DefenderAO

How would a progressive leftist define this reform? What are the top three principles that will create more mental wellness? Where would sexually charged books available to pre-teens fit in the list of top tenets for reform? Why do progressives speak of guns as anthropomorphic weapons of war running rampant vs. the mental health crisis that is the real issue at a disproportionate ratio? The bigger chasm is what progressives call good and healthy, many conservatives would disagree. And vice versa.

Make your direct, one-liner statement as to the necessity of sexually explicit material in elementary and Jr High public schools. If not a district policy, then get tighter during lesson planning and teacher discussions on how we're going to mold kids to have positive impact on the world. What additive policy would you propose to ensure the availability of this type of material for young ones.

Too much world history of mass death after disarmament for my standards. Reform mental health and the education system. Get sociopaths the help they need. Guns tend to do absolutely nothing by themselves.

Mischaracterization of the “right.” We’re closing in on 14 trillion people-days in America where someone 20-54 could’ve gone and shot someone. Thankfully the vast vast majority aren’t doing these things. Still too many. Sociopaths sociopathing…

What would you tell my in-law's Holocaust-surviving members about the imperatives of gun control? How many people are killed with guns if everyone woke up and said "I'm not going to shoot anyone today?" Where are we today if the system had kept better, or enhanced, tabs on the sociopathic shooter? What does her weapon do that same day if she's in a mental health hospital being treated?

Good. Suspended, fired, and losing any license to teach is the play. I'd also investigate if any further abuse or issues occurred with the kids. Suspended when? After the school/board took the initiative and brought it to the parents? Doesn't seem so. What was the teacher's tenure prior to being removed? One week? Eight years? I'd contend a graphic novel detailing early teens sexual experiences, in libraries 11 year olds access, is no accident. They don't display themselves on shelf ends.

I'm aligned with much of what you stated in the first four paragraphs. I get this point and realize different parents have different availability or comfort levels, and (as you see) the content I highlighted has nothing to do with education. Opt-out is good if the parents want a different route, and opt-in to have kids exposed to sexually charged graphic novels is a parental decision for their kids...but should not be a school-mediated (much less championed) thing. For the fifth, sexuality seems to be a prominent topic. We live in a hyper-sexualized time, and by no accident. It's all over the educational system from what pronoun to what bathroom. It's also relevant in some significant tragedies that also cross religious / lifestyle divides. Straight, sociopathic sick male targeting homosexuals at a bar. Trans, sociopathic sick woman targeting children at a Christian school. I've also repeatedly mentioned cultural issues, propagated by certain policy, that point to moral decay and tragic outcomes. They're not exempt from the conversation but are a more relevant point in the Gun Control thread. Morality is an umbrella where topics like sexuality pop up. And when you then collide this with educational standards and norms, there's significant tension.

Handled correctly but too reactive. Policies in place gave the allowance for it to happen. This isn't educational material... Curious what would have happened had it not been exposed. Is it up to the parents to police or have the oversight concern?

Put them all in elementary libraries for the most prime, early exposure? Pre-K? To state again, parent-guided conversations as kids grow is ideal. Adults can do what they want for themselves here; having grown in an environment where parents are engaged and available to discuss it with them as kids sets those now-adults up to make good decisions. EDIT: Where do you, as an adult, find it valuable for 10-11 year olds to be exposed to this material? "She's not reacting to you here, try touching there, like this, to get things going." That's Sex Ed to you? EDIT 2: Seeing your edit. If this is the way parents want to raise their children, that is their prerogative. Similar to completely shielding them from all this material (also disagree with that stance). Parents' choice. The schools' edginess on these fronts create more harm than good the way I see it.

The transfer portal has added a definite new retention dimension to the former world of graduating and the draft. Hoping Rhule's cultural shifts attract, and retain, these younger players. I also like Rhule's voice on moving players where they have a shot to play more and possibly make the NFL. I'm not sure Frost eval'ed too much in that regards. Cam J comes to mind with Scott's doggedness on his athleticism at Center. So an exception. Seems to be Rhule's norm.

Do you think it's an educational imperative for these 11 year olds to know where, and how to kiss on and touch each other? That's the Sex Ed content you want your little ones exposed to? I'm fine, in Sex Ed, for children to know anatomical parts of the body. That seems much more appropriate than how to touch someone in certain areas while kissing other areas...championed by adults. That's not educational. That's sickness.

Learn about sexual anatomy from an educational and scientific perspective or be exposed to explicit content with very little scientific educational value? We're discussing the latter. Parents should be the guide for exposure to the latter. On the other side, completely disregarding or ignoring it creates its own problems and issues. At 11, I'd contend conversations about what Sex Ed may be teaching would be good, but graphic books about how to make little Jenny orgasm at the park serve no healthy purpose for kids of a younger age. I'm not sure the exact age where it's more universally "too young" vs moving to "guided based upon parents/individuals." For the strictly educational side, 7th grade seems to be near the standard.

Guns don't corrupt people. Mentally/morally deviant teachers and books with sexually explicit content given to nine years olds could to a further degree than already inherent in us all. Evil is indeed real. That fact shouldn't lead to a consigned approach to a deviant's imposition on children. Those trajectories can lead to terrible things happening.

Good to know your line in the sand. Plenty of others are picking up their shields to defend children on this front.

One teacher impacts dozens and dozens of children in a school year. Now extrapolate that over a three, six, fifteen year teaching career. I'm good to find common ground that teachers who do this are reprehensible. Your comment sounds very similar to an argument on a different topic where the vast majority aren't mentally or morally ill to a degree of infringing/perpetrating someone else's life.

I'm good to disagree with the importance of exposing 11 year olds to sexually explicit content that has zero to do with education.

Our children are at risk. 8 minutes. No desire to fight or argue. Zero. None. Can we find common ground? I'll "@" because this is not about any gender, race, or creed. This is about good and evil and a collective fight. @ZRod @Lorewarn @knapplc @BigRedBuster @funhusker @Guy Chamberlin

Not sure much on this one . Another mentally ill human. Interesting as it's California with some of the most strict laws in America. Terrible.

Go on...

When you were 11? Good to see that 11 year old *in the video posted* wanted to take it to his father. Very well done. You're writing my points better than I'm able.

That's your first reflexive concern. SMH. Sexuality of children in any flavor is deplorable. Sick people doing sick things. "For the children!" Feel free to tell me when you disagree.

What's your gut telling you is happening?

*Posts a couple examples of children being exposed to filth *3 smileys Case. In. Point. One more morally bereft example. Pernicious trash.

Only one? Tragic. It just crawled itself on a stand... They're too prevalent. "Not one life." EDIT: Because it's too prevalent and recent. Charter school in TX. Here. Also here. Maybe a rogue, mentally ill teacher. My thoughts are well known on this issue...

Teachers that advocate for sexually explicit books in an elementary library are mentally and morally ill who would be the exact ones I'd look at for having anything to do with a firearm. These sexually charged books being placed in children's libraries is currently happening... Should any type of book be in children's libraries?