

It's probally better to know your figures before professing belief in a system, I agree, but the ideas are more important than the names who conceived them, aren't they?
I expect anyone who claims to be libertarian to know who founded the movement, at minimum. At any rate, when I mentioned the names I meant the ideas related to them by implication.

If that anarchist punk spouted all of the principles of Marxism, and yet was entirely unaware of Karl Marx, I'd still call him a Marxist. The ideology is independent of knowledge of the ideology.

If that anarchist punk spouted all of the principles of Marxism, and yet was entirely unaware of Karl Marx, I'd still call him a Marxist. The ideology is independent of knowledge of the ideology.
My beef is with those who claim to be adherents of a certain ideology yet don't even know what it's essentially about (or who defined it, to a lesser extent). Not so much with those who follow it unknowingly.

This teacher has won the Star Award. She had been teaching for 28 years. The principal encouraged the field trip. Parents signed the permission slips. If she sues for wrongful dismissal, she will win, unequivocally.

She's the patsy for the degenerate moral character of backwater Christian-infested hives of ignorance like Texas. These people genuinely believe that children at a public school have been eggregiously wronged because, while getting to view some of the most spectacular works of visual art available in the American Southwest, some of them may or may not have seen one artist's carved marble vision of what a human being looks like naked.

Roughly half of the kids on that field trip already see a member of that gender naked every day, assuming they shower or bathe.

The Quaker mentality that encourages people to be ashamed of their physical forms is a form of imposed mental illness and these parents should be ashamed of themselves for raising children who will never, EVER have a proper and healthy sex life if they attach such a stigma to their own bodies. Which of these children will have the nerve to attach a condom if beholding their own nudity is enough to get an award-winning teacher fired?

How is it immoral to see someone naked? The premises of the "nudity as immorality" disease go something like this:

1. It demonstrably, palpably harms children to see someone naked, unless it is Adam on the Sistine Chapel or the Madonna breast-feeding the baby Jesus.
2. The best solution to prevent this harm is to pretend that nudity DOES NOT EXIST- by sequestering them from naked statues, they will never, ever have curiosity about what the naked body looks like, and they will never, ever have to undergo the awful torture of seeing another human being naked until they are married and trying to conceive.
3. Society would be better-off if only married couples who have already tried to conceive were allowed to see sculptures or paintings that involve naked people.
4. All works from Shakespeare to Danta to the Da Vinci Code that contain references to, descriptions of, or euphamisms for any part of the human anatomy that is regularly covered by underwear should be banned from school districts because it demonstrably, palpably harms non-married American citizens from having any formative basis for the concept of nudity.

If you try to blame this on your religious faith, you are being absurd. The only entity to blame for this is ignorance, and the cultural primitivism of the American philistine, typically the right-wing evangelical who wouldn't know a Kandinsky from a Rembrant unless someone told them that Rembrandt painted nudes, in which case they might be able to catch a glimpse as the masterpieces piled high in the fire pit, all in the name of their insulated, ruined children.

Next time hives of idiocy want to secede and start a new slave-state, I vote we let them. How dare you get your filthy hands on humanity's art and ruin this woman's job over her sincere effort to expose young minds to new ideas, ideas they would never be allowed to consider in a backwater Christian household? I am revolted and appalled. This whole school administration should be drummed out of their jobs for the damage they have done to the education system in Texas.

Hehe...back in 6th grade in German Class we were looking at movies. One of my mates thought he'd be funny and brought a porno tape with him (with the wrong label on it).

Teacher put it in...everybody was pissing themselves laughing. Including the teacher. So when my mate wanted to turn it off, she said "No, wait, I wanna know whether they're speaking German or English."

So we fast-forwarded to a dialogue scene. It was German, horribly dubbed. :D

Oh, and no one got their panties into a twist.

No, I think it's stupid to give kids the message that sex is bad or icky or taboo. I think the best way you can ensure that kids will get hurt or will hurt somebody sexually is to keep them ignorant about sex.

I rather agree.

However, I'm willing to accept that reasonable and well-meaning people might have concerns about exposing kids to sexual content, because most people are edgy about situations where kids might be sexually exploited or abused. I'm willing, for the purposes of this discussion, to just let that go.

I think that those "well meaning" people are well meaning enough, but also ignorant. You've said yourself how ignorance of such matters only increases violence, abuse, and dangerous mistakes like improper condom use. Well meaning doesn't excuse the harm done.

Still, setting aside, for the moment, the sex-negative additudes of this culture and the massive harm they're doing:

But even when I do so, we're still left with a situation where the kids would only have been "exposed" to depictions of naked human bodies. The fact that this is automatically classified as "sexual" in some way is deeply twisted. Kids who are taught that message are being sexualized far more than kids who are taught that sex is simply one of the many natural activities the human body may engage in.
It's insane, I know, but we're living in an insane culture. We have been all our lives. While there is no intrinsic reason to have these additudes toward sex and nudity, our culture is enforcing them thanks to generations of precedent.

The older generations pass on their sexual insecurities and failures to the younger generation. Ironicly, part of the reason for the lack of dialogue about sex education is to prevent adults from passing on their inhibitions and taboos (particluarly their early mistakes) to the next generation, but in the process, they don't pass on useful information that need not be learned by bad experiences.
I just don't get where these ideas come from. They are so obviously and demonstrably false...so why don't people figure that out?

I've been asking myself that very question for years. If you figure out the answer, let me know.

Why are they so set-and-determined to be freaked out about sex? Of all things, why pick that one?

And why would conservative Christianity teach sex-phobia in the first place? Sex ignorance is directly linked to increased STD rates, increased rates of unplanned and unsafe pregnancies, and increased rates of maternal and infant death during pregnancy and childbirth. What is gained by this kind of willful stupidity?
Control. Best I've got it figured out. The sex drive is one of the more powerful modivators in the human psyche, right? Well, if the church has a monopoly on sexual gratification, for example, by intimidating people into only engaging in sex during marriage, their power base is pretty well assured.

By making it seem something dirty and evil, they can keep people away from sex for long enough that they'll get used to sexual repression, and then, when they offer their "indulgence" through sanctifying a marriage, they've got a pretty sweet deal. It's all about power.

I'd go into theories about why children's sexual disempowerment is so much greater, but I've probably offended enough people with that theory I just wrote for now.
So in your mind there is no difference in taking kids to a museum and grooming kids for molestation by showing them porn on a playground?
In both examples, people got outraged over children being shown nudity. Whether it was in a "dirty magezine" or a sculture at a museum really doesn't have much bearing. It's the same idea. If you can show an objective difference between what the teacher did and what the man in your other thread did, I'd like to see it. (And don't bother with the permission slip thing, since the parents obviously didn't bother to read them in the first place.)
It is understandable but that teacher doesn't deserve what happened to her. The school basically sold her out. She deserves compensation.

Parents being so uptight about their kids seeing a nude piece of art makes me really worried about this country. I mean if there was an actual nude person there then I can understand them being a little peeved. But this is really stupid.
To clarify, why is one acceptable and the other not? How is the presence of a nude model significantly different from a nude statue in this situation?
Unfortunately Texas ascribes to the "At will doctrine" for employment, meaning that either an employer or an employee can terminate the relationship at any time without reason (subject to certain statutory limitations). If this is the only reason she was terminated, then she really has no action she can bring against the school district.
You mean there are places were this isn't the case? Where employment contracts don't always read "employment may be terminated at any time for no reason"?
Will Somebody Please Think Of The Children!
Don't worry. They're never far from my mind. (Be careful what you wish for. ;) )
Some people can't tell the difference between art and pornography.
While true, the problem there is that they're artificial categories in the first place. No one's ever been able to come up with an acceptable definition, so anything even remotely related to sex and sexuality can be classified as porn under certain circumstances. It's only judicial discression and legal precedent that makes the distinction explicit, and that's always on a case by case basis.
Completely and utterly ridiculous.

Of course, we are living in a country where an art teacher was pushed out of her job for posing for nude photographs on her own time. Essentially, an art teacher was fired for *gasp* participating in the making of art.

Yet another example of how some people think their personal property rights allow them to supress freedom of speech. Once you have a job, apparently you don't have the right to be politically active, participate in sexual activities, or do anything else without company approval. Somehow, corperations have managed to establish that your name being on their payroll means you have to act as a representative of them 24-7, and failure to tow the company line results in perfectly legal reprisals.

Another teacher lost her job because, as a side job, she modeled lingerie. She even did so under another name, but once a teacher who didn't like her found the pictures and showed them to students, she was out too.

You know, it seems surprising to me that the teacher showing the pictures to students was the person who should've been terminated. At least if we want to be internally consistent, which I know no one really does in these situations.

We do live in a country where a magazine for new mothers was blasted for *daring* to have a picture of a breastfeeding baby on the cover. Moms were so worried that their children might see it, some of them shredded it or got rid of it.

When I saw that story, I thought it was a joke. I didn't realise there was an actual outcry until this post. WTF?

We live in a country where parents are often so inept they want the government to raise their kids for them, as long as "raise" in this case means "keep completely ignorant of the world and lie to on a regular basis."

:rolleyes:

/end rant
It's always surprising to me how we can agree on this fundamental issue, have a virtually identical point of view on these basic thing, and yet be so absolutely oposed on other, closely related issues.
Of course, you're not saying that because you're a pedophile, are you?
I honestly feel that there's no reason to "protect" children from information about sex, or any other subject. Children should be given all the information we can offer. It's called "education".

While my sexual orientation has led me to consider this question a bit more than, say, you, that in no way diminishes the validity of the conclusions I've reached.

I'm extremely surprised at this. Frisco is mere minutes from my house, and being a student in high school in neighboring Plano, I guess I judged the parents differently. Are curriculum allows us to watch movies that include nudity without as much as a parent signature sheet, and the carefree aditude of many parents would lead me to believe this would not be a big deal. I judged even parents of younger kids would not care at all, but agian I guess I judged wrong.

Her administrators are idiots.

It's kind of an in-joke for Americans. And apparently, an overly subtle one.

Yes. So amazingly subtle that I didn't get it either.
Born and bred in the US of A.

IYou mean there are places were this isn't the case? Where employment contracts don't always read "employment may be terminated at any time for no reason"?

Yes. In some places you and the employer sign a contract to continue the employment for a certain period of time. Any termination prior to the end of the contract usually results in whichever party initiated the termination to be responsible for compensating the other.

Speaking from the perspective of an art student who does life drawing from nude models once per week, I can say that the human body is something to be marvelled at. It's truly beautiful, an artform in itself. People who can't grasp that are morons, plain and simple.

I remember visting a museum with my school when I was around seven. There was a nude statue, and I rememeber giggling and pointing at it's willy. I don't see how this can be contrued as damaging, I personally found it hilarious, as did my class. I didn't have nightmares about caveman cocks attacking me while I slept.

I didn't have nightmares about caveman cocks attacking me while I slept.

Maybe not, but now I am tonight. Thanks a lot.

Maybe not, but now I am tonight. Thanks a lot.

:eek: :D

Don't you get it people?

The parents are smart, not stupid.

You see, they've all read the works of Plato, and they remembered just how dangerous art is! That's why they got mad!

</joke>

*shakes head in disgust, but not disbelief*

While my sexual orientation has led me to consider this question a bit more than, say, you, that in no way diminishes the validity of the conclusions I've reached.

Ha, still deluded that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation?" If that's your idea of 'education,' I'm rather glad that you aren't in a position to teach children anything. Pretty soon you'd be "teaching" about how swell it is for them to have sex with, say, you.

These kids were probably the last class to go to an art museum. Is that school now providing a proper education?

No. Of course, that's not a product of the system. It is a product of a horrible decision made by a particular school administration. That same crappy decision could be made by the administration of any school, public or not.

What about the wackos around here that object to evolution being taught? Are the schools that edit their textbooks now providing a proper education?

No. Luckily, those decisions are being challenged in the courts all over the place - and the school is nearly always found to be in the wrong.

We don't need a government board to tell us what's necessary in an education. In fact, it's only a relatively recent development that governments have anything to do with education, anyway.

It's also only a recent thing that your average person has any chance at all to receive an education - largely because the government provides it.

Private accreditation agencies do a very good job of evaluating higher education. I'm sure if we were to abandon the meddling that the government does in our secondary and elementary education, these, or similar, accreditation agencies would become just as valuable in rating our schools -- ours, not the governments -- as consumer reports is in rating our appliances.

Are you under the completely false assumption that there are no public schools in higher education?

As far as universal inclusion goes, I think you have to go with the 99% rule. There are kids that don't belong in school because they are disruptive.

No, there aren't. There are kids who need discipline and teaching geared towards them.

The process to get rid of them is way too difficult and time-consuming for the teachers. It should be easy to get rid of kids that don't want to learn and whose parents don't support the efforts that the schools make to teach them.

No, it shouldn't. Most kids "don't want to learn" unless you gear it towards them, and make it enjoyable. And a child that has shitty parents has enough problems without also being kicked out of school for it.

It is time for the state of Texas to commit seppuku. The entire state should take the honorable way out.


Except for Austin. I hear you guys are A-OK.

It is time for the state of Texas to commit seppuku. The entire state should take the honorable way out.


Except for Austin. I hear you guys are A-OK.

How about Austinites in forced exile in other parts of the state?

I am hoping that the "Austintatious" spirit that is Austin will one day spread from one corner of Texas to the other.

Some art depicts the human body. Why should this provoke any ill response at all?
This was Texas. Have you ever been to Houston? The fattest city in the world?
If the nude sculpture was of a typical Houstonite, it would be a horror to behold.

How about Austinites in forced exile in other parts of the state?

I am hoping that the "Austintatious" spirit that is Austin will one day spread from one corner of Texas to the other.

You may have a point. Maybe the Austintinians can spread their Texan Uniqueness in a mass exile. Hopefully before their spirit is crushed by being outside Austin borders.

You may have a point. Maybe the Austintinians can spread their Texan Uniqueness in a mass exile. Hopefully before their spirit is crushed by being outside Austin borders.

The trouble may be that many of the young ones leave Austin after they graduate. You need to keep as many there as possible so they begin to diffuse throughout the state.

Don't you get it people?

The parents are smart, not stupid.

You see, they've all read the works of Plato, and they remembered just how dangerous art is! That's why they got mad!

</joke>

Didn't Plato say that women were just reincarnated sinful men? Hardly something to claim in these modern times. :D

Hehe...back in 6th grade in German Class we were looking at movies. One of my mates thought he'd be funny and brought a porno tape with him (with the wrong label on it).

Teacher put it in...everybody was pissing themselves laughing. Including the teacher. So when my mate wanted to turn it off, she said "No, wait, I wanna know whether they're speaking German or English."

So we fast-forwarded to a dialogue scene. It was German, horribly dubbed. :D

Oh, and no one got their panties into a twist.
Woooooooohooooo!!! :D:D:D

I bet many in the class learned more that day than in those 6 years before.

The trouble may be that many of the young ones leave Austin after they graduate. You need to keep as many there as possible so they begin to diffuse throughout the state.

Forced imprisonment, followed by forced exile.

I like the way you think.

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

Principals idea, parents give permission and teacher gets fired?=lawsuit

I doubt this teacher will be without work for too long.

What are the parents of the kids who had no problem with this saying, surely they can't be happy with the injustice of this.

I don't about other cities/countries but by the 6th grade my kids had seen everything there was to see in their sex education classes. I don't understand people who find the human body too disgusting to be seen, schools that listen to their complaints I understand even less.

Ha, still deluded that pedophilia is a "sexual orientation?" If that's your idea of 'education,' I'm rather glad that you aren't in a position to teach children anything. Pretty soon you'd be "teaching" about how swell it is for them to have sex with, say, you.
*sigh*

I know I've told you that I work in an elementary school.

*sigh*

I know I've told you that I work in an elementary school.

I must have blocked that from my mind on account of it being absolutely fucking horrifying.

I must have blocked that from my mind on account of it being absolutely fucking horrifying.
Why is it so frightening to you? I've never done anything inappropriate with any child, student or otherwise.

Though it's always fun when the teachers comment on how great I am with kids. They seemed so happy when I told them I'd be back for this semester.

Why is it so frightening to you? I've never done anything inappropriate with any child, student or otherwise.

And who says you haven't? You do, obviously. But you'd say that even if you had. You seem intelligent enough not to get caught. Certainly intelligent enough to not admit it.

Though it's always fun when the teachers comment on how great I am with kids. They seemed so happy when I told them I'd be back for this semester.

I guess it's extra-special fun because you don't tell them you're sexually attracted to the kids. Kind of like a clever in-joke between you and ... you. Very witty.

I haven't read this entire thread, so if I'm repeating something already said just ignore my post. I have the misfortune to live in the area in question. This severe over reaction on the part of the school admin doesn't surprise me at all. This is fundie country. Southern Baptist central. One of the first things asked by a new acquaintance is "what church do you go to?"

Frisco is a very upscale suburb of Dallas. It's where most with new money and those with an advanced education move to. And you know how suburbanites are. They fear the city, diversity and all things "liberal." They moved out to the 'burbs to get away from such "filth." This could easily happen in any suburban area in the US. Though it is probably more likely to happen in the south.

I took my then 13 year old nephew to the Dallas Museum of Art several years ago. Due to his indoctrination in the Texas public school system, he kept complaining how those "dirty" pictures and statues needed to be censored. He didn't get this kind of warped view from his family. We tend to be very liberal and support the arts. No, it came from his "education." This is what happens when religious extremists are allowed to control the government and the schools like they do down here in the south. Since discovering what the schools are doing to him, we've been working hard at undoing the damage. It hasn't been an easy task.

Now, what kinds of nudes do they have at the Dallas Museum of Art? Nothing the slightest bit shocking. The DMA is a very conservative institution. The nudes are ancient Roman statues, renaissance paintings, historic African art, and 19th century reproductions of ancient roman statues. No graphic photos. No close up views of genitalia in oil. No larger than life stone vaginas. Nothing that even slightly suggests controversy. The DMA's collection would bore even Sister Wendy. It's very standard stuff. And that makes this story just that much sadder.

And who says you haven't? You do, obviously. But you'd say that even if you had. You seem intelligent enough not to get caught. Certainly intelligent enough to not admit it.

First off, thank you for the complement as to my intelligence.

Now, as to your insinuation that I've been molesting children, I'll admit that you have only my word that I'm not doing so, but then again, you accepted that as sufficient evidence when I admited to being a pedophile. Obviously my word means something to you if you're willing to accept that I'm a pedophile on my word alone, so why not take the next logical step and believe me regarding my sexual practices as well?

I guess it's extra-special fun because you don't tell them you're sexually attracted to the kids. Kind of like a clever in-joke between you and ... you. Very witty.
Pretty much. Not like I can exactly explain it to them, is it? I mean if I don't want to get fired, beat up, and/or suffer some other horrible consequence. You should really hear about how I ended up working there in the first place. I originally though I was signing up for a tech support job, not a position as a teacher's aid in a computer lab. I originally considered turning down the position, but that would've raised questions I was rather afraid to answer. Just imagine, if it weren't for peole like you, who are so quick to judge me a molester based on no evidence, I might have felt safe enough to turn down the job.

The trouble may be that many of the young ones leave Austin after they graduate. You need to keep as many there as possible so they begin to diffuse throughout the state.

Austin, and all of Travis County, actually, is highly democratic. In nearly all the elections when they show counties in the blue/red/purple image by county of whether the people voted democrat or republican, Travis county is ALWAYS COMPLETELY BLUE.

The problem is that a lot of the rest of the state thinks we're weird. I think what needs to happen is the mass exodus of Austinites to the rest of the state (where hopefully we can influence the people who live there to pay attention to the issues and actually make informed decisions).

*sigh*

I know I've told you that I work in an elementary school.

Which elementary school? Where?

Austin, and all of Travis County, actually, is highly democratic. In nearly all the elections when they show counties in the blue/red/purple image by county of whether the people voted democrat or republican, Travis county is ALWAYS COMPLETELY BLUE.

The problem is that a lot of the rest of the state thinks we're weird. I think what needs to happen is the mass exodus of Austinites to the rest of the state (where hopefully we can influence the people who live there to pay attention to the issues and actually make informed decisions).

I was thinking more of the kids at the University: you give them a good education, they graduate, look around and go, "Wait a minute, this is Texas!" and hop on the next vehicle out of there. You could perhaps institute some sort of community service program where Austin residents travel to other parts of the state for several years and talk sense to the natives. Missionaries, sort of.

First off, thank you for the complement as to my intelligence.

Now, as to your insinuation that I've been molesting children, I'll admit that you have only my word that I'm not doing so, but then again, you accepted that as sufficient evidence when I admited to being a pedophile. Obviously my word means something to you if you're willing to accept that I'm a pedophile on my word alone, so why not take the next logical step and believe me regarding my sexual practices as well?

Because, generally speaking, the people who admit to being pedophiles are...

1) Pedophiles

or

2) Trolls

You don't seem to troll, so there's not much reason for you to lie about your "orientation." However, there's every reason - legal, moral, psychological - to lie about any crimes you may have committed.


Pretty much. Not like I can exactly explain it to them, is it? I mean if I don't want to get fired, beat up, and/or suffer some other horrible consequence. You should really hear about how I ended up working there in the first place. I originally though I was signing up for a tech support job, not a position as a teacher's aid in a computer lab. I originally considered turning down the position, but that would've raised questions I was rather afraid to answer. Just imagine, if it weren't for peole like you, who are so quick to judge me a molester based on no evidence, I might have felt safe enough to turn down the job.

Oh, what bullshit. You haven't shown any shame about your pedophilia on this forum, why let it make you afraid to be honest in real life? Particularly if you are concerned that putting you in close contact with children on a daily basis might tempt you to violate them. And of course you could have turned down the job for any number of viable excuses.

But sure, blame me for your sick self. I'm sure I'd make a good scapegoat if you do indeed molest children. "It's all the fault of those non-pedophiles! They're forcing me to molest you, Suzy. I'm not to blame."

It comes from morality, but I wouldn't expect a liberal like you to know anything about that.

No, liberals tend to get their morals through contemplation, not blind acceptance of outdated dogma.

No, liberals tend to get their morals through contemplation, not blind acceptance of outdated dogma.

Go contemplate your communist manifesto, pinko.

Which elementary school? Where?
The one near where I live. (Honestly, one of the first rules of internet safety is don't give out identifying information on the net. It's on the posters at the school for crying out loud.)
Because, generally speaking, the people who admit to being pedophiles are...

1) Pedophiles

or

2) Trolls

Good answer.

You don't seem to troll, so there's not much reason for you to lie about your "orientation."

Well, not so much to lie saying I have it anyway. Plenty of reason to lie the other way, but basicly you're right.

However, there's every reason - legal, moral, psychological - to lie about any crimes you may have committed.

Moral? (Nevermind. Let's move on.)

True enough. I guess you'll just have to trust me. After all, it's not like I'm going to give you the information you'll need to investigate me. Still, if you assume I'm a child molester, understand that I'll assume you're a rapist on the same evidence. After all, you'd have every reason to lie about it. ;)

Oh, what bullshit. You haven't shown any shame about your pedophilia on this forum, why let it make you afraid to be honest in real life?

It isn't shame. I understand and accept what I am. It's called fear. People in real life have the capacity to do me real harm. People on internet message boards aren't able to harm me beyond typing nasty accusations at me and whining about how I'm a sick monster. Simply put, I'm not afraid of you. People in real life have a real capacity to harm me. You don't.

Particularly if you are concerned that putting you in close contact with children on a daily basis might tempt you to violate them.

Unlike some people, I know I have enough self-control to maintain celebacy. That was never the concern. If I'd been concerned about that, I'd have turned down the job, consequences be damned. Probably would've had myself commited while I was at it. I don't value my freedom above the safety of children.

My concern was more that my interactions with the kids might reveal my interests to the faculty members through subtle signs. Fortunately, I've since learned those fears were unfounded.

And of course you could have turned down the job for any number of viable excuses.

Trust me. My mind was reeling trying to think up such an excuse as it became apparent what they were asking me to do. Unfortunately, by that point, they'd already hired me, run their background checks, and introduced me to the staff. This is beside the point that this employment opportunity followed immediately a string of failures to find employment, and piling college expenses. It looks a hell of a lot more suspicious turning down a job when everyone around you knows you're desprate for work.

But sure, blame me for your sick self. I'm sure I'd make a good scapegoat if you do indeed molest children.

You keep talking like that's some sort of inevidable consequence of my orientation. You've ignored the figures and studies I've cited showing this to be a false assumption.

What I blame you for is making my life more dificult than it has to be, and especially for making children's lives more dificult than they have to be.

"It's all the fault of those non-pedophiles! They're forcing me to molest you, Suzy. I'm not to blame."
Let's be clear here. You'd have a hard time forcing me to do anything, and not just because you have no idea who I am. People like you may indeed make this harder for people like me to deal with, but the responsibility for people who molest children is ultimately on the one who made that choice and did it, no one else.

Though the blame for hurting those children after the fact legitimately goes to people like you, and for that, you have my contempt.

Still, if you assume I'm a child molester, understand that I'll assume you're a rapist on the same evidence. After all, you'd have every reason to lie about it. ;)

What you consider evidence, I consider self-justificational nonsense.

You're welcome to assume I'm a rapist. But heterosexuality is not a mental disorder nor a sign of one, unlike pedophilia. So you'd be hard-pressed to use my orientation to compare to your "orientation" and make the same leaps.

It isn't shame. I understand and accept what I am. It's called fear. People in real life have the capacity to do me real harm. People on internet message boards aren't able to harm me beyond typing nasty accusations at me and whining about how I'm a sick monster. Simply put, I'm not afraid of you. People in real life have a real capacity to harm me. You don't.

Of course. You can get away with this shit online. Or at least, you can as long as you're safely anonymous. I wouldn't put too much faith in internet anonymity, though. Not if you're sooo concerned about the danger that you'd accept career changes just to avoid "answering a question."


Unlike some people, I know I have enough self-control to maintain celebacy. That was never the concern. If I'd been concerned about that, I'd have turned down the job, consequences be damned. Probably would've had myself commited while I was at it. I don't value my freedom above the safety of children.

Your evaluation off yourself as a real risk to the safety of children is questionable, based on your mental instability. And your self-praise about self-control is not convincing in light of previous discussion.

Trust me.

Nope. Neither would the parents of the children you work with, if they knew the truth.

You keep talking like that's some sort of inevidable consequence of my orientation. You've ignored the figures and studies I've cited showing this to be a false assumption.

You seem PROUD and FLAUNTING of your pedophilia. That alone shows you'd probably enjoy the fact that you can get away with molesting kids, as much as the actual molestation. After all, you do enjoy laughing behind their backs about oh, if they only knew, but they don't, cuz you're a fucking lying pedophile.


What I blame you for is making my life more dificult than it has to be, and especially for making children's lives more dificult than they have to be.

Nonsense. I don't make any child's life more difficult. And as you point out, you are confident you don't know me in "real life," so your blaming of ME for anything in YOUR life is just stupid egowanking.

Let's be clear here. You'd have a hard time forcing me to do anything, and not just because you have no idea who I am. People like you may indeed make this harder for people like me to deal with, but the responsibility for people who molest children is ultimately on the one who made that choice and did it, no one else.

Though the blame for hurting those children after the fact legitimately goes to people like you, and for that, you have my contempt.

Oh, interesting. The blame for hurting children goes to "people like me."

You know what contempt is worth, coming from a child-fucker like you? SHIT. That's what it's worth. People like you are the scum of the earth.

What you consider evidence, I consider self-justificational nonsense.

You're welcome to assume I'm a rapist. But heterosexuality is not a mental disorder nor a sign of one, unlike pedophilia. So you'd be hard-pressed to use my orientation to compare to your "orientation" and make the same leaps.



Of course. You can get away with this shit online. Or at least, you can as long as you're safely anonymous. I wouldn't put too much faith in internet anonymity, though. Not if you're sooo concerned about the danger that you'd accept career changes just to avoid "answering a question."



Your evaluation off yourself as a real risk to the safety of children is questionable, based on your mental instability. And your self-praise about self-control is not convincing in light of previous discussion.



Nope. Neither would the parents of the children you work with, if they knew the truth.



You seem PROUD and FLAUNTING of your pedophilia. That alone shows you'd probably enjoy the fact that you can get away with molesting kids, as much as the actual molestation. After all, you do enjoy laughing behind their backs about oh, if they only knew, but they don't, cuz you're a fucking lying pedophile.




Nonsense. I don't make any child's life more difficult. And as you point out, you are confident you don't know me in "real life," so your blaming of ME for anything in YOUR life is just stupid egowanking.



Oh, interesting. The blame for hurting children goes to "people like me."

You know what contempt is worth, coming from a child-fucker like you? SHIT. That's what it's worth. People like you are the scum of the earth.

YOu know this whole time The 5 Castes has been calmly and intellegently describing his position when all you've managed to do is spew hate and slander about something that you have no evidence he would/or has ever done.....your pretty mean and intollerant.

YOu know this whole time The 5 Castes has been calmly and intellegently describing his position when all you've managed to do is spew hate and slander about something that you have no evidence he would/or has ever done.....your pretty mean and intolerant.

It might even be considered "flaming"... :rolleyes:

Oh my god, I can't believe it. Leave it up to Texas to find nudity and fine art repulsive.:p

YOu know this whole time The 5 Castes has been calmly and intellegently describing his position when all you've managed to do is spew hate and slander about something that you have no evidence he would/or has ever done.....your pretty mean and intollerant.

How can you expect people to react calmly to someone who wants to rape children? He's defective and his defect makes him a threat to kids. Normal people are wired to protect kids with their very lives.

YOu know this whole time The 5 Castes has been calmly and intellegently describing his position when all you've managed to do is spew hate and slander about something that you have no evidence he would/or has ever done.....your pretty mean and intollerant.

When it comes to child molesters or potential child molesters "mean" and "intolerant" is generally the way to go. "hate" is not inappropriate either. Personally I'm not to pushed on whether somebody is "intelligently describing" their preference either, because its just using too much frosting on the kiddy-fiddler poison cake.

How can you expect people to react calmly to someone who wants to rape children? He's defective and his defect makes him a threat to kids. Normal people are wired to protect kids with their very lives.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic with that post.

Frankly, The 5 Castes is either brave or insane for admitting to be a pedophile. And I also don't think it's really necessary to attack anyone for having a certain preference. It frankly causes two problems.

First off, we assume that, just because someone has a specific preference, that they will screw anything that moves that fits that preference (and in some cases, things that don't move.)

It also punishes thought rather than action. Thought crime legislation is dangerous stuff.

Frankly, we don't have any proof that The 5 Castes has molested a child. When it comes to children (and a lot of things, really) we do ourselves a disservice by forgetting the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty." We instead label people guilty without any reasoning behind it, and people have no way to clear their names. They could be proven innocent a thousand times over and people will still want them lynched. It's really no way to live.

How can you expect people to react calmly to someone who wants to rape children? He's defective and his defect makes him a threat to kids. Normal people are wired to protect kids with their very lives.

Where has 5 castes said he wants to rape children? In the post of his I've read he has only stated that he is attracted to them and while I find this distasteful it is a long way from your assertation that he want to rape them.

YOu know this whole time The 5 Castes has been calmly and intellegently describing his position

"I'm a pedophile." That's his position. Pretty easy to describe, he wants to have sex with children.

when all you've managed to do is spew hate and slander about something that you have no evidence he would/or has ever done.....your pretty mean and intollerant.

Hate, slander, mean AND intollerant? Well shit, I guess I'd be a failure if I was a Democrat.

Where has 5 castes said he wants to rape children? In the post of his I've read he has only stated that he is attracted to them and while I find this distasteful it is a long way from your assertation that he want to rape them.

It is a leap, but not a huge one.

It is generally assumed that "I am attracted to..." means sexually. And one who is sexually attracted to someone GENERALLY wants to have sex with that person. In the case of a child, any sex is non-consensual and so, by definition, rape.

If 5 castes has vowed to (and sticks to the vow) live celebate, and to never ever have actual sexual contact with a minor, then it is merely distasteful. If not, if he is attempting to justify his position with the goal of ultimately pursuing it, it is rape.

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic with that post.

Frankly, The 5 Castes is either brave or insane for admitting to be a pedophile. And I also don't think it's really necessary to attack anyone for having a certain preference. It frankly causes two problems.

First off, we assume that, just because someone has a specific preference, that they will screw anything that moves that fits that preference (and in some cases, things that don't move.)

It also punishes thought rather than action. Thought crime legislation is dangerous stuff.

Frankly, we don't have any proof that The 5 Castes has molested a child. When it comes to children (and a lot of things, really) we do ourselves a disservice by forgetting the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty." We instead label people guilty without any reasoning behind it, and people have no way to clear their names. They could be proven innocent a thousand times over and people will still want them lynched. It's really no way to live.
I'm serious, and I'm not advocating jailing him for his mental defect. He should, however, stay away from kids to avoid turning his disgusting thoughts into criminal actions.

Where has 5 castes said he wants to rape children? In the post of his I've read he has only stated that he is attracted to them and while I find this distasteful it is a long way from your assertation that he want to rape them.

Attracted to children means that on some level he wants to fuck them. Since a child isn't capable of giving informed consent sex with one is rape. He wants to rape kids.

Oh my god, I can't believe it. Leave it up to Texas to find nudity and fine art repulsive.:p

That's because it's not in a porn mag. ;)

A teacher in Frisco, Texas lost her job because she took her students to a museum where there were nude sculptures present. What was this teacher thinking? Doesn't she know that the human body is an object of shame and ridicule, not art and beauty?

http://www.wftv.com/education/9936513/detail.html

The worst part is that the parents' signed consent forms.

Seriously. Does every discussion The 5 Castes enters have to become a discussion about pedophilia?

I'm serious, and I'm not advocating jailing him for his mental defect. He should, however, stay away from kids to avoid turning his disgusting thoughts into criminal actions.

You see, that argument kind of doesn't make sense to me because it implies that someone with a non-mainstream attraction will screw anything that's within the group they are attracted to. It's the same reason guys are uncomfortable around gay men...oh no, he's gay so he'll try to rape a guy! It doesn't make sense.

I, myself, am attracted to women of other ethnicities than my own. That argument is used against me as well...well, she's black, so I must be mentally undressing her with every spare thought I have. Never mind that she's not attractive to me at all, I must want to screw her. My own fiancee has even used that against me when she's being a bitch. I still fail to see how it makes any sense.

You see, that argument kind of doesn't make sense to me because it implies that someone with a non-mainstream attraction will screw anything that's within the group they are attracted to. It's the same reason guys are uncomfortable around gay men...oh no, he's gay so he'll try to rape a guy! It doesn't make sense.

I, myself, am attracted to women of other ethnicities than my own. That argument is used against me as well...well, she's black, so I must be mentally undressing her with every spare thought I have. Never mind that she's not attractive to me at all, I must want to screw her. My own fiancee has even used that against me when she's being a bitch. I still fail to see how it makes any sense.

I'm not saying he will screw kids, only that he's tempted to do so and since screwing kids screws them up, he should do whatever is necessary to reduce that temptation. To do otherwise is reckless. This fucker works in a fucking elementary school for fuck's sake!

I'm serious, and I'm not advocating jailing him for his mental defect. He should, however, stay away from kids to avoid turning his disgusting thoughts into criminal actions.


I'd lock up him in a heart beat.

Christ, if I could get his I.P. I'd report him to the feds.

I'd lock up him in a heart beat.

Christ, if I could get his I.P. I'd report him to the feds.

Well, what about people like me who have violent thoughts frequently? Should I be locked up for my particular mental issue? Until you act on it you're not a criminal, but in the case of pedos, you are a sick perverted fuck.

I'm not saying he will screw kids, only that he's tempted to do so and since screwing kids screws them up, he should do whatever is necessary to reduce that temptation. To do otherwise is reckless. This fucker works in a fucking elementary school for fuck's sake!

And if he works in an elememtary school and still holds back the temptation to screw a kid, he has better self-control than most of us. I have no reason to believe he's lying about keeping his grubby mitts off the kids, so assuming he does, he's doing all right in the self-control department. If he can keep it up, then there's no reason to make him yoink himself out of a perfectly good job. Just so long as he doesn't get...umm, too involved in his work. And people all over the country have that problem anyway.

Well, what about people like me who have violent thoughts frequently? Should I be locked up for my particular mental issue? Until you act on it you're not a criminal, but in the case of pedos, you are a sick perverted fuck.

Oh come on, A little violence never hurt anyone. :)


99% of the population has violent thoughts, it's normal.

Urges for children are not the same thing.

We lock drunk drivers up for driving drunk, even when they don't hurt anyone.

We should lock those up who have urges for children just the same.

Oh come on, A little violence never hurt anyone. :)


99% of the population has violent thoughts, it's normal.

Urges for children are not the same thing.

We lock drunk drivers up for driving drunk, even when they don't hurt anyone.

We should lock those up who have urges for children just the same.

Drunk driving is an action, not a thought. We don't lock people up for having a disposition toward drunk driving. Not quite sure how we would determine that, except maybe a tendency to drink heavily, but we lock people up for drunk driving because they actually did something. Just having a predisposition for something is not the same as doing it. Because of family history, I have a disposition for alcoholism. Does that mean they should lock me up for being an alcoholic, or whatever it is we do to alcoholics these days? I can walk into a bar, a college party, or a liquor store and come out with a blood-alcohol content of zero flat. I am surrounded by ads for alcohol constantly. Given the figures, I would say I am as likely to become an alcoholic as The 5 Castes is to become a child molestor. However, no one, as of yet, has called me a "drunk driving alcoholic sick motherfucker" or told me I belong in jail. Like The 5 Castes, I abstain from that which may get me in trouble. He's a celibate; I am a teetotaler. It's all about self-control. It's something everyone should learn, and I don't mean just those with a predisposition for something.

And if he works in an elememtary school and still holds back the temptation to screw a kid, he has better self-control than most of us. I have no reason to believe he's lying about keeping his grubby mitts off the kids, so assuming he does, he's doing all right in the self-control department. If he can keep it up, then there's no reason to make him yoink himself out of a perfectly good job. Just so long as he doesn't get...umm, too involved in his work. And people all over the country have that problem anyway.

I don't see why you believe him. He's a pedophile, which means his brain is off-kilter to begin with. Then there's the fact that admitting he DOES fuck kids would have the FBI all over him in a heartbeat. Kind of a compelling reason to lie, wouldn't you say?

But whatever, all hail our superior ubermenschen, the pedophiles.

We lock drunk drivers up for driving drunk, even when they don't hurt anyone.

We should lock those up who have urges for children just the same.

Drunk driving point: We do that because the odds of killing somebody, damage to self and property go up significantly when you drive drunk. That's why we have laws.

Urges for children point: Isn't that charging them for a thought crime? I wonder how many 1000's of years I would get for the thoughts I have had about coworkers and other women I have seen over the years? ;)

You have to find a balance. You want them to come forth rather then drive them underground as they are now.

I don't see why you believe him. He's a pedophile, which means his brain is off-kilter to begin with. Then there's the fact that admitting he DOES fuck kids would have the FBI all over him in a heartbeat. Kind of a compelling reason to lie, wouldn't you say?

But whatever, all hail our superior ubermenschen, the pedophiles.

Good Lord, here we go again. First it was all the people in the past claiming we're all slaves to the Jews, and now this. I believe him because I believe in something you have obviously forgotten - the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Sadly, I am one of the few who still believes in it. Most don't seem to. You can't throw people in prison or kill them for a crime they might commit. That goes against the entire system of the rule of law, or is the rule of law bad as well? Yes, let's just throw people who might be guilty of something in prison. Pretty soon, only about a dozen people are free, and we have to entrust them with watching the cells. I wouldn't want to be on either side of that.

I believe him because I believe in something you have obviously forgotten - the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

This isn't a judicial trial.

Sadly, I am one of the few who still believes in it. Most don't seem to. You can't throw people in prison or kill them for a crime they might commit. That goes against the entire system of the rule of law, or is the rule of law bad as well? Yes, let's just throw people who might be guilty of something in prison.

Strawmen strawmen and strawmen. I've said nothing of prison.

Strawmen strawmen and strawmen. I've said nothing of prison.
It's not technically a strawman argument at all, as it also makes a point of his/her own.

This isn't a judicial trial.

It doesn't have to be. Those who believe in "innocent until proven guilty" tend to act on that in real life. Within reason, of course...I have no problem locking up a potentially dangerous criminal accused of killing a spouse and child with chicken wire, but the minute they are found innocent, they should be treated as such. It's as if all these cases come with a side of O.J. Simpson syndrome, where we all think he's guilty despite being found innocent. (Granted, I think O.J. probably did it too, but it was the prosecution's job to put him away, so it's an extreme example.) Those who would presume guilt before any proof of such are more than a bit frightening, since they do things like form lynch mobs and turn into vigilantes.

Strawmen strawmen and strawmen. I've said nothing of prison.

Well, what do you want done to people with these thoughts? Whack them upside the head with a rubber chicken? Sure, it's a boon for the rubber chicken business, but those who are against some form of behavior, thought, or what-have-you tend to have some kind of solution for what should be done with "those people." Prison's a worst-case, aside from death. Rehab is popular. Being beaten with a straw man might also work.

It's not technically a strawman argument at all, as it also makes a point of her own.

Her? Surely you mean "its" by my argument, or "his" by me. Just correcting for accuracy; if I were female, I would correct any "his" pronouns directed at me.

No, do not throw someone in prison for simply admitting to a thought.

I do, however, question the wisdom of 5 Castes in choosing to put himself in a place where the temptation is so great. An alchoholic who chooses to work as a bartender mostly only harms himself if he falls off the wagon... but in 5 Castes case, he puts children at risk.

If he is confident in his restraint, and it is only thoughts in his head and they never affect his work, then there is no reason to punish him for that (perhaps a reason to have him seek help for it, but that is his personal choice). The minute he touches a child in an inappropriate manner, however, the book should be thrown at him. As he should well know and understand.

It doesn't have to be. Those who believe in "innocent until proven guilty" tend to act on that in real life. Within reason, of course...I have no problem locking up a potentially dangerous criminal accused of killing a spouse and child with chicken wire, but the minute they are found innocent, they should be treated as such. It's as if all these cases come with a side of O.J. Simpson syndrome, where we all think he's guilty despite being found innocent.

He was found "not guilty." And just because a jury of 12 decides one thing, doesn't mean I have to believe that thing.

Those who would presume guilt before any proof of such are more than a bit frightening, since they do things like form lynch mobs and turn into vigilantes.

Let me ask you a question. Knowing TFC is a pedophile, would you allow him to babysit your children (if you have/had any)?

If I said I had a sexual attraction to corpses, wouldn't you think twice before sending your dear departed grand uncle to a mortuary I worked at?


Well, what do you want done to people with these thoughts?

Executed. By lynch mob. ;)

No, but I can tell you what I WOULDNT want done to those people - have them "working with" kids.

Seriously. Does every discussion The 5 Castes enters have to become a discussion about pedophilia?

No, it really doesn't. And if this is becoming a repeated problem, please report it. Let's stop pedo-jacking threads, folks.

And Greater Trostia, take your personal issues with The 5 Castes to a more personal venue rather than subjecting a public forum to them.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia