NationStates Jolt Archive

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

A substitute teacher showed "Brokeback Mountain" during class. Now a student and her grandmother are suing the school for some grounds I'm not quite sure. The suit claims the 12 year old student suffered "psychological distress" and "was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling." This suit followed a 2005 incident where the same person complained about "curse words" in literature they had to read (probably something classical).

Therapists love Christian conservatives.

My God, the emotional distress of watching queers. 500 grand?!?!

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

A substitute teacher showed "Brokeback Mountain" during class. Now a student and her grandmother are suing the school for some grounds I'm not quite sure. The suit claims the 12 year old student suffered "psychological distress" and "was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling." This suit followed a 2005 incident where the same person complained about "curse words" in literature they had to read (probably something classical).

Therapists love Christian conservatives.

Damn you Ang Lee!

isn't Brockback mountain an R movie?
If it was a permission slip would have been sent home and the parents could have forbidden her to watch it.

So its her fault


But What educational benefit does Brockback Mountain have?

isn't Brockback mountain an R movie?
If it was a permission slip would have been sent home and the parents could have forbidden her to watch it.

So its her fault


But What educational benefit does Brockback Mountain have?
It was a substitute teacher.

(Brokeback)

If I wanted to sue someone for me stumbling upon oodles of gay pr0n on the Interwebz, would I send my lawyers to Al Gore or David Hasselhoff?

If I wanted to sue someone for me stumbling upon oodles of gay pr0n on the Interwebz, would I send my lawyers to Al Gore or David Hasselhoff?

http://images.cafepress.com/product/119660509v1_150x150_Front_Color-Black.JPG

isn't Brockback mountain an R movie?
If it was a permission slip would have been sent home and the parents could have forbidden her to watch it.

So its her fault


But What educational benefit does Brockback Mountain have?

Homosexual studies?

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

A substitute teacher showed "Brokeback Mountain" during class. Now a student and her grandmother are suing the school for some grounds I'm not quite sure. The suit claims the 12 year old student suffered "psychological distress" and "was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling." This suit followed a 2005 incident where the same person complained about "curse words" in literature they had to read (probably something classical).

Therapists love Christian conservatives.

Two reasons: first-off the movie is rated R, second it has NO educational value (although that in itself is no reason to sue the school).

Anyway if the movie JUST depicted gays, that would be one thing, but like I said: it's rated R, which is very important, and it teaches zip. It would like showing Titanic in a class, except even Titanic is at least build around an historical happening, and is not rated R

Two reasons: first-off the movie is rated R, second it has NO educational value (although that in itself is no reason to sue the school).

Which isn't why they are suing. They wouldn't get very far whining about how "omg, they showed a rated R movie, wahh." It is going to be based around the ridiculous psychological distress. Not just the blanket "give me money" claim of emotional distress, but psychological distress she had to see a counselor for.

Anyway if the movie JUST depicted gays, that would be one thing, but like I said: it's rated R, which is very important, and it teaches zip. It would like showing Titanic in a class, except even Titanic is at least build around an historical happening, and is not rated R

I would definitely sue if I was forced to watch Titanic in school.

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

A substitute teacher showed "Brokeback Mountain" during class. Now a student and her grandmother are suing the school for some grounds I'm not quite sure. The suit claims the 12 year old student suffered "psychological distress" and "was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling." This suit followed a 2005 incident where the same person complained about "curse words" in literature they had to read (probably something classical).

Therapists love Christian conservatives.

HAHAHAAA! That's funny and sad at the same time.

I would definitely sue if I was forced to watch Titanic in school.

:p

HAHAHAAA! That's funny and sad at the same time.

How is it funny, and how is it sad? It's just outrageous.

what is a R rated movie there

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the psychological distress can be blamed on the kid's parents. They were probably freaking out knowing what crazy shit their dad was going to stir up once he found out about Brokeback Mountain.

what is a R rated movie there

One that is rated R by the MPAA dummy.

what is a R rated movie there

Restricted to people of 18 years or older. (Unless I'm mistaken?)

what is a R rated movie there

About the same as yours.

what is a R rated movie there


concerning Brokeback Mountain: "MPAA Rating:, R for sexuality, nudity, language and some violence" according to yahoo movies

it's the language mostly though :p the MPAA hates language

what is a R rated movie there

The same organization does the ratings, IIRC.

Restricted to people of 18 years or older. (Unless I'm mistaken?)

Close. 17 or older.

Restricted to people of 18 years or older. (Unless I'm mistaken?)

About the same as yours.

concerning Brokeback Mountain: "MPAA Rating:, R for sexuality, nudity, language and some violence" according to yahoo movies

it's the language mostly though :p the MPAA hates language

the way things are going there i thought the list be longer ,oh it only rated M here

Restricted to people of 18 years or older. (Unless I'm mistaken?)

Then what the hell is X rated? 24 and over?

Then what the hell is X rated? 24 and over?

"X-rated" no longer exists. TV-MA for tv, NC-17 for movies. X-rated used to exist, but now it's just a slang for sexually-explicted material. Because "x-rated" became so associated with sexual content, the MPAA abolished it because there were X-rated movies without a hint of sexual content in them.

the way things are going there i thought the list be longer ,oh it only rated M here

Hmm, well Americans are different, and they therefore require different rules.

How is it funny, and how is it sad? It's just outrageous.

It's funny that the sub forced them to watch Brokeback Mountain. It's also funny that the idiots felt the need to sue. It's sad that they are allowed to do so.

It's funny that the sub forced them to watch Brokeback Mountain. It's also funny that the idiots felt the need to sue. It's sad that they are allowed to do so.

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

I am wondering how the sub showed it to them in one day, and/or, did not recieve any complaints until the movie was finished.

Generally, if I were to undergo great psychological trauma, I wouldn't just sit there and take it quietly up the ass *snicker snicker*
The title of this thread should be Therapists love People with Psychological Trauma. But that might be too long.

I am wondering how the sub showed it to them in one day, and/or, did not recieve any complaints until the movie was finished.

Generally, if I were to undergo great psychological trauma, I wouldn't just sit there and take it quietly up the ass *snicker snicker*
The title of this thread should be Therapists love People with Psychological Trauma. But that might be too long.

They were freakin' 12-year-olds you idiot!

Hmm, well Americans are different, and they therefore require different rules.

i keep saying America going to turn out like what it is in the movie escape from LA

They were freakin' 12-year-olds you idiot!

Whoa, reign in your horses there mate.

I understand that. I am not sure how the sub showed the entire movie in a period, unless it was only part that traumatized the individual, because students go home at the end of the day... talk to parents.. stuff like that.

I never said it was a good thing.

Whoa, reign in your horses there mate.

I understand that. I am not sure how the sub showed the entire movie in a period, unless it was only part that traumatized the individual, because students go home at the end of the day... talk to parents.. stuff like that.

I never said it was a good thing.

Okay, okay. To answer your question, I believe a specific scene upset the kid.

I hate it when teachers show movies. They kill my brain I'd sue for damages to my brain, the sub should'a just shoved a book in their face.

But, I'm surprised the kid actually watched it, I fell asleep 5 minutes in.

There's plenty of stupid to go around here. The sub will likely be fired and should be--you don't show an R-rated movie to 12 year olds, and you really don't depend on them not to snitch. And the grandparents are the kind of people who complain about the language in 8th grade reading curricula--what's the worst word that could be in there? Hell? Damn? Their kid hears worse than that in the hallway, maybe even from faculty.

Okay, okay. To answer your question, I believe a specific scene upset the kid.

Makes sense from what I know of the movie. However, I have never seen it myself.

"X-rated" no longer exists. TV-MA for tv, NC-17 for movies. X-rated used to exist, but now it's just a slang for sexually-explicted material. Because "x-rated" became so associated with sexual content, the MPAA abolished it because there were X-rated movies without a hint of sexual content in them.

What about things which are the equivalent to 15s or 12as?

What about things which are the equivalent to 15s or 12as?

For movies: PG-13, for T.V.: TV-14.

Which isn't why they are suing. They wouldn't get very far whining about how "omg, they showed a rated R movie, wahh." It is going to be based around the ridiculous psychological distress. Not just the blanket "give me money" claim of emotional distress, but psychological distress she had to see a counselor for.


You'd think they'd get more out of sueing for showing an R rated movie than you would for 'psychological distress' What the hell kind of teacher shows a movie like that to a bunch of 12 year olds? There is no way, by any stretch of the imagination that they are mature enough to handle that. They can barely take normal sex ed. The idiocy of teachers...

Restricted to people of 18 years or older. (Unless I'm mistaken?)

R means that people under 17 cannot be admitted unless accompanied by someone aged 17 or over.

Whom do I sue for being shown a heterosexual love film? They were kissing and having simulated sex! How disgusting and against my values! I was traumatised, I tell you.

:rolleyes:

Then what the hell is X rated? 24 and over?

It was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be admitted to an X rated movie. It has been replaced with NC-17, which makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to be admitted to said movie.

It was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be admitted to an X rated movie. It has been replaced with NC-17, which makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to be admitted to said movie.

It used to be 17, but now NC-17 means they have to be 18 or older. I know it should be "NC-18", but they changed it.

Whom do I sue for being shown a heterosexual love film? They were kissing and having simulated sex! How disgusting and against my values! I was traumatised, I tell you.

:rolleyes:

The school. If it was an R-rated film that had no educational value whatsoever, I would back you all the way.

Whom do I sue for being shown a heterosexual love film? They were kissing and having simulated sex! How disgusting and against my values! I was traumatised, I tell you.

:rolleyes:

It's funny that the only child that was traumatized was the one with the extremely religious parents. Perhaps it's their pastor or priest that should be sued?

The school. If it was an R-rated film that had no educational value whatsoever, I would back you all the way.

It had tonnes of educational value for the straight kids - they needed to be indoctrinated in that only portrayals of heterosexual love are OK. None for me, though, and my opinion of what is or is not "educational" is all that matters, because I am the supreme arbiter.

It's funny that the only child that was traumatized was the one with the extremely religious parents. Perhaps it's their pastor or priest that should be sued?

That's a good point. Had they never been subjected to the corrupting influence of a zombie nailed to a tree, they never would have been "traumatised" by this. It is clear that one needs to sue the publishers of the Bible.

It had tonnes of educational value for the straight kids - they needed to be indoctrinated in that only portrayals of heterosexual love are OK. None for me, though, and my opinion of what is or is not "educational" is all that matters, because I am the supreme arbiter.

You call that educational value? It might be if it actually convinced them, but they were two gays ALREADY MARRIED! How-the-heck would that convince them that gay relations are fine? Maybe if it were a documentry, but the teacher in this case has nothing.

There's plenty of stupid to go around here. The sub will likely be fired and should be--you don't show an R-rated movie to 12 year olds, and you really don't depend on them not to snitch. And the grandparents are the kind of people who complain about the language in 8th grade reading curricula--what's the worst word that could be in there? Hell? Damn? Their kid hears worse than that in the hallway, maybe even from faculty.

Yes, it's this kind of crap that annoys me. There are all these people that people fighting for civil rights are trying to shove "the gay" down their throats. Showing this movie to 12-year-olds really does make it sound like that's happening. I recognize it as isolated, but I really wish this kind of dumb crap would only involve the current administration and really short people.

That's a good point. Had they never been subjected to the corrupting influence of a zombie nailed to a tree, they never would have been "traumatised" by this. It is clear that one needs to sue the publishers of the Bible.

:p It's a little late for that isn't it?

That's a good point. Had they never been subjected to the corrupting influence of a zombie nailed to a tree, they never would have been "traumatised" by this. It is clear that one needs to sue the publishers of the Bible.

Hey, there's a windfall! Lot's of publishers for that book.

Sue! Sue! Sue!

It had tonnes of educational value for the straight kids - they needed to be indoctrinated in that only portrayals of heterosexual love are OK. None for me, though, and my opinion of what is or is not "educational" is all that matters, because I am the supreme arbiter.

This is unfortunate, but not something the sub was in a position to fix. According to law, this movie requires parent permission. It was wildly irresponsible for her to show this movie, or Shaun of the Dead or New Jack City or any other movie not appropriate for children of this age according to the rating system.

Hey, there's a windfall! Lot's of publishers for that book.

Sue! Sue! Sue!

We could make millions!

http://www.superhonda.com/photopost/data/519/dr_evil_1.jpg

*whispering* Oh, I mean billions!

Hey, there's a windfall! Lot's of publishers for that book.

Sue! Sue! Sue!

Somehow I suspect if I read said book to someone's children in class I would be getting sued. Indoctrination or trying to "fix" indoctrination is not a place for the classroom. The classroom presents age-appropriate ideas and helps kids learn how to think about them. This movie, just according to its rating, is not age-appropriate.

That's a good point. Had they never been subjected to the corrupting influence of a zombie nailed to a tree, they never would have been "traumatised" by this. It is clear that one needs to sue the publishers of the Bible.

Haven't you seen any zombie movies? Litigation has no effect on the undead. You have to remove the head or destroy the brain.

Somehow I suspect if I read said book to someone's children in class I would be getting sued. Indoctrination or trying to "fix" indoctrination is not a place for the classroom. The classroom presents age-appropriate ideas and helps kids learn how to think about them. This movie, just according to its rating, is not age-appropriate.

Yes, just like parents who CHOSE to show this movie to their kids couldn't sue the movies producers.

Somehow I suspect if I read said book to someone's children in class I would be getting sued. Indoctrination or trying to "fix" indoctrination is not a place for the classroom. The classroom presents age-appropriate ideas and helps kids learn how to think about them. This movie, just according to its rating, is not age-appropriate.

Oh no doubt. I just want to abuse the system in favour of my bank account like this guy is.

We could make millions!

http://www.superhonda.com/photopost/data/519/dr_evil_1.jpg

*whispering* Oh, I mean billions!

I don't recall granting permission to use my likeness on this thread. I'll sue!!

Oh no doubt. I just want to abuse the system in favour of my bank account like this guy is.

The guy is a little suit-happy, but the fact is that the actions of this sub are indefensible.

If you go back 2000 years, there's virtually a 100% chance one of my ancestors was mistreated by a priest. Benedict XVI, you are SO getting sued! *hides*

Oh no doubt. I just want to abuse the system in favour of my bank account like this guy is.

How prisiely is the system being abused? unless you think the teacher themself should be sued, in which case I agree with you.

You call that educational value?

I am the supreme arbiter, remember? If I say it's educational, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. You are just a poor imitator of my authoritah.

It might be if it actually convinced them, but they were two gays ALREADY MARRIED!

OMG NOES! Infidelity! Fornicators! They must be burnt at the stake! Witches!

How-the-heck would that convince them that gay relations are fine?

Oh, I don't know, by making them understand how horrible things used to be for gay people, and still are for some, that were forced by the pressures of an oppressive and cruel society to become liars and deceivers because as such they would still have more value than as being honest, but gay people... but we can't have such lessons in the evil that is a homophobic society, now can we? Instead we must be silent and only portray gay people as asexual or cock/pussyless minstrels there to amuse straight people - never make the latter uncomfortable about their social constructs, heavens forbid! - and give them makeovers, all the while carelessly leading their monodimensional characters into the pits of hell!

Maybe if it were a documentry, but the teacher in this case has nothing.

Well, you'd know a lot about having nothing.

I don't recall granting permission to use my likeness on this thread. I'll sue!!

You wear a pinky ring? Tack-o-rama, darling!

Maybe we should get some vicar to pick out movies that we KNOW are acceptable to the class! After all, how could an infallible priest offend those religious parents? Let's ask this guy:

<FlareonAtma> Oops! Vicar gives out porn films
<FlareonAtma> Fri Dec 5,11:23 AM ET
<FlareonAtma> BERLIN (Reuters) - A German vicar inadvertently supplied his parish with dozens of hard core porn films in an unsuccessful bid to teach people about the life of Christ.

I am the supreme arbiter, remember? If I say it's educational, it is, and if I say it isn't, it isn't. You are just a poor imitator of my authoritah.

Well, I can't see where it fits inot the ciriculum, but if you can find a place, I'll concede.

OMG NOES! Infidelity! Fornicators! They must be burnt at the stake! Witches!

This is a sarcastic unintelligent effort to sound witty, and possibly garner undeserved praise from those of your camp. Please, let's talk like reasonable people. All I was saying is that the movie does not PATICULARLY
potray gays in a superb light...

Oh, I don't know, by making them understand how horrible things used to be for gay people, and still are for some, that were forced by the pressures of an oppressive and cruel society to become liars and deceivers because as such they would still have more value than as being honest, but gay people... but such we can't have such lessons in the evil that is a homophobic society, now can we? Instead we must be silent and only portray gay people asexual or cock/pussyless minstrels there to amuse straight people - never make the latter uncomfortable about their social constructs, heavens forbid! - and give them makeovers, all the while carelessly leading their monodimensional characters into the pits of hell!

Even though I think Political Correctness is a bunch of shuck-and-jive, I understand where you're coming from. However, this was just NOT the movie to show.

Well, you'd know a lot about having nothing.

This is the kind of obtuse statement attacking me that makes me wish to inquire as to whether-or-not you've hit puberty yet...

How prisiely is the system being abused? unless you think the teacher themself should be sued, in which case I agree with you.

I guess that depends on what you consider 'psychological trauma'. Undoubtedly the teacher needs to disciplined for circumventing the rules, but I highly doubt the parent has a sudden need for such large sums of money. I'm sure the free religious counselling the kid has been receiving all along will cure what ails them. Or perhaps de-programming.

You wear a pinky ring? Tack-o-rama, darling!

What? I got it when I graduated evil medical school, and it accentuates my scar.

I guess that depends on what you consider 'psychological trauma'. Undoubtedly the teacher needs to disciplined for circumventing the rules, but I highly doubt the parent has a sudden need for such large sums of money. I'm sure the free religious counselling the kid has been receiving all along will cure what ails them. Or perhaps de-programming.

Well, I can't see it either. The only purpose I can see is that suing the teacher would teach them a lesson.

Haven't you seen any zombie movies? Litigation has no effect on the undead. You have to remove the head or destroy the brain.

So how do you kill a zombie lawyer then?

Well, I can't see where it fits inot the ciriculum, but if you can find a place, I'll concede.

Curriculum. And it fits into the whole "becoming thinking individuals" category.

This is a sarcastic unintelligent effort to sound witty, and possibly garner undeserved praise from those of your camp.

And this is a revelation of your habitual lack of retort.

Please, let's talk like reasonable people.

Oh, that boat has sailed and I am mocking it.

All I was saying is that the movie does not PATICULARLY potray gays in a superb light...

OMG NOES! Gay people can be pushed into situations where they make uncomfortable choices, too?! It's like they were multifaceted humans or something! And we can't have that taught, no sirry Bob.

Even though I think Political Correctness is a bunch of shuck-and-jive, I understand where you're coming from. However, this was just NOT the movie to show.

There you go again, thinking you're the supreme arbiter of what "just is or isn't", when clearly I am because I say so.

This is the kind of obtuse statement attacking me that makes me wish to inquire as to whether-or-not you've hit puberty yet...

Oh, dear, I wasn't expecting you to prove me right about your destitution so imminently. Not really sure why I wasn't, because it's happened in the past...

So how do you kill a zombie lawyer then?

You got me there. Zombies are usually pretty slow though; I suppose you could tie it up in appeals for a while, if it's not one of those bloody fast zombies like in the Dawn of the Dead remake.

So how do you kill a zombie lawyer then?

Replace the brain. With anything, really - a dead cat, old tax statements, hate mail, et cetera. A water-balloon'd do in a pinch.

So how do you kill a zombie lawyer then?

The same way we kill the living ones. Or should.

What? I got it when I graduated evil medical school, and it accentuates my scar.

It unfortunately makes your penis look small. There, I said it.

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

Is it the law or just something mandated by movie theaters? Remember that the MPAA is a completely "voluntary" system.

concerning Brokeback Mountain: "MPAA Rating:, R for sexuality, nudity, language and some violence" according to yahoo movies

it's the language mostly though :p the MPAA hates language

I haven't seen the movie, but I have a feeling that sexuality has more to do with it than language. I'm surprised a gay-themed movie even made it past the MPAA with only an R rating. They usually slap an automatic NC-17 on that stuff. MPAA discriminates against homosexuals in its rating system.

Curriculum. And it fits into the whole "becoming thinking individuals" category.

Well, if there is such a catagory I concede, although I still can't see how this movie helps that...

And this is a revelation of your habitual lack of retort.

I enjoy attacking your argument, but I would be childish to attack you personally.

Oh, that boat has sailed and I am mocking it.

Well sir, if you truely don't want to act mature and reasonable, then I am afraid there really isn't anything we can talk about.

OMG NOES! Gay people can be pushed into situations where they make uncomfortable choices, too?! It's like they were multifaceted humans or something! And we can't have that taught, no sirry Bob.

Um, I never said we couldn't. I just said it wasn't a great choice.

There you go again, thinking you're the supreme arbiter of what "just is or isn't", when clearly I am because I say so.

I'm talking about school rules here, not my own.

Oh, dear, I wasn't expecting you to prove me right about your destitution so imminently. Not really sure why I wasn't, because it's happened in the past...

I do not deign to respond to this.

It unfortunately makes your penis look small. There, I said it.

Well, that's why I overcompensate by having sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads.

But I concede your point. Off with the pinky ring!

Is it the law or just something mandated by movie theaters? Remember that the MPAA is a completely "voluntary" system.


I think if the theatres make I.D. mandatory, it's probably because they are required to by law.

I'm in favor of putting the whole lot of them in a very special place, where they can get all the psychiatric treatment they need...

And is anyone else getting some kind of creepy brainwashing vibe from the idea that a family responded to a girl seeing a movie that portrayed gays in a human manner was to get her COUNSELING?

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

Well, as far as I know, it's not actually ILLEGAL to sell tickets to R movies to minors, it's just a willing restriction. I could be wrong, of course.

And come on, it's not like they really care if the person is actually someone's legal guardian.

Somehow I suspect if I read said book to someone's children in class I would be getting sued. Indoctrination or trying to "fix" indoctrination is not a place for the classroom. The classroom presents age-appropriate ideas and helps kids learn how to think about them. This movie, just according to its rating, is not age-appropriate.

That sure sounds like indoctrination to me...

I'm in favor of putting the whole lot of them in a very special place, where they can get all the psychiatric treatment they need...

And is anyone else getting some kind of creepy brainwashing vibe from the idea that a family responded to a girl seeing a movie that portrayed gays in a human manner was to get her COUNSELING?
The counselor probably told her gay people arn't real but will become real if you let two people of the same sex marry. And then they will steal your soul and condemn you to hell.

Two reasons: first-off the movie is rated R, second it has NO educational value (although that in itself is no reason to sue the school).

The second one, not quite. If it was used as a case study of tolerance in America, it'd be fairly educational.

"And this kids, shows how many people are made of fail"

So how do you kill a zombie lawyer then?

Fire.

That sure sounds like indoctrination to me...

How to think. Not what to think. Key difference.

How to think. Not what to think. Key difference.

Ah. The sentence was just phrased poorly, I guess.

That sure sounds like indoctrination to me...

Not what, how. It teaches them how to actually be thinking individuals. However we don't teach 5-year-olds about STD's and there is no need to show 12-year-olds about two men who both cheat on their wives, one of whom abandons his children, until one of them is beaten to death.

I thought it was an excellent movie. I might choose to show it to my 12-year-old if I had one. I would be pissed if some substitute teacher decided it was her decision instead of mine. If this woman had no idea that this was a bad decision then she doesn't have the necessary capacity to work at McDonald's, let alone teach children.

Ah. The sentence was just phrased poorly, I guess.

You mean in using the word HOW. I can see how you might not recognize the difference given the lack of the A and the T and the added O and the different meaning and all. Sorry. Next time I'll write it in Farsi. Let me know if that helps.

How to think. Not what to think. Key difference.
Thanks for explaining. Yes, that's precisely what it says. Zarakon blames his reading skills on me even though you appear to have understood the sentence perfectly.

There's plenty of stupid to go around here. The sub will likely be fired and should be--you don't show an R-rated movie to 12 year olds, and you really don't depend on them not to snitch. And the grandparents are the kind of people who complain about the language in 8th grade reading curricula--what's the worst word that could be in there? Hell? Damn? Their kid hears worse than that in the hallway, maybe even from faculty.

I remeber a few years go when a third grager called me fuck face. so Don't assume. ( I do not live in an urban area.)

Not what, how. It teaches them how to actually be thinking individuals. However we don't teach 5-year-olds about STD's and there is no need to show 12-year-olds about two men who both cheat on their wives, one of whom abandons his children, until one of them is beaten to death.

I thought it was an excellent movie. I might choose to show it to my 12-year-old if I had one. I would be pissed if some substitute teacher decided it was her decision instead of mine. If this woman had no idea that this was a bad decision then she doesn't have the necessary capacity to work at McDonald's, let alone teach children.

Perfectly voiced. You are indeed the mouth-piece for the common and practical individual, Jocabia.

If I wanted to sue someone for me stumbling upon oodles of gay pr0n on the Interwebz, would I send my lawyers to Al Gore or David Hasselhoff?you stumbling upon it is one thing, but to have said porn shown to you (if you're underage) is quite another.

I would definitely sue if I was forced to watch Titanic in school.I watched "16 candles" in school. oh the horror... :headbang:

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the psychological distress can be blamed on the kid's parents. They were probably freaking out knowing what crazy shit their dad was going to stir up once he found out about Brokeback Mountain. err... much worse... grandparents.

then again, the little girl could've said, "Grandma, Grandpa, they made me watch an R rated film." yes, it is possible. My 10 yr old neice will not stand for me to watch Adult Swim when she's in the same room. her response? "My mom and dad says I can't watch this, so you have to turn it off." :D

Then what the hell is X rated? 24 and over?usually 21 yrs and older.

I am wondering how the sub showed it to them in one day, and/or, did not recieve any complaints until the movie was finished.

Generally, if I were to undergo great psychological trauma, I wouldn't just sit there and take it quietly up the ass *snicker snicker*
The title of this thread should be Therapists love People with Psychological Trauma. But that might be too long. it would depend on how that school schedules it's classes. however, it didn't have to be the whole movie.

R means that people under 17 cannot be admitted unless accompanied by someone aged 17 or over.Actually it specifies Parent or Adult Guardian. don't think the Substitute teacher falls under the legal definition of Guardian. Supervisor or Chaperone, but not Guardian.

It's funny that the only child that was traumatized was the one with the extremely religious parents. Perhaps it's their pastor or priest that should be sued?how is having Faith make them "Extremely Religous"? Sounds like they had issues before, but never involved the lawyers...

"This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

and the nature of the suing isn't on a Religious baises (usually a point that Extremely Religious Parents would sue on.) but on a psychologically damaging one.

It unfortunately makes your penis look small. There, I said it.... I would think that it would be the Shorn Scrotum that would do that...

Well, as far as I know, it's not actually ILLEGAL to sell tickets to R movies to minors, it's just a willing restriction. I could be wrong, of course.

And come on, it's not like they really care if the person is actually someone's legal guardian.not Illegal, but theatres are reluctant to sell them to unaccompanied minors because it will open them up to lawsuits. Once more, the bottom line.

Not what, how. It teaches them how to actually be thinking individuals. However we don't teach 5-year-olds about STD's and there is no need to show 12-year-olds about two men who both cheat on their wives, one of whom abandons his children, until one of them is beaten to death.

I thought it was an excellent movie. I might choose to show it to my 12-year-old if I had one. I would be pissed if some substitute teacher decided it was her decision instead of mine. If this woman had no idea that this was a bad decision then she doesn't have the necessary capacity to work at McDonald's, let alone teach children.
Perfectly voiced. You are indeed the mouth-piece for the common and practical individual, Jocabia.
Agreed.

Psychological Trauma because the student saw teh ebil Gays? Jeebus H. Frog. :rolleyes:

Psychological Trauma for being exposed to material intended for over 17 year olds would be rational, but this is stupid. The Sub should be fired for showing an R-rated movie without getting permission first, but beyond that, this case is silly.

Psychological Trauma because the student saw teh ebil Gays? Jeebus H. Frog. :rolleyes:

Psychological Trauma for being exposed to material intended for over 17 year olds would be rational, but this is stupid. The Sub should be fired for showing an R-rated movie without getting permission first, but beyond that, this case is silly.

That's basically what we WERE debating here, until Jocabia summed-it-up nicely for all of us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/14/national/main2798551.shtml

"Brokeback" School Viewing Draws Lawsuit
Suit Claims 12-Year-Old Suffered Psychological Distress After Watching R-Rated Film In Class

(CBS/AP) A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film "Brokeback Mountain" in class.

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.

:rolleyes:

Not again. I found this comment particularly amusing:
What was her agenda? to indoctrinate the kids to thinking this lifestyle is OK?? sure sounds like it.
o noes!! :eek:

Sorry if this has already been posted.

It may not have been the fact that gay sex was depicted but that sex of any sort was

Doctors across the world agree that gaydiation is highly dangerous, and will erode all moral values and decency. Gaydiation is proven to convert wholesomeness into pure concentrated evil. Prayer and self flagellation have proven effective in countering the effects of gaydiation, though prevention(by avoidance of all gays and eventual removal of them from existence) is better than cure.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/14/national/main2798551.shtml



:rolleyes:

Not again. I found this comment particularly amusing:

o noes!! :eek:

Sorry if this has already been posted.

It has. You should post you're opinion on that thread instead of starting your own.

They're always about gay cowboys eating pudding! :mad:

Here is the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526869

Here is the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526869

Whoops. Sorry. Still, you can't expect me to past the first page. As if I'd have time for that. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, on the other thread you have to click the link... ;)

That's basically what we WERE debating here, until Jocabia summed-it-up nicely for all of us.

It was a very good argument until someone rational turned up.

Did anyone take a look at some of the comments there? My god, the bigotry and ignorance was overwhelming. The people who commented acted as if the movie was going to make their children gay, that it would make it acceptable to be gay etc.

While reading I couldn't help but wonder... do these people/parents really that naive? There is worse shit that Broke Backmountain on TV and your little "saint" has probably seen racy movies by now anyway. The only difference is, it would have had straight sex in it.

While reading I couldn't help but wonder... do these people/parents really that naive? There is worse shit that Broke Backmountain on TV and your little "saint" has probably seen racy movies by now anyway. The only difference is, it would have had straight sex in it.

Yes but it wouldn't have been shown to them by their teacher i'm willing to bet

Yes but it wouldn't have been shown to them by their teacher i'm willing to bet

Even if it wasn't, the parents would have still been outraged. After all, seeing two guys screw each other automatically means your child is infected with teh gay.

Even if it wasn't, the parents would have still been outraged. After all, seeing two guys screw each other automatically means your child is infected with teh gay.

You make an assumption that their reason for outrage is that it was homosexual sex and not just straight sex. It doesn't say that in the link.

But What educational benefit does Brockback Mountain have?

It doesn't have any educational benefit at all.

The teacher obviously has an agenda they want to shove down the throat of 13 and 14 year olds and parents wishes be damned.

You make an assumption that their reason for outrage is that it was homosexual sex and not just straight sex. It doesn't say that in the link.

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged because it was gay sex.

Gay sex between 2 men grosses most straight people out.

People, particularly children, don't want to be forced to watch two guys go at it by there psycho teacher.

It's perfectly fine to be more outraged because it was gay sex.

Gay sex between 2 men grosses most straight people out.

People, particularly children, don't want to be forced to watch two guys go at it by there psycho teacher.

Ugh, not more "tolerate my intolerance".

It doesn't have any educational benefit at all.

The teacher obviously has an agenda they want to shove down the throat of 13 and 14 year olds and parents wishes be damned.

Why obviously?

Ugh, not more "tolerate my intolerance".

What's tolerant about forcing children to watch soft core gay porn in school against there wishes?

Why obviously?

Why else would someone show soft core gay porn to a classroom of children, without permission from their parents, and ask them to not tell anyone about it.

What's tolerant about forcing children to watch soft core gay porn in school against there wishes?

Were they forcibly restrained and made to watch it?

Why else would someone show soft core gay porn to a classroom of children, without permission from their parents, and ask them to not tell anyone about it.

So would someone who showed an action film to the same kids be trying to get them all to grab a gun and start practicing?

Were they forcibly restrained and made to watch it?

They are children. They're not permitted to leave the classroom.

What's tolerant about forcing children to watch soft core gay porn in school against there wishes?

That's not an issue of tolerance or intolerance. What's your point?

They are children. They're not permitted to leave the classroom.

Did any of them ask to? Would they have been allowed to if they had?

Honestly we need to have more information before we can debate this point

Did any of them ask to? Would they have been allowed to if they had?

Honestly we need to have more information before we can debate this point

What part about "they are children" don't you understand?

They were in school, the teacher put on filth and told them not to tell anyone.

That's all any sane person should need to know.

Did any of them ask to? Would they have been allowed to if they had?

Honestly we need to have more information before we can debate this point
The point isn't that they had to watch it, but that it caused some girl psychological stress so severe she had to see a counselor (after having to read a classic book with curse words in it 2 years ago) and now is suing for trying to make the girl live in the real world causing her to have a psychological breakdown.

And this is the kind of environment that produces people like R0cka

Did any of them ask to? Would they have been allowed to if they had?

Honestly we need to have more information before we can debate this point

Well, the only people who have talked to the press so far are the grandparents bringing forth the suit. Consequently, all the actions described by the article are actions allegedly taken by the substitute teacher.

We have no information from the teacher or the school administration so far. Pretty one sided debate, so far.

Well, the only people who have talked to the press so far are the grandparents bringing forth the suit. Consequently, all the actions described by the article are actions allegedly taken by the substitute teacher.

We have no information from the teacher or the school administration so far. Pretty one sided debate, so far.

Yeah I understand.

What part about "they are children" don't you understand?

They were in school, the teacher put on filth and told them not to tell anyone.

That's all any sane person should need to know.

As I said (and Gift-of-God pointed out more clearly) we don't have all the info. With that in mind I don't think there is much more point debating this

What part about "they are children" don't you understand?

They were in school, the teacher put on filth and told them not to tell anyone.

That's all any sane person should need to know.

Implying that everyone who disagrees with you is insane. Great debating technique.

I think that Brokeback Mountain is a good film - it is very emotionally charged, and deals with serious issues. The scene near the end with the visiting of the parents makes me weep like a tiny baby.

The film is certainly not soft core gay porn. If it was, I think there would be less main-characters-breaking-down-in-tears-when-being-seperated-from-the-person-that-they-love, less oh-no-my-husband-is-cheating-on-me-and-no-longer-loves-me-and-probably-never-did-and-is-it-because-of-my-own-inadequacy, and certainly no it-is-impossible-for-me-to-live-with-the-person-that-I-love-because-society-hates-the-way-that-I-feel. There might be possibly more shagging-in-a-tent, though.

I do not think that my twelve year old sister or her friends would be able to properly appreciate the film because, to put it simply, they don't have the maturity and emotional capacity yet. This doesn't mean that I would object to her watching it - not at all. But I think that the average twelve year old needs to have a wider scope to be able to appreciate the subtlery of the issues that the film raises.

Or maybe she needs to see the film in order to have her scope widened? Huh.

Mind you, as a side point, I don't think that children of that age should be watching violent films at all. What's that quote? "I'd rather have my child watch a film where two people loved each other then a film where they were trying to blow each other up." That's horribly mangled, but it's the gist. I'll have to look it up.

So, in long and rambly conclusion, the teacher should have respected the age rating merely as a matter of course, whatever the film. Some children react badly to scenes of violence and gore in films, and some children react badly to scenes of sex (heterosexual or homosexual), possibly due to triggering. Without the prior permission of the parent, it is not appropriate to show a film to children younger then the rating, whatever the film, and whatever the content.

(Brokeback Mountain is a 15 in the UK, btw.)

Isn't Brokeback Mountain rated 16s here, 15s in the UK and R-rated in the states? It shouldn't have been shown in a class to a 12-year-old in the first place. I can understand why her grandparents are uspet, but $500,000? You wouldn't get $5000 from a school, never mind a hundred times that amount! The school should pay for the counselling, but that's about all they deserve.

And reading swear words? Any child in secondary school probably hears swearwords left, right and centre, never mind reading them. Some people are far too sensitive.

Isn't Brokeback Mountain rated 16s here, 15s in the UK and R-rated in the states? It shouldn't have been shown in a class to a 12-year-old in the first place. I can understand why her grandparents are uspet, but $500,000? You wouldn't get $5000 from a school, never mind a hundred times that amount! The school should pay for the counselling, but that's about all they deserve.

Fuck no. They shouldn't pay for the counseling. It isn't the school's fault that the girl is so sheltered and so fucked up that just watching a movie about gay people causes severe psychological distress.

I'm pretty sure they've shown that movie in my school... in RE I think. That's here in the wacky UK though where it's a 15.

Fuck no. They shouldn't pay for the counseling. It isn't the school's fault that the girl is so sheltered and so fucked up that just watching a movie about gay people causes severe psychological distress.

It is the school's fault that they hired a substitute teacher who doesn't recognize what is and is not acceptable to do as a teacher of 12-year-olds. It wasn't her class. They were not her children. Again, I might personally show this to my 12-year-old if I had one, but that's my decision. She didn't allow parents to decide if children of age 12 should be watching this movie that is designated across the globe as being inappropriate for children that age. Whatever one might think of this girl's guardians, the teacher was in the wrong. There is no getting around that.

And, yes, I would be equally upset with them showing Titanic to my 12-year-old.

As a parent, I have to pay attention to what my child encounters whenever they are in my home or with my friends. I should not have to worry about what some rogue teacher might show them. It is a good movie. It is NOT an appropriate movie.

Implying that everyone who disagrees with you is insane. Great debating technique.

Beats accusing people of being intolerant.

Gee, I'm a conservative Christian, and have a copy of Brokeback Mountain.

Hasn't bothered me yet...

Beats accusing people of being intolerant.

Not really... unless you have a medical degree.

It is the school's fault that they hired a substitute teacher who doesn't recognize what is and is not acceptable to do as a teacher of 12-year-olds. It wasn't her class. They were not her children. Again, I might personally show this to my 12-year-old if I had one, but that's my decision. She didn't allow parents to decide if children of age 12 should be watching this movie that is designated across the globe as being inappropriate for children that age. Whatever one might think of this girl's guardians, the teacher was in the wrong. There is no getting around that.

And, yes, I would be equally upset with them showing Titanic to my 12-year-old.

As a parent, I have to pay attention to what my child encounters whenever they are in my home or with my friends. I should not have to worry about what some rogue teacher might show them. It is a good movie. It is NOT an appropriate movie.

Inappropriate yes

But I think the point of the post that you quoted is that there is no way unless this kids home life was draconian filtering reality, could this have even possibly rose to the level of "psychological distress".

Gee, I'm a conservative Christian, and have a copy of Brokeback Mountain.

Hasn't bothered me yet...

Yes, but you're not 12 I take it.

Not just the blanket "give me money" claim of emotional distress, but psychological distress she had to see a counselor for.

"emotional distress" and "psychological distress" are, in torts, the same thing. The counselor's cost are merely assessed as part of the damages.

Yes, but you're not 12 I take it.

My daughter has seen it, and she's 14.

It is the school's fault that they hired a substitute teacher who doesn't recognize what is and is not acceptable to do as a teacher of 12-year-olds. It wasn't her class. They were not her children. Again, I might personally show this to my 12-year-old if I had one, but that's my decision. She didn't allow parents to decide if children of age 12 should be watching this movie that is designated across the globe as being inappropriate for children that age. Whatever one might think of this girl's guardians, the teacher was in the wrong. There is no getting around that.

And, yes, I would be equally upset with them showing Titanic to my 12-year-old.

As a parent, I have to pay attention to what my child encounters whenever they are in my home or with my friends. I should not have to worry about what some rogue teacher might show them. It is a good movie. It is NOT an appropriate movie.


absolutly. And the teacher should be fired. It is not a movie that should be shown to a 12 year old without permission. This has nothing to do with gay themes (though it does sadden me that many parents out there would forbid the watching of it SOLEY for gay themes, yet allow equally graphic movies without the gay parts) but rather simply the movie deals with adult concepts in general.

That being said, to sue over this is nonsensical.

My daughter has seen it, and she's 14.

And who decides what your daughter may see and what she may not? Random people who happen to stand at the front of the classroom?

My daughter has seen it, and she's 14.

Well, let me tell ya, 14 maybe only two years away from 12, but emotionally there is a BIG difference.
But aside from that, if it bothered the parents it's their right. The teacher obviously knew it would, or else the students wouldn't be told to keep their mouthes shut.

absolutly. And the teacher should be fired. It is not a movie that should be shown to a 12 year old without permission. This has nothing to do with gay themes (though it does sadden me that many parents out there would forbid the watching of it SOLEY for gay themes, yet allow equally graphic movies without the gay parts) but rather simply the movie deals with adult concepts in general.

That being said, to sue over this is nonsensical.

I didn't think it was any more graphic than a lot of stuff that is shown on television during prime time.

Sure, there were two men getting it on in a tent. But it's not like you saw anything.

The story was much more about their stymied romance over the years, and to me, it was about the same as something you might see on the Lifetime channel.

Some of us Christian conservatives aren't bothered at all by any aspect of this movie.

absolutly. And the teacher should be fired. It is not a movie that should be shown to a 12 year old without permission. This has nothing to do with gay themes (though it does sadden me that many parents out there would forbid the watching of it SOLEY for gay themes, yet allow equally graphic movies without the gay parts) but rather simply the movie deals with adult concepts in general.

That being said, to sue over this is nonsensical.

It's clear these parents are suit-happy, as I said before. I think there are better ways to express outrage. People talk about lawsuits being necessary to "teach a lesson" but I see no indication that this family attempted more reasonable approaches first. If this sub was fired (or more precisely will no longer be allowed to teach at that school) then I would say that does as much to "teach a lesson" as any lawsuit will.

And who decides what your daughter may see and what she may not? Random people who happen to stand at the front of the classroom?

Sometimes - if you send your kid to public school, sometimes you take your chances.

Theoretically, they're supposed to give you the opportunity to opt out of topics that parents might find offensive. And generally, they do.

But saying that the policy is automagically going to protect kids from seeing or hearing things you don't want them to hear.

I take it you don't have children.

When my daughter was 12, I remember hearing her friends and the topics they discussed and the language that was used.

It made Brokeback seem as vanilla as a math lesson.

Beats accusing people of being intolerant.

The truth is often painful. But enough ad hominems.

-snip

What you seem to be missing is that regulations already exist to prevent a child from being seen an R rated movie without parental permission.

I didn't think it was any more graphic than a lot of stuff that is shown on television during prime time.

Sure, there were two men getting it on in a tent. But it's not like you saw anything.

The story was much more about their stymied romance over the years, and to me, it was about the same as something you might see on the Lifetime channel.

Some of us Christian conservatives aren't bothered at all by any aspect of this movie.

And again, I would definitely be the person who decides what my child sees on Lifetime (most of those movies are ridiculous) or during prime time. That's what they have parents for, to raise them. This teacher whiile having the children placed in her charge does not have free reign to replace or circumvent the parent. This substitute did.

absolutly. And the teacher should be fired. It is not a movie that should be shown to a 12 year old without permission. This has nothing to do with gay themes (though it does sadden me that many parents out there would forbid the watching of it SOLEY for gay themes, yet allow equally graphic movies without the gay parts) but rather simply the movie deals with adult concepts in general.

That being said, to sue over this is nonsensical.

Y'know, if it weren't for you I'd still think all leftists were morons? You've taught me something very important you know, and I hope I will never judge someone's intelligence by anything other then their actions again.

Sometimes - if you send your kid to public school, sometimes you take your chances.

Theoretically, they're supposed to give you the opportunity to opt out of topics that parents might find offensive. And generally, they do.

But saying that the policy is automagically going to protect kids from seeing or hearing things you don't want them to hear.

I take it you don't have children.
.

Policy doesn't automatically protect children from such things but it draws a line which, if crossed, requires that those responsible are punished. Otherwise what would be the point of the policy

I think the sad thing is: If the teacher showed "Rambo" instead, while the parents would have been furious, the kids probably wouldn't have cared. Im on the plaintiffs side, but they should not request monetary damages- they should have asked to have the substitute removed.

Y'know, if it weren't for you I'd still think all leftists were morons? You've taught me something very important you know, and I hope I will never judge someone's intelligence by anything other then their actions again.

*Ahem*, that said I will still be waiting to argue with you politically speaking. :D

It's clear these parents are suit-happy, as I said before. I think there are better ways to express outrage. People talk about lawsuits being necessary to "teach a lesson" but I see no indication that this family attempted more reasonable approaches first. If this sub was fired (or more precisely will no longer be allowed to teach at that school) then I would say that does as much to "teach a lesson" as any lawsuit will.

You see, this is the other thing that bothers me. You know my background, so bare with me on this.

Lawsuits are designed to combat specific ills by specific claims. Lawsuits are not "you pissed me off so give me money". The field of tort law is of numerous claims, you must find the claim to fit the ill. Which is why I have been greatly bothered by the development of "emotional distress" as sort of the catch all "I don't really have a claim recognized by statutory or common law, so just give me money".

If there were any suit worthy grounds I could, MAYBE, see a claim for breech of implied contract. It's a stretch, but an argument could be made.

Sometimes - if you send your kid to public school, sometimes you take your chances.

Theoretically, they're supposed to give you the opportunity to opt out of topics that parents might find offensive. And generally, they do.

But saying that the policy is automagically going to protect kids from seeing or hearing things you don't want them to hear.

I take it you don't have children.

When my daughter was 12, I remember hearing her friends and the topics they discussed and the language that was used.

It made Brokeback seem as vanilla as a math lesson.

Who said it was automatically protect them? Strawman arguments are fallacious for a reason. I know that I have to police my childrens' friends (to be clear, I have no children) to a degree. I know I have to police my childrens books and movies and music to a degree. I don't expect to have to protect my children from teachers who don't appear to have the decision-making ability that I would expect at most fast food registers.

If I heard my child talking to one of their friends who was using "fuck" as every other word, I would probably discuss it with my daughter. If I heard a teacher using 'fuck" as every other word, I would darned sure discuss it with the teacher. Comparing an accredited teacher to your daughter's friends does a disservice to the role a teacher plays.

It isn't the school's fault that the girl is so sheltered and so fucked up that just watching a movie about gay people causes severe psychological distress.

Sheltered?

The girl is sheltered because she's never been forced by an adult to watch simulated sex between two men?

Sheltered?

The girl is sheltered because she's never been forced by an adult to watch simulated sex between two men?

No because apparently it was enough to cause supposedly 500,000 in psychological distress and required a psychologist to treat.

I would hardly call that a normal reaction

I think the sad thing is: If the teacher showed "Rambo" instead, while the parents would have been furious, the kids probably wouldn't have cared. Im on the plaintiffs side, but they should not request monetary damages- they should have asked to have the substitute removed.

that....that is not a grounds upon which one can sue. There is some mystique about law suits it seems. You can't just ask for ANYTHING. Specific performance is only mandated when there is a contractual obligation between parties. You can't just sue to get someone fired, unless you have a specific contract governing that termination.

You know what sucks. I hate when people appear to be on my side of the argument but can't stop saying things as absurd as this. It's the simulated sex part that is the problem. Your bigotry really has nothing to do with whether this is right or wrong. If it had been heterosexual it would be equally wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Never mind. I don't challenge you to show otherwise. I challenge you to simply stop speaking so I don't sound like I agree with this nonsense.

If it helps I know the difference in your viewpoints clearly

Sheltered?

The girl is sheltered because she's never been forced by an adult to watch simulated sex between two men?

You know what sucks. I hate when people appear to be on my side of the argument but can't stop saying things as absurd as this. It's the simulated sex part that is the problem. Your bigotry really has nothing to do with whether this is right or wrong. If it had been heterosexual it would be equally wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Never mind. I don't challenge you to show otherwise. I challenge you to simply stop speaking so I don't sound like I agree with this nonsense.

You know what sucks. I hate when people appear to be on my side of the argument but can't stop saying things as absurd as this. It's the simulated sex part that is the problem. Your bigotry really has nothing to do with whether this is right or wrong. If it had been heterosexual it would be equally wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Never mind. I don't challenge you to show otherwise. I challenge you to simply stop speaking so I don't sound like I agree with this nonsense.

You see Jocabia it's different. God designed man and woman to have sex with each other. So simulated sex is merely showing that which God intended. Since children should be introduced to religion early, they must be shown how god wants us to live, which includes God'sdesire to have man have sex with woman.

God however did not want man to have sex with man, and as such this is an abomination to god. Therefore, our children should be taught to be repulsed by such sinfilled behavior, and combat it whenever possible.

So in short sex is a beautiful thing given to us by god, and children should be exposed to god's desires for them early. Unless there are multiple pensis or vaginas involved. In which case it's just sick.

Or something....ug, I need a shower now.

You see, this is the other thing that bothers me. You know my background, so bare with me on this.

Lawsuits are designed to combat specific ills by specific claims. Lawsuits are not "you pissed me off so give me money". The field of tort law is of numerous claims, you must find the claim to fit the ill. Which is why I have been greatly bothered by the development of "emotional distress" as sort of the catch all "I don't really have a claim recognized by statutory or common law, so just give me money".

If there were any suit worthy grounds I could, MAYBE, see a claim for breech of implied contract. It's a stretch, but an argument could be made.

Yes, exactly.

I hate the state of lawsuits in this country. And in truth I really do blame lawyers. They have the job to apply the law properly (I'm including judges since they are also lawyers). Lawsuit law has been so skewed. Just looking at the commercials on television. They say they are trying to get you justice but what they clearly imply is that they'll get you as much money as possible.

You see Jocabia it's different. God designed man and woman to have sex with each other. So simulated sex is merely showing that which God intended. Since children should be introduced to religion early, they must be shown how god wants us to live, which includes God'sdesire to have man have sex with woman.

God however did not want man to have sex with man, and as such this is an abomination to god. Therefore, our children should be taught to be repulsed by such sinfilled behavior, and combat it whenever possible.

So in short sex is a beautiful thing given to us by god, and children should be exposed to god's desires for them early. Unless there are multiple pensis or vaginas involved. In which case it's just sick.

Or something....ug, I need a shower now.

Right. Except on the down low. When you're on the down low, God just covers His eyes.

If one wants to look for sexual deviants heterosexuals are far more likely to be and cause that. If God would just a-get to smiting, then we'd all be good. Till then we're gonna have to put up with us sick, twisted heterosexuals.

Right. Except on the down low. When you're on the down low, God just covers His eyes.

If one wants to look for sexual deviants heterosexuals are far more likely to be and cause that. If God would just a-get to smiting, then we'd all be good. Till then we're gonna have to put up with us sick, twisted heterosexuals.

I don't have a clue what you're talkin' about, Phil. Not a fucking clue. I have a shell the size of a fist in my head. Pork Chop Hill. The only way I can make this goddamn toupee to stay on is by magnetizing the entire upper left quadrant of my skull, so you just go ahead and do what you do.

that....that is not a grounds upon which one can sue. There is some mystique about law suits it seems. You can't just ask for ANYTHING. Specific performance is only mandated when there is a contractual obligation between parties. You can't just sue to get someone fired, unless you have a specific contract governing that termination.

Yes, I know that. I suppose I confused the wording by using the word 'plaintiff', to clarify, I think that the parents are more than within their rights to ask the school to remove the offending sub. I do not however think the should sue for damages, and certainly not $500,000.

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

Isn't a teacher the legal guardian, during school time....

Isn't a teacher the legal guardian, during school time....

according to the supreme court yeah. which is why my kids don't go to public school (well, one of the reasons)

Somehow I suspect if I read said book to someone's children in class I would be getting sued.

Not in Georgia. We just passed laws permitting the teaching of 'the Bible' as literature AND history(?).

according to the supreme court yeah. which is why my kids don't go to public school (well, one of the reasons)

At age 11, I had the choice of home-schooling, special 'advanced' schooling, or regular schooling. I ended up in 'regular schooling' because school isn't just about lessons - it's about learning to get along with real people in the real world. It's the same reason my 8 year old is in the Georgia education system - despite this part of the country treating classrooms as little more than an extension of the church.

At age 11, I had the choice of home-schooling, special 'advanced' schooling, or regular schooling. I ended up in 'regular schooling' because school isn't just about lessons - it's about learning to get along with real people in the real world. It's the same reason my 8 year old is in the Georgia education system - despite this part of the country treating classrooms as little more than an extension of the church.

my kids learn about real people in the real world.....seriously, you can't possibly think I tie them to the kitchen table for 9 hours a day......

btw, the 5 year old finishes her first semester in classes at the community college next week, I am sure that community college isn't filled with real people in the "real world" right?

You know what sucks. I hate when people appear to be on my side of the argument but can't stop saying things as absurd as this. It's the simulated sex part that is the problem. Your bigotry really has nothing to do with whether this is right or wrong. If it had been heterosexual it would be equally wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

I never said a word about straight simulated sex being okay and gay sex not.

He called the girl "sheltered".

I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.

Never mind. I don't challenge you to show otherwise. I challenge you to simply stop speaking so I don't sound like I agree with this nonsense.

I never said I speak for you or that you speak for me, I don't even know who you are, this is a creation in your head.

No because apparently it was enough to cause supposedly 500,000 in psychological distress and required a psychologist to treat.

I would hardly call that a normal reaction

What would be a good amount in your opinion?

my kids learn about real people in the real world.....seriously, you can't possibly think I tie them to the kitchen table for 9 hours a day......

btw, the 5 year old finishes her first semester in classes at the community college next week, I am sure that community college isn't filled with real people in the "real world" right?

I'm not saying your kids don't "learn about real people in the real world". But you have to admit that there is a strong risk, when children are not bumping shoulders with one another, that they are not going to learn the various mechanisms that we need/use everyday.

Community college does a lot to alleviate that burden (although, again, you have to acknowledge that this may not be typical), but I wonder how many children she associates with, and what the nature of the grouping is. I don't know what sort of course she's taking, so I can't really speak to it any more accurately.

I never said a word about straight simulated sex being okay and gay sex not.

He called the girl "sheltered".

I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.

Oh really, ad nauseam implies that the film was shown repeatedly. You're really blowing this out of proportion.


Are you on that girls legal team or something?

I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.


I wouldn't say the Jack/Ennis was particually lewd, or explicit. In fact, I think the simulated heterosexual sex was probably far more explicit. And after all, a more common occurance then the simulated homosexual sex would be Jack and Ennis kissing, which is not lewd at all.

You see Jocabia it's different. God designed man and woman to have sex with each other. So simulated sex is merely showing that which God intended.

It's simulated sex because the two actors in brokeback mountain didn't really have sex. They're actors, they pretend to or "simulate" sex scenes.

I never said a word about straight simulated sex being okay and gay sex not.

He called the girl "sheltered".

I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.

Uh-huh. Yes, the fact that you keep repeatedly mentioning how disgusting gay sex is, is coincidence. You just can't get your frontal lobe to stop all that bigotry from spilling out onto your screen. However, your bigotry has nothing to do with this issue or why the teacher was in the wrong. It only convolutes the issue and makes you look silly.



I never said I speak for you or that you speak for me, I don't even know who you are, this is a creation in your head.

The problem is you're on the same side of the argument, sort of, and you do more damage to the argument than you understand.

Oh really, ad nauseam implies that the film was shown repeatedly. You're really blowing this out of proportion.


Are you on that girls legal team or something?

God, I hope he is. That's can't but help the school. I'm reminded of a line from Shakespeare when I hear him protest.

I'm not saying your kids don't "learn about real people in the real world". But you have to admit that there is a strong risk, when children are not bumping shoulders with one another, that they are not going to learn the various mechanisms that we need/use everyday.

Community college does a lot to alleviate that burden (although, again, you have to acknowledge that this may not be typical), but I wonder how many children she associates with, and what the nature of the grouping is. I don't know what sort of course she's taking, so I can't really speak to it any more accurately.

she takes music lessons on Monday nights with the city's children's orchestra, on Wednesday nights she is at church with kids her age learning and playing, on Tuesdays she goes to college with mostly older teens and young adults, on Fridays she takes dance class along with homeschool co-op where she is in a classroom type setting with kids her age.

I don't really think she gets any less "socialization" than kids who are for 6 hours a day shoved into desks and told "don't talk"

Not in Georgia. We just passed laws permitting the teaching of 'the Bible' as literature AND history(?).As long as they leave out all theological aspects, that's ok.

I never said a word about straight simulated sex being okay and gay sex not.

He called the girl "sheltered".
She was caused psychological distress by seeing implied gay sex.

I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.
Do you even know what ad nauseum means? She wasn't tied to a chair and her eyes held open. She wasn't forced to do anything, ad nauseum.

God, I hope he is. That's can't but help the school. I'm reminded of a line from Shakespeare when I hear him protest.

"Kill all the lawyers"?

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

A substitute teacher showed "Brokeback Mountain" during class. Now a student and her grandmother are suing the school for some grounds I'm not quite sure. The suit claims the 12 year old student suffered "psychological distress" and "was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling." This suit followed a 2005 incident where the same person complained about "curse words" in literature they had to read (probably something classical).

Therapists love Christian conservatives.
We got to see "Debbie does Dallas" at school! Did'nt tell our parents tho'!:D

It's simulated sex because the two actors in brokeback mountain didn't really have sex. They're actors, they pretend to or "simulate" sex scenes.Do they have real sex scenes? Or is the sex just hinted at?

She was caused psychological distress by seeing implied gay sex.

Amusingly, the "straight" sex is much more explicit and common in the movie, but he hasn't mentioned it once. I guess the gay sex was more memorable for him.

She was caused psychological distress by seeing implied gay sex.


Do you even know what ad nauseum means? She wasn't tied to a chair and her eyes held open. She wasn't forced to do anything, ad nauseum. The supply teacher DID refuse her request to leave class. As a teacher I think she is now classed as "dead in the water"

She was caused psychological distress by seeing implied gay sex.How can seeing sex cause psychological distress? In a kid I would rather expect curiosity.

Uh-huh. Yes, the fact that you keep repeatedly mentioning how disgusting gay sex is, is coincidence. You just can't get your frontal lobe to stop all that bigotry from spilling out onto your screen. However, your bigotry has nothing to do with this issue or why the teacher was in the wrong. It only convolutes the issue and makes you look silly.

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.

You have evidence of this? Other than you being grossed out by it.

Also, click here (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=cef3&n=R0cka&c=%23FF0000&t=straight+people+being+grossed+out+by+gay+sex).

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.
Well, when I was 12 I had to dissect a sheep's eye...

"Kill all the lawyers"?

an often misused quote. In the context of that scene, it was a discussion of two anarchists talking about how they would overthrow the government. The character of Dick the Butcher, in the discussion of how to create a successful revolution, noted "first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers". In the context of that discussion, Dick the Butcher's comments were intended to show that if one was intending to overthrow a legal regime, the first, logical step, would be to eliminate the guardians of law.

The legal profession in Shakespeare's day was considered one that was a foundational aspect of governance, the guardians of the law and legal code. As such, to start the revolution, kill the lawyers. It's only the modern spin that makes this into a "lawyer joke"

However I believe Jocabia was refering to "I think the lady doth protest too much"

The supply teacher DID refuse her request to leave class. As a teacher I think she is now classed as "dead in the water"

Thats not in the OP link. Apologies if it has been posted somewhere else in this thread

she takes music lessons on Monday nights with the city's children's orchestra, on Wednesday nights she is at church with kids her age learning and playing, on Tuesdays she goes to college with mostly older teens and young adults, on Fridays she takes dance class along with homeschool co-op where she is in a classroom type setting with kids her age.

I don't really think she gets any less "socialization" than kids who are for 6 hours a day shoved into desks and told "don't talk"

It sounds like your 'home' schooling is a lot different to what a lot of kids get. My sister-in-law homeschools, and there is a lot of 'home' involved.

Even so - older teens and adults deal with matters differently to children. They use the mechanisms they learned as children, but they aren't going through the process of acquiring those mechanisms. It's like presenting someone a whole language, and expecting them to pick it up that way.

I'm not saying anything about 'socialisation'... I think that's a bit of a red herring. But we are societal creatures, and we have to learn how to function in a society. And, that means, we have to be in it.

My gripe isn't with your specific case, it is with the whole idea of homeschooling. We complain about a partisan society, about the frictions between groups, about intolerance... and then we form our own tribal societies. I could educate my own daughter MUCH better at home, than she gets at school. But I can't be 'society', and that might be a more valuable lesson than any amount of the clerical aspect of schooling.

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.Men are never grossed out by any kind of sex. And I suppose that's true for women as well. With some kinds of sex they only pretend to be grossed out because of 'society values'.

She was caused psychological distress by seeing implied gay sex.


Do you even know what ad nauseum means? She wasn't tied to a chair and her eyes held open. She wasn't forced to do anything, ad nauseum.

So now she should have to shut her eyes and close her ears while a grown up abuses her?



I merely pointed out and described the lewd material she was forced to watch, ad nauseam.

Ad nauseam as in I pointed out it out, Ad nauseam.

As long as they leave out all theological aspects, that's ok.

I don't think it is okay, even then.

How can you use the Bible as historical material? If we are only going to teach that which can be corroborated by other material... then almost the entire book is worthless. It is a red herring, at best. At worst, it attaches a special significance to the 'historicity' of the bible.

Add to that, I don't trust the ability of teachers to teach. If one teacher is 'observant', he or she MUST witness, 'as the spirit moves' him or her. That means, if they ever find themselves in a position where their ability to be impartial is conflicted, they already HAVE a 'higher' mandate than mere law. Christians who follow the letter of the bible, simply cannot teach it impartially.

Well, when I was 12 I had to dissect a sheep's eye...

I can top that. I've had a dead persons fat accidentally flicked into my open mouth.

Ok maybe I wasn't 12 but it was all i've got and its still gross

I can top that. I've had a dead persons fat accidentally flicked into my open mouth.

Ok maybe I wasn't 12 but it was all i've got and its still gross

But have you had to do "little advances"?
A cookie for anyone who knows what those are!

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.

So - any amount of 'straight' sex is irrelevent, because the important line being broken is gay-ness?

It sounds like your 'home' schooling is a lot different to what a lot of kids get. My sister-in-law homeschools, and there is a lot of 'home' involved.
there are two or three "types" of homeschoolers in my area, and it all boils down to "why" they are homeschooling. I am not homeschooling to protect my kid from society, I am doing it because she deserves better than what the public school offers.

Even so - older teens and adults deal with matters differently to children. They use the mechanisms they learned as children, but they aren't going through the process of acquiring those mechanisms. It's like presenting someone a whole language, and expecting them to pick it up that way.
in your day to day life are you only interacting with people the exact same age as you? I hope not. I interact with people from newborns to 90 years old, it's something you need to know how to do, and my kids can do it. I know way too many kids who can't, who are afraid to talk to adults, who are "too old" to talk to younger children, who can't hold a conversation about anything other than Pokemon and I think it's sad.

I'm not saying anything about 'socialisation'... I think that's a bit of a red herring.
well, of course it is. ;)


But we are societal creatures, and we have to learn how to function in a society. And, that means, we have to be in it.
yeah, and homeschool kids on the whole, are in society more than public school kids are. (in my experience)

My gripe isn't with your specific case, it is with the whole idea of homeschooling. We complain about a partisan society, about the frictions between groups, about intolerance... and then we form our own tribal societies. I could educate my own daughter MUCH better at home, than she gets at school. But I can't be 'society', and that might be a more valuable lesson than any amount of the clerical aspect of schooling.
I understand that, but I don't agree. ;)

You have evidence of this? Other than you being grossed out by it.


Wow!

So you need evidence that most straight people are grossed out by the sight of 2 men having sex?

So now she should have to shut her eyes and close her ears while a grown up abuses her?

Considering she was being abused by the teacher showing a film inappropriate for her, closing her eyes and covering her ears would have been an excellent course of action.

So now she should have to shut her eyes and close her ears while a grown up abuses her?


Err... are you still in the same debate as the rest of us?

Err... are you still in the same debate as the rest of us?

Hyperbole.

I don't think it is okay, even then.

How can you use the Bible as historical material? If we are only going to teach that which can be corroborated by other material... then almost the entire book is worthless. It is a red herring, at best. At worst, it attaches a special significance to the 'historicity' of the bible.

Add to that, I don't trust the ability of teachers to teach. If one teacher is 'observant', he or she MUST witness, 'as the spirit moves' him or her. That means, if they ever find themselves in a position where their ability to be impartial is conflicted, they already HAVE a 'higher' mandate than mere law. Christians who follow the letter of the bible, simply cannot teach it impartially.I said, that as long as they leave out all theological aspects. If an observant Christian is not able to do that, it's not the right one for the job, of course. The historicity of some parts of the bible is ok, as long as the theological interpretation of the respective historical events or periods that comes along is ignored or at least not taken as fact. The bible is an ancient source just as any other, and if it is treaded as such I have no problem with it.

Wow!

So you need evidence that most straight people are grossed out by the sight of 2 men having sex?

Yes, I do. I've mis-clicked when looking for porn and seen men having sex. I wasn't grossed out, I was somewhat miffed that I clicked the wrong link and ended up watching woman free porn.

Not once did I call gay sex disgusting.

I said that most straight people are grossed out by two men having sex, which is true.

Yes, because thats much different. Meanwhile, I don't buy your assertion. None of the straight people I know gave a crap. Nor did any of the teenagers I know who did see the movie (with their parents' permission, of course). Like I said, there's a shakespearean phrase about people who protest too much.

Wow!

So you need evidence that most straight people are grossed out by the sight of 2 men having sex?

You need statistics before you can say "most"

Wow!

So you need evidence that most straight people are grossed out by the sight of 2 men having sex?

yeah, where is your evidence?

you don't expect us just to believe you right?

Wow!

So you need evidence that most straight people are grossed out by the sight of 2 men having sex?

Yes, yes, I do. This was a very popular movie, so the evidence appears to be against you. And they didn't show two gay men having sex. They showed some intimacy. The heterosexual sex scenes you don't seem to care to revisit were much more explicit.

Yes, I do. I've mis-clicked when looking for porn and seen men having sex. I wasn't grossed out, I was somewhat miffed that I clicked the wrong link and ended up watching woman free porn.

So when you stumbled upon the gay porn you you didn't close the window?

So when you stumbled upon the gay porn you you didn't close the window?

Yes, I did. Not because I was grossed out, but because gay porn doesn't appeal to me.


Oh, and updated (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=cefksu3&n=R0cka&c=%23FF0000&t=straight+people+being+grossed+out+by+gay+sex).

there are two or three "types" of homeschoolers in my area, and it all boils down to "why" they are homeschooling. I am not homeschooling to protect my kid from society, I am doing it because she deserves better than what the public school offers.


I agree. Which is why I spend time educating my girl in the stuff her school either hasn't reached yet, or won't ever teach her.

But, like I said - she's not just at 'school' for the book stuff... so I accept that I will have to make up the difference if I want her to have more raw material and available proceses, than her school would give her.


in your day to day life are you only interacting with people the exact same age as you? I hope not. I interact with people from newborns to 90 years old, it's something you need to know how to do, and my kids can do it. I know way too many kids who can't, who are afraid to talk to adults, who are "too old" to talk to younger children, who can't hold a conversation about anything other than Pokemon and I think it's sad.


Hey, don't diss Pokemon, or I'll set my level 57 Torterra on you.

And, of course, I work with all kinds of age groups. My daily work doesn't involve many kids, but that is okay - because the skills I'm talking about are unlikely to be something that could be learned directly from me, another adult, or even a teen. It's one thing to tell a child to share her toys... an entirely different thing for them to learn the mechanisms, and (subconsciously) the invisible mechanisms behind, that govern.

My little girl is much the same as yours. Her third birthday party wasn't at McDonalds or Chuck E Cheese... but at a local Chinese Restaurant. Her youngest guest was her friend Hope, who was 8. The rest of her friends, were about my age, or a little younger. I think this is good - I think you are doing something very 'right'. For me, I think it is important to also find the balance with (for want of a better phrase, I find this one horribly inaccurate, and just plain wrong) 'age appropriate' activity.


yeah, and homeschool kids on the whole, are in society more than public school kids are. (in my experience)


Different type of 'society'.


I understand that, but I don't agree. ;)

And I respect that. But, you already knew that. :)

So when you stumbled upon the gay porn you you didn't close the window?

Again, not what he said. He said it didn't gross him out. What I notice about you is that while all of the rest of us seemed to have noticed the fair amound of straight sex in the movie the only part you seem to have seen is the gay "sex". Now, why is that?

Yes, I did. Not because I was grossed out, but because gay porn doesn't appeal to me.


Oh, and updated (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=cefksu3&n=R0cka&c=%23FF0000&t=straight+people+being+grossed+out+by+gay+sex).

Nice link

Hyperbole.

I agree.

To leap to hands over eyes and ears, and being abused... doesn't seem consistent with the actual topic.

The substitute teacher should be sacked.

The child and her guardians should be shot.

Again, not what he said. He said it didn't gross him out. What I notice about you is that while all of the rest of us seemed to have noticed the fair amound of straight sex in the movie the only part you seem to have seen is the gay "sex". Now, why is that?

The closest it comes to gay sex is the tent scene where they're humping.

But you don't see anything.

So when you stumbled upon the gay porn you you didn't close the window?

I actually find the sight of 'men' at all, pretty gross. So - if I happen across 'straight' porn, I'm no less likely to be grossed out than if it is two men.

For me, the only way sex doesn't look gross, is if it is two (or more) girls.

Of course, looking 'gross' isn't the same as being gross. I'm not 'grossed out' by gay or straight sex.

Different type of 'society'.
learning to interact in the real world isn't teaching them to interact in the real world?:confused: *agrees to disagree*

learning to interact in the real world isn't teaching them to interact in the real world?:confused: *agrees to disagree*

I accept I'm not always outstandingly eloquent. Bear with me while I try to elucidate.

If I were to begin a new endeavour, I could go it alone, or I could find a collective approach. It's not to say I couldn't learn the new thing alone... but it is much easier to gain new material with a support network. Plus, there is a synergy effect - you come away from such a situation with more than just the 'what you learn' bit, but with a whole new set of perspectives and mechanisms to integrate or discard.

The school 'society' is about synergy - but a synergy with a certain focus. Not all 'society' is equal.

I accept I'm not always outstandingly eloquent. Bear with me while I try to elucidate.

Work on that, bucko. I'm tired of waiting for you Englishmen to figure out how to speak American good.

Work on that, bucko. I'm tired of waiting for you Englishmen to figure out how to speak American good.

:D

I looked back over the line as I finished typing it, and thought... "Why aren't the rest of my posts like this...?"

I'm trying to learn the local parlance. I once even tried to say "Y'all", but it wasn't a popular choice. You furreners need to lern to talk proper, like wot I do.

I accept I'm not always outstandingly eloquent. Bear with me while I try to elucidate.

If I were to begin a new endeavour, I could go it alone, or I could find a collective approach. It's not to say I couldn't learn the new thing alone... but it is much easier to gain new material with a support network. Plus, there is a synergy effect - you come away from such a situation with more than just the 'what you learn' bit, but with a whole new set of perspectives and mechanisms to integrate or discard.

The school 'society' is about synergy - but a synergy with a certain focus. Not all 'society' is equal.

I guess my problem is that I was mostly self taught, and my kids are pretty much self taught as well. We don't really need that interaction to learn, in fact, I never really learned anything in school, I was always ahead. We, as a family, tend to be pretty independent around her anyway.....I don't really see it as a bad thing. We can work in a team, we just don't have to.

I guess my problem is that I was mostly self taught, and my kids are pretty much self taught as well. We don't really need that interaction to learn, in fact, I never really learned anything in school, I was always ahead. We, as a family, tend to be pretty independent around her anyway.....I don't really see it as a bad thing. We can work in a team, we just don't have to.

I also was mostly self taught - usually ahead of the class, learning more on my own time, than on the school time. And you are right, we don't need the interactions to learn - at least, not to learn the content of the 'lesson'. I just happen to think there is value in learning the 'context', also.

I think the self-taught thing is double-plus good. Every scorecard my daughter gets from school lauds her problem solving abilities, her facility with dealing with new material. I've always argued learning to learn is the best thing a school can teach - and, unfortunately, that isn't what most of them like to focus on. Especially not know that they get rewarded or punished for benchmarks that favour a deeper grasp of a narrow array of data. Learning-by-rote hasn't been this popular in decades.

The child and her guardians should be shot.Agreed. "psychological distress", what a horseshit.

I also was mostly self taught - usually ahead of the class, learning more on my own time, than on the school time. And you are right, we don't need the interactions to learn - at least, not to learn the content of the 'lesson'. I just happen to think there is value in learning the 'context', also.

I think the self-taught thing is double-plus good. Every scorecard my daughter gets from school lauds her problem solving abilities, her facility with dealing with new material. I've always argued learning to learn is the best thing a school can teach - and, unfortunately, that isn't what most of them like to focus on. Especially not know that they get rewarded or punished for benchmarks that favour a deeper grasp of a narrow array of data. Learning-by-rote hasn't been this popular in decades.

Here in Virginia they call the learning-by-rote-so-you-can-pass-state-standardized-tests the "Standards of Learning".

SOL for short.

If you don't pass the SOL each year, you don't go to the next grade. And if you don't pass up through year 12, you don't get a HS diploma.

Which leads to the obvious name "Shit Out Of Luck Tests".

You can pass the tests, and still be incapable of thinking your way out of a wet paper bag.

I also was mostly self taught - usually ahead of the class, learning more on my own time, than on the school time. And you are right, we don't need the interactions to learn - at least, not to learn the content of the 'lesson'. I just happen to think there is value in learning the 'context', also.

I think the self-taught thing is double-plus good. Every scorecard my daughter gets from school lauds her problem solving abilities, her facility with dealing with new material. I've always argued learning to learn is the best thing a school can teach - and, unfortunately, that isn't what most of them like to focus on. Especially not know that they get rewarded or punished for benchmarks that favour a deeper grasp of a narrow array of data. Learning-by-rote hasn't been this popular in decades.

the schools around here, aren't really interested in teaching what I find valuable, which is how to think, instead they are trying to push their agenda and teach kids what to think, and it's not a price I am willing to pay, especially over something as ubiquitous as "society", school isn't the only place where people are, and after I saw the type of brainwashing indoctrination going on in the schools here, I would rather my kids not be around those types.

Here in Virginia they call the learning-by-rote-so-you-can-pass-state-standardized-tests the "Standards of Learning".

SOL for short.

If you don't pass the SOL each year, you don't go to the next grade. And if you don't pass up through year 12, you don't get a HS diploma.

Which leads to the obvious name "Shit Out Of Luck Tests".

You can pass the tests, and still be incapable of thinking your way out of a wet paper bag.

Those tests are, at least here in Jersey, pitifully, PITIFULLY easy. Our 11th grade HSPA, which we needed to pass to graduate, felt like it was written for 9th graders.

Those tests are, at least here in Jersey, pitifully, PITIFULLY easy. Our 11th grade HSPA, which we needed to pass to graduate, felt like it was written for 9th graders.

Yes, they're easy. Yet a substantial number of people manage to fail them.

Certain minorities in particular. Apparently, the state is now panicking because they're afraid that they'll be accused of racism should large numbers of a specific minority fail to get high school diplomas.

What is strange is that other minorities, who don't even have English as their primary language, aren't having any trouble.

Yes, they're easy. Yet a substantial number of people manage to fail them.

Certain minorities in particular. Apparently, the state is now panicking because they're afraid that they'll be accused of racism should large numbers of a specific minority fail to get high school diplomas.

What is strange is that other minorities, who don't even have English as their primary language, aren't having any trouble.

I'm not going to pass judgment on minorities and their respective abilities at test taking, but I don't think my high school has ever had someone come up non-proficient on the HSPA. And we don't even teach to the test that often. We had a few proficients, most of us got exceptionally proficient in at least one field (surprisingly enough, I was almost exceptionally proficient in math, and way over the top exceptional in the verbal sections. I'm a bloody physicist now :p)

Then again, it's a magnet school with a rigorous application and vetting process, so I suppose we all pass because we're already a bit above everyone else.

Therapists love Christian conservatives.
My mom is a PhD therapist, in private practice for about the last 20 years. And I gotta say...you're pretty much right.

I remember a particular time, years ago, when a new evangelical church opened up in our area. They were some pretty radical folks. They made the news with several loud demonstrations protesting (among other things) the sex ed being taught in our public school district, the fact that our assistant principal was openly gay, the fact that they were told they'd have to pay property taxes if they wanted to open a "Church store" (a for-profit outfit), and the fact that they believed our city council was too Jewish. They didn't actually come right out and say that last one, but they used all the code words.

I remember watching the news with my folks, and seeing these shots of screaming, red-faced members of that church hollering at the cameras and at passing cars. And my mom simply said,

"Well dear, it looks like we might bump up into that next tax bracket after all."

She knew, from personal experience, that people who are fanatically dedicated to running other people's lives are pretty much never able to maintain their own lives. People who most loudly demand control over what is taught in public schools are inevitably the ones who beat and neglect their own children. People who scream and holler about the sin of homosexuality are inevitably grappling with a shitty marriage, and usually are cheating on their spouse. And so on.

People who scream and holler about the sin of homosexuality are inevitably grappling with a shitty marriage, and usually are cheating on their spouse.

You missed the important part of that statement. People who scream and holler about the sin of homosexuality are inevitably grappling with a shitty marriage, and usually are cheating on their spouse, with a man.

She knew, from personal experience, that people who are fanatically dedicated to running other people's lives are pretty much never able to maintain their own lives. People who most loudly demand control over what is taught in public schools are inevitably the ones who beat and neglect their own children. People who scream and holler about the sin of homosexuality are inevitably grappling with a shitty marriage, and usually are cheating on their spouse. And so on.

I believe they call it transference or somesuch, I dunno.

On topic: fire the teacher and throw the lawsuit out.

Why fire the teacher?

because she showed inappropriate material to a 12 year old without parental permission.

I believe they call it transference or somesuch, I dunno.

On topic: fire the teacher and throw the lawsuit out.Why fire the teacher?

Why fire the teacher?

Because they overstepped their bounds in showing the video

Men are never grossed out by any kind of sex. And I suppose that's true for women as well. With some kinds of sex they only pretend to be grossed out because of 'society values'.

WOW! So now every man and woman are gay and society has just tricked them into thinking otherwise.

Amazing.

WOW! So now every man and woman are gay and society has just tricked them into thinking otherwise.

Amazing.

What? Where did he even remotely imply that?

Did you even think before you typed that, or did you just seizure at the keyboard?

WOW! So now every man and woman are gay and society has just tricked them into thinking otherwise.

Beautifully constructed bullshit.

Now try to respond to what he actually said, not what you're trying to pretend he said.

yeah, where is your evidence?

you don't expect us just to believe you right?

My honest face isn't enough?

WOW! So now every man and woman are gay and society has just tricked them into thinking otherwise.

Amazing.
Wait, so you feel compelled to do anything that doesn't completely gross you out?

You must be fun at parties.

Wait, so you feel compelled to do anything that doesn't completely gross you out?

You must be fun at parties.

huh...

the phrase "eat the worm" takes on an entirely new meaning, non?

WOW! So now every man and woman are gay and society has just tricked them into thinking otherwise.

Amazing.WOW! So now you pretend I said something that is only in your head?

Amazing.

Exactly, I can't see any justification for showing Brokeback Mountain to a group of 12 year olds. Especially without notifying the parents beforehand. I know I wouldn't want my child seeing it and would be rightfully ticked off if I'd found out the school had shown it.
I'm not remotely upset about the content of the movie. What I'd be pissed about is that the school was wasting time showing movies to kids during class time.

If they're not going to educate my kids, then give them the day off from school.

Why fire the teacher?

Because they overstepped their bounds in showing the video

Exactly, I can't see any justification for showing Brokeback Mountain to a group of 12 year olds. Especially without notifying the parents beforehand. I know I wouldn't want my child seeing it and would be rightfully ticked off if I'd found out the school had shown it.

Because they overstepped their bounds in showing the videoWhat bounds are there for showing videos?
I watched Clockwork Orange in class once. Nobody gave a shit. But of course I wasn't in school in the uptight US of A.

What bounds are there for showing videos?
I watched Clockwork Orange in class once. Nobody gave a shit.
I always hated when they showed us recreational movies in class. I'd have vastly preferred it if they just gave me the day off in the first place. Then I could go see a movie I actually liked.

I always hated when they showed us recreational movies in class. I'd have vastly preferred it if they just gave me the day off in the first place. Then I could go see a movie I actually liked.We did also read Clockwork Orange.

I always hated when they showed us recreational movies in class. I'd have vastly preferred it if they just gave me the day off in the first place. Then I could go see a movie I actually liked.

Thinking back, the only time I've seen a movie that was non-educational in class was during the GEPAs, where they'd show them over the school-wide TV network during break periods (since they couldn't just let us leave) between GEPA tests. (Grade Eight Proficiency Assessments)

Then in senior year of high school we watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail as part of British Lit. when we came to the topic of King Arthur.

What bounds are there for showing videos?
I watched Clockwork Orange in class once. Nobody gave a shit.

Clockwork Orange is not Brokeback Mountain. There's some kind of educational value in Clockwork Orange, I don't see the same in Brokeback Mountain.

Clockwork Orange is not Brokeback Mountain. There's some kind of educational value in Clockwork Orange, I don't see the same in Brokeback Mountain.Rape and violence has more educational value than gay love? Aren't both works reflections on society? (*)

* haven't seen BM

We did also read Clockwork Orange.
Ok, see, that can have applications.

In one of my English classes, we read Romeo and Juliet and then watched videos of one stage performance and two film versions. We also watched some clips from modern movies which used the themes and allusions to Romeo and Juliet. This was actually useful, because we were still at the stage of learning about allusions and so forth.

Would have been awesome, except I can't stand that freaking play.