Education

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, DefenderAO said:

1. Ensure explicit sexual material is not in elementary and jr high libraries as there is no intrinsic educational value for that age.  

2. Enforce lesson plan guidelines/guardrails on how the material is being taught

3.Vet sexual deviants and predators as prospective teachers better

4. Comms policy on the trimester/annual curriculum to include projects and lesson details

5. Emphasize an open door policy for parents and students for any rogue teachers going off script 

 

 

It’s super weird that you think this stuff wasn’t in place already, other than the book burning party you are requesting. 

[DefenderAO]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

It’s super weird that you think this stuff wasn’t in place already, other than the book burning party you are requesting. 

Hard to compete with your book burning absurdity.  How about...

 

We get the hospitals to issue the sexually explicit content to ensure such high quality children's content is experienced out of the womb.  We now have a health system and education system working more closely together.  

 

Those measures are in place?  Seems like quite a few holes to yield all the noise from parents.  And it took those parents to raise awareness this was happening...

[BigRedBuster]

 

[commando]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

they want to defund everything except trumps border wall

[ZRod]

19 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

What is your passion for these books?  How do they educate to make young children''s lives make a difference through our educational system?  Would you promote additional policies to ensure we protect this material for our children's edification and educational experience?  

 

I see no reason for this material before HS.  What is your case it is valuable for Highschool aged kids?   

I would agree with not having explicitly sexual books until highschool, and even then, really not in highschool either but who decides what explicit means?

 

19 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

1. Ensure explicit sexual material is not in elementary and jr high libraries as there is no intrinsic educational value for that age.  

2. Enforce lesson plan guidelines/guardrails on how the material is being taught

3.Vet sexual deviants and predators as prospective teachers better

4. Comms policy on the trimester/annual curriculum to include projects and lesson details

5. Emphasize an open door policy for parents and students for any rogue teachers going off script 

I'm pretty sure almost all of this is already done. Stuff is going to slip through the cracks though. It's just reality.

[DefenderAO]

57 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I would agree with not having explicitly sexual books until highschool, and even then, really not in highschool either but who decides what explicit means?

 

I'm pretty sure almost all of this is already done. Stuff is going to slip through the cracks though. It's just reality.

Looks like we found some common ground.  I suspect we could’ve each saved some discussion and banter. 
 

Explicit is subjective. I’d look at it from a standpoint of educational. Still some subjectivity. Ultimately parents that are locked in to their children’s lives can offer some hedges. 
 

A lot of it hinges in the details.  “Mental Health,” “explicit,” “educational,” etc. difficult to support or deny if the phrase or word isn’t expounded upon. No epiphany there, just affirming; a lot of the disagreement chasm is the inability to find commonality in what is intended…

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Looks like we found some common ground.  I suspect we could’ve each saved some discussion and banter. 
 

Explicit is subjective. I’d look at it from a standpoint of educational. Still some subjectivity. Ultimately parents that are locked in to their children’s lives can offer some hedges. 
 

A lot of it hinges in the details.  “Mental Health,” “explicit,” “educational,” etc. difficult to support or deny if the phrase or word isn’t expounded upon. No epiphany there, just affirming; a lot of the disagreement chasm is the inability to find commonality in what is intended…

The banter is on your end. I asked a question at least 3 times that you didn't answer 

 

Books in school libraries are not entirely educational. There's common sense here that's been applied for decades. Some things will inevitably slip through the cracks.

 

You want to ban everything you see as explicit. To do that you need to define what is and isn't explicit. I think we'd all agree that graphical depctions of sex acts are pretty explicit, but if it's vaguely written is that ok? Or another example; is a man and a woman kissing explicit? Is a man and a man, or a woman and a woman kissing explicit?

[Born N Bled Red]

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Looks like we found some common ground.  I suspect we could’ve each saved some discussion and banter. 
 

Explicit is subjective. I’d look at it from a standpoint of educational. Still some subjectivity. Ultimately parents that are locked in to their children’s lives can offer some hedges. 
 

A lot of it hinges in the details.  “Mental Health,” “explicit,” “educational,” etc. difficult to support or deny if the phrase or word isn’t expounded upon. No epiphany there, just affirming; a lot of the disagreement chasm is the inability to find commonality in what is intended…

 

I'd reckon dang near every lawmaker supporting these bills have no problem handing little Tommie and Suzie a nice Ipad, cell phone, or computer in which they can access all manner of explicit content within seconds, and that they don't monitor the content either. Its dang near impossible. Youtube alone is bad enough, you have no idea what kids might run across on there. Why does this feel so much like reliving the 80s. Next they'll ban rock n roll, DND, and try to get the Simpsons and South Park taken off the air. 

 

The truth is this has nothing to do with "protecting the kids." It is one segment of the population doing everything they can to impose their, morals, values, and fears to control another segment. 

[DefenderAO]

35 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

I'd reckon dang near every lawmaker supporting these bills have no problem handing little Tommie and Suzie a nice Ipad, cell phone, or computer in which they can access all manner of explicit content within seconds, and that they don't monitor the content either. Its dang near impossible. Youtube alone is bad enough, you have no idea what kids might run across on there. Why does this feel so much like reliving the 80s. Next they'll ban rock n roll, DND, and try to get the Simpsons and South Park taken off the air. 

 

The truth is this has nothing to do with "protecting the kids." It is one segment of the population doing everything they can to impose their, morals, values, and fears to control another segment. 

Banning content is much different than protecting children from sexually explicit content.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

7 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

Banning content is much different than protecting children from sexually explicit content.  

 

Yes, let's not let the fact that sex content is being censored distract from the fact that these same people are also banning books about Hank Aaron overcoming racism. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

23 hours ago, sho said:

 Me!   I was all about Penthouse for the "Forum"  

 

Plus it was very educational working on my reading skills and my multi-tasking skills.

 

I never believed any of those Letters to Penthouse.

 

That is, until the day the beautiful young substitute teacher asked me to stay after class. 

[DefenderAO]

38 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yes, let's not let the fact that sex content is being censored distract from the fact that these same people are also banning books about Hank Aaron overcoming racism. 

I'm posting situations where 11 year olds are reading material with highly-sexual imagery and zero educational value/intent.  Do you feel that is out-of-bounds protection for pre-teens?  We have discussed what is age-appropriate for such things as well as parents being primary in those exposure scenarios.  

 

Not sure about the same people doing both, but I'm not those people.  Segregation is an example where the truth didn't evolve, it was too widely accepted  and built on evil premises (the lie - one people (not actions or choices) is inherently and innately inferior to another).  We moved towards truth through integration.  

 

The irony now is we're so fractured you see calls for segregation again...from some people whose parents and grandparents fought for integration.

 

 

 

 

[ZRod]

58 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

I'm posting situations where 11 year olds are reading material with highly-sexual imagery and zero educational value/intent.  Do you feel that is out-of-bounds protection for pre-teens?  We have discussed what is age-appropriate for such things as well as parents being primary in those exposure scenarios.  

 

Not sure about the same people doing both, but I'm not those people.  Segregation is an example where the truth didn't evolve, it was too widely accepted  and built on evil premises (the lie - one people (not actions or choices) is inherently and innately inferior to another).  We moved towards truth through integration.  

 

The irony now is we're so fractured you see calls for segregation again...from some people whose parents and grandparents fought for integration.

 

 

 

 

How many people-days is that where a kid went to the library and didn't see something explicit?

[Lorewarn]

We're including the Bible in sexually explicit books that 11, wait no 9, wait no pre-K kids shouldn't have access to right?

[DefenderAO]

22 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

We're including the Bible in sexually explicit books that 11, wait no 9, wait no pre-K kids shouldn't have access to right?

There are higher imperatives to teach kids at those ages (you could've said pre-teens), whether from the Bible or public school curriculum.  

 

Maybe take the grievance up with Site Staff for their perspective.  

 

HuskerBoard.com Rules

 

#4 - No Porn or Strong Sexual Content
This includes links to adult web sites and/or posting content that may not be suitable for younger viewers.

 

"But, we're not talking about porn or strong sexual content."

 

But why differentiate "younger viewers" either way?   The strong makes it too much for them?

 

Or maybe because it serves zero value or purpose for pre-teens and should be worked through at home with their parents.