Georgia school FIRES a teacher who tries to groom students.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. The fact you'd need to ask speaks poorly of you,  At the end of the day it's not allowed and they chose to read it anyway.  

1. So... don't ask questions ?  I'm not challenging whether there's a legal leg to stand on for the teacher I'm asking people here what is actually wrong with the content.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well didn't you just say that the School Board will be firing people for using the 'wrong' bathroom soon ?

 

No,  no i did not.  I think you were thinking of someone else.

Quote

Isn't this about making the Board of Ed reflect the politics of the government, whether you agree with them or not ?

The school board is supposed to take guidance from the gov't.  But - whether or not the school board is reflecting the gov't or is arriving at a decision independently, it IS their job to make such decisions.  It is NOT the job of the teacher.

If the school board says 'This book is not to be taught"  then - that's what happens. The children's classrooms are NOT an appropriate ground for some sort of civil protest. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. So... don't ask questions ? 

Is that what i said?

Are you saying that your questions are not a reflection on you?

Are you an !diot?

Don't blame me - i'm just asking questions

If you have to ask a question like  "what's wrong with hating jews",  or "why SHOULDN"T we be allowed to sleep with our sisters"  or the like, you're going to get judged on the question.

Your question suggests that unless someone can explain to YOUR satisfaction why the book is not allowed then the teacher should read it regardless of the fact a lawful authority has said not to.

"what's wrong with the book"?  It's been deemed by the authority in charge to be inappropriate for children.  That's all that needs to be 'wrong' with the book, and it makes you look bad that you couldn't work that out on your own.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. No,  no i did not.  I think you were thinking of someone else.

2. The school board is supposed to take guidance from the gov't.  But - whether or not the school board is reflecting the gov't or is arriving at a decision independently, it IS their job to make such decisions.  It is NOT the job of the teacher.

3. If the school board says 'This book is not to be taught"  then - that's what happens. The children's classrooms are NOT an appropriate ground for some sort of civil protest. 

1. Ok sorry.
2. Yes obviously.
3. Sorry... this sounds like the usual LIBERAL response to parents' rights types but ok.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok sorry.
2. Yes obviously.
3. Sorry... this sounds like the usual LIBERAL response to parents' rights types but ok.

1  - it happens

2 - So we agree

3- No-  the traditional liberal argument is that the teacher is right to ignore the lawful authority if they disagree with that authority. They demand the right to not teach curriculum they personally disagree with and the demand the right to teach things they want to even if forbidden.  Case in point.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

  the traditional liberal argument is that the teacher is right to ignore the lawful authority if they disagree with that authority. They demand the right to not teach curriculum they personally disagree with and the demand the right to teach things they want to even if forbidden.  Case in point.

Ok so you wouldn't support it if Ontario schools mandated Sex Ed and parents took their kids out in a mass strike, I suppose.  Seems off-brand but ok.

Again, I am only asking if people here think there's something wrong in the book not whether the teacher should have read it or whether they should have been fired.

Thanks.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok so you wouldn't support it if Ontario schools mandated Sex Ed and parents took their kids out in a mass strike, I suppose.  Seems off-brand but ok.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'support it' -  support the school's decision or support the parent's decision?

Quote

Again, I am only asking if people here think there's something wrong in the book not whether the teacher should have read it or whether they should have been fired.

Are you really though?

Tell you what - why don't you offer your opinion first.  That's the polite thing to do anyway before demanding of others  -  are YOU suggesting there isn't anything inappropriate in there? Nothing  seems like it's questionable? Can you see any cause for concern yourself?

Obviously you should be willing to answer seeing as you were so willing to chastise others for not answering  

 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. ... support the school's decision or support the parent's decision?

Are you really though?

2. Tell you what - why don't you offer your opinion first.  That's the polite thing to do anyway before demanding of others  -  are YOU suggesting there isn't anything inappropriate in there? Nothing  seems like it's questionable? Can you see any cause for concern yourself?

3. Obviously you should be willing to answer seeing as you were so willing to chastise others for not answering  

 

1. The parents'
2. Yes I don't see anything concerning in there, as a parent.
3. There's no 'chastising' but it seems difficult to pick out anything that's problematic.  The overall theme might be objectionable to parents but then that is a different question, and one can't seriously compare this to d**p throat as one poster here did.  It seems to me that parents are rejecting values, albeit liberal values, such as acceptance of diversity, tolerance and such.  Well, ok, but then they should say that ...

[CdnFox]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The parents'
 

The parents have the final authority on their kids education - the board has the final authority on the schools' curriculum.

There's no 'off brand' or conflict there.  A parent has the right to decide if their child goes to a specific school or not or is out of school for something, and the board of education sets the policy for the schools under it's responsibility.

I notice recently the schools have been trying weed the parent's rights out.

Quote

2. Yes I don't see anything concerning in there, as a parent.

Well you can certainly read that book to your kids if you like

Quote

3. There's no 'chastising' but it seems difficult to pick out anything that's problematic. 

The entire book is problematic for 9 year old elementary school students. There's a fair body of works that show exposing kids to complex sexual and gender issues at that time can cause damage.  It's not healthy.

Now - maybe you think it is.  Hell there's people out there who believe ivermectin kills covid, so maybe there's people who think this is safe,  and it's not for me to say you're wrong. 

But it's not reasonable to take that risk with children as a group.  If their individual parents think it's ok they can read the book to them.  Confusing children about gender at that age is more likely to cause harm than good - and the only people it benefits are those with a gender-agenda.  Let the kids be kids.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

1. There's a fair body of works that show exposing kids to complex sexual and gender issues at that time can cause damage.  It's not healthy.

2. But it's not reasonable to take that risk with children as a group.   

3. Let the kids be kids.

1. 2. Right but only an adult would see that in the book - it's all allegory.

3. That book tells the kids to accept themselves for however they feel, which is letting them be themselves.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. Right but only an adult would see that in the book - it's all allegory.

 

If your argument is that no child will ever realize it was about gender and sexuality till they're adults, i think that's probably a little optimistic   It will raise questions, they will be exposed to issues that are a little too early for them with no good reason.

I mean - if ALL it is to them is a story, why break the rules? Why not just read them a DIFFERENT story?  I don't think for a moment the teacher thought it was just a story to them.

Quote

3. That book tells the kids to accept themselves for however they feel, which is letting them be themselves.

It also teachers that there's more than one gender.  You feel the kids won't get that but they will.  THat's why the teacher wanted to read that book.  There are a million books for kids about accepting themselves and others that don't refer to gender or sexuality at all. The Gender issue was why this story was chosen, it was forbidden by and authority with the right to do so, the teacher exposed children to sex and gender issues in defiance of that.  That's ONE step away from pedophilia. It's grossly inappropriate on the teacher's part.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

1. If your argument is that no child will ever realize it was about gender and sexuality till they're adults, i think that's probably a little optimistic   It will raise questions, they will be exposed to issues that are a little too early for them with no good reason.  I mean - if ALL it is to them is a story, why break the rules? Why not just read them a DIFFERENT story?  I don't think for a moment the teacher thought it was just a story to them.

2. It also teachers that there's more than one gender.  You feel the kids won't get that but they will.  THat's why the teacher wanted to read that book.  There are a million books for kids about accepting themselves and others that don't refer to gender or sexuality at all. The Gender issue was why this story was chosen, it was forbidden by and authority with the right to do so, the teacher exposed children to sex and gender issues in defiance of that. 

3. That's ONE step away from pedophilia. It's grossly inappropriate on the teacher's part.

1. 2. Yeah, I think it's allegorical.  And meant to introduce the idea of self-acceptance and other-acceptance.  Of course it's not just a story but it's not porn either.

3. No.  Child beauty contests and makeup for kids are much closer but Republicans never mention those.

You gave me your perspective, which is what I asked.
 

[reason10]

16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What specifically in that book is so objectionable ?  You are making general comments about it but can you pick out a sentence or page even ?  It seems to be about accepting diversity to me.  There's no science in it, and it's ridiculous to compare to DT.  

If you can't make your point without calling me a name there may be problems with your argument that you're compensating for.

Asked and answered.

Accepting pedophelia is your idea of accepting diversity?

Obviously you have never been a parent or an educator. To bring you up to speed with the adult world, these are CHILREN. They are TOO FUGGING YOUNG to have queer sex or even normal sex introduced into their lives. They are supposed to be learning Math, Science, Reading, Writing, History and Geography. ACADEMIC SUBJECTS, not accepting twerking child molesting queers.

California banned To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn from school libraries. Try as I might,  neither book at child molestation or queers in it. Those were actual works of LITERATURE.

Queer banging is not literature. It is PORN. And last time I check, parents who gave porn to their elementary school children are guilty of child molestation.

[Michael Hardner]

I already asked what specifically was objectionable.  The one clear answer I had indicated that the themes could lead students to "raise questions".  I disagree but even if I agree it's far from p*rn and I can't take any such arguments seriously.  It's a non-starter.

[taxme]

On 8/24/2023 at 4:59 PM, bcsapper said:

I'm not the one making the claim.  If you want to support your claim, as I have requested, then please do. 

If you don't, I will assume that you can't, and that your claim has no merit.

 

My sources are on the internet. Punch in Dragsters in Schools. It is there for all to see. I already gave you one news outlet that has reported on this. Of course, if you are going to constantly listen to CNN, MSNBC or the CBC to report on this, you will be waiting forever. It's your call now. If you refuse to do so, well, that is your problem. ?

[Aristides]

As Micheal alluded too, dressing little girls up like tarts, injecting them with botox and putting them in beauty pageants literally is grooming. No outrage there.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, taxme said:

My sources are on the internet. Punch in Dragsters in Schools. It is there for all to see. I already gave you one news outlet that has reported on this. Of course, if you are going to constantly listen to CNN, MSNBC or the CBC to report on this, you will be waiting forever. It's your call now. If you refuse to do so, well, that is your problem. ?

Can't then.  Silly arse.

[taxme]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Can't then.  Silly arse.

But I already did, stunned arse. ?

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. Yeah, I think it's allegorical.  And meant to introduce the idea of self-acceptance and other-acceptance.  Of course it's not just a story but it's not porn either.
 

It is not. And i do not believe you are being honest when you say that at all. 

But hey - lets look at what the authors and critics say and see if they think it's just about being true to yourself only.:

 

A heartwarming and inspiring book about being true to yourself and moving beyond the gender binary,

With plenty of opportunities for conversation starters, the theme of gender as non-binary has been artfully distilled into an accessible read for young children and families

[His] take on the theme stands out for its focus on the relationship between the child and his dad and on societal ideas about masculinity.”

if you want your child to understand that gender is so much more than just anatomy, this is a great way to open a conversation.

 

Hmmm.  The rest of the world seems to agree that it's NOT just about empowerment - it's about gender and sexuality.  A "door-opener" that will inspire questions and discussions.

Now - maybe you think that age 9 is  a good time for your kids to be exposed to that.  And maybe you think you should have that conversation with them. And that's perfectly fine - many would agree.

 

But.  Lets not pretend any further it's NOT a book about gender or sexuality or that children won't "Get" that.  Of course they will. That's the whole point of it.

Now - did you want to go back to having an honest conversation about this, or are we going to pretend that this book isn't what it very clearly is?

[impartialobserver]

Another word added to the list of terms that are overused or wrongly used... groom. 

[reason10]

20 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Another word added to the list of terms that are overused or wrongly used... groom. 

Probably doesn't sound as accurate as SEXUALLY ASSAULT or ATTEMPT TO COMMIT  PEDOPHELIA.

Imagine that. "Groom" could be an actual politically correct version of the crime of sexual abuse of a child.

[impartialobserver]

3 hours ago, reason10 said:

Probably doesn't sound as accurate as SEXUALLY ASSAULT or ATTEMPT TO COMMIT  PEDOPHELIA.

Imagine that. "Groom" could be an actual politically correct version of the crime of sexual abuse of a child.

Case in point ^^^^^. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

Case in point ^^^^^. 

True of course but in fairness there really isn't another great term for what it's now being abused to mean. What other simple word would you use for influencing a young person in that manner?

[impartialobserver]

54 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True of course but in fairness there really isn't another great term for what it's now being abused to mean. What other simple word would you use for influencing a young person in that manner?

If the facts of an individual case line up exactly as such.. I guess fine. However, I do not buy that this situation is as wide spread as the OP likes to believe. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

If the facts of an individual case line up exactly as such.. I guess fine. However, I do not buy that this situation is as wide spread as the OP likes to believe. 

I guess it depends on what you consider to be "grooming" behavior.   Traditionally grooming refers to education, conditioning, activites that will specifically instill talents, values and ideas into a person which will then be useful in helping them take their eventual place in society as a useful member within the expectations of the day.  Teaching kids good sportsmanship is grooming them to be better and more useful competitors later who can win or lose graciously and learn lessons from either.   Teaching them proper dress and manners. etc.

So - if the term is taken out of it's usual meaning today, presumably  i guess a reasonable definition for it's current misuse is any behavior designed to instill an acceptance of gay or trans sexual or gender behavior in children.  That's a pretty wide net tho.  "trans story time' very clearly is an effort to do that i would think -  i think that it would be hard to argue it's not 'grooming' acceptance of trans, i think were people might argue is whether or not it's also grooming them to approve of transsexual or homosexual behaviors.

I think if we say 'grooming' is ONLY instilling a desire to paricipate in gay sex before maturity, that's probably going a bridge too far