Mom decries violent poem:

[brien]

A

Again, in my experience the schools need to send home a permission slip to teach sex ed., read certain books, or show certain movies, and the school needs to include a brief blurb about the educational merits of such

I sent two children through government schools and not once was I ever asked for my permission to allow a teacher to expose my kids to any type of lessons. They just don't do it in Connecticut.

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: I sent two children through government schools and not once was I ever asked for my permission to allow a teacher to expose my kids to any type of lessons. They just don't do it in Connecticut.

Nor in Ohio that I ever knew of, or know of now.

[ZNFYRH]

By "government schools" do you mean "public schools?"

Public schools in New York have been required to do it since I was in grade school.

[brien]

Os, This is typical of the indoctrination of students by government schools. They can teach whatever they want without impunity because they realize they have a captive audience that has no meanigful alternative to the government school if the parents are without the funds to buy a meaningful alternative, or in a position to home school. The government schools are anti choice because they know if one doesn't have the money, they have no choice but to allow the government to indoctrinate their children with all of the propaganda those schools force upon young impressionable children. Educators are supposed to teach free will, choice, and independent thinking in schools, but apparently it only matters in what they wish to teach. A sad state indeed.

[Osborn F Enready]

brien said: Os, This is typical of the indoctrination of students by government schools. They can teach whatever they want without impunity because they realize they have a captive audience that has no meanigful alternative to the government school if the parents are without the funds to buy a meaningful alternative, or in a position to home school. The government schools are anti choice because they know if one doesn't have the money, they have no choice but to allow the government to indoctrinate their children with all of the propaganda those schools force upon young impressionable children. Educators are supposed to teach free will, choice, and independent thinking in schools, but apparently it only matters in what they wish to teach. A sad state indeed.

I think you know, overall I agree.

[brien]

Quote by: ZNFYRH By "government schools" do you mean "public schools?" Public schools in New York have been required to do it since I was in grade school.

Yes, I mean to write that "public" schools are government schools. I don't call them public schools because they are run by the government, therefore they are government schools.

Good for NY but does it make a difference? What if some parents objected to being taught Creationism? Or others object to Darwinism? How is the conflict resolved? It seems to me that Darwinism prevails over the objections of some creationists, and is then forced upon students without any alternative to be considered like creationism. Not saying I prefer one over the other, but shouldn't both sides be taught as ideas and let the students decide what is best for them to believe?

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think you know, overall I agree.

Yes, but I wanted to make the point(s).

[ZNFYRH]

brien,

Recently, I've been able to correctly assert the validity of scientific arguments and correctly phrase questions in the proper directions.

The answer I received when I asked, "Why Darwinism theories and not Creationism theories?" and after some further probing, the paraphrased basic answer is that Darwinism can be observed, Creationism cannot.

[brien]

Quote by: ZNFYRH brien, Recently, I've been able to correctly assert the validity of scientific arguments and correctly phrase questions in the proper directions. The answer I received when I asked, "Why Darwinism theories and not Creationism theories?" and after some further probing, the paraphrased basic answer is that Darwinism can be observed, Creationism cannot.

Well, that's a bunch of rubbish because they could teach creationism as Philosophy. They don't have to teach it as "gospel", but can offer it as a theory, the same like Darwinism is a theory. It is a cop out by the government school system because they disagree with the theory of creationism. They prefer Darwinism over Creationism and merely discount the theory they disagree with in the matter. Therefore, they are preempting the parents and students from being involved in the cirriculum, just as I thought they would do.

[ZNFYRH]

Parents can go to the school board and request a Creationist Philosophy course. If enough parents are there then the class is required to be taught.

I'm amazed at how... progressive (?)... the schools are in this area, as this sort of thing is how a lot of curriculum is modified and added and removed.

[iclaudius]

Just looking at the poem itself, I think it's obvious that, at least on the level of intellectual complexity, it's about the right speed for 6th graders. True, it is violent, but if the teacher was to use the violence and the fact that the kids pay more attention to taboo presented by teachers (who are supposed to be "safe"), it would have stood a chance of being backed up. However, as it stands, it looks like the teacher was simply trying to make waves, as the poem has not said anything to justify the fact that it's rubbing open wounds (it's really about the British education system in the 70's), and merely ends up teasing a recklessly touchy subject in a reckless and touchy way. That is unacceptable, and at the very least, he should have run it past the principal (though he almost certainly would have knocked it down) first. I'd really like to defend the decision to teach this material, but I'm not entirely sure it's defensible...

[ZNFYRH]

It's defensible if the teacher notifies someone of the graphic nature of the violence and then properly introduces the poem.

[iclaudius]

Z, judging by your statements, I'm guessing that you belive parenting by the parents comes a tier above parenting by any other institution, and that parenting is a right given foremost to the parents themselves. If that's the case, why specifically do you believe that?

[Rinoa]

iclaudius: You stated that the poem is on the right intellectual level and that the violent material within the poem could be presented in such a way as to make it acceptable. So then why is it almost certain that the principle would have knocked it down?

[iclaudius]

Quote by: Rinoa iclaudius: You stated that the poem is on the right intellectual level and that the violent material within the poem could be presented in such a way as to make it acceptable. So then why is it almost certain that the principle would have knocked it down?

Politics.

[Rinoa]

And why would politics cause an issue if the poem could be accepted as age appropriate?

[iclaudius]

Because people aren't always rational when they think about things like this and the principal probably wouldn't want to risk his ass if he didn't have to. Politics is everything in this sort of situation.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: iclaudius Z, judging by your statements, I'm guessing that you belive parenting by the parents comes a tier above parenting by any other institution, and that parenting is a right given foremost to the parents themselves. If that's the case, why specifically do you believe that?

Why do I believe parenting is a right given foremost to the parents?

Because those parents are the first ones responsible for that child.

If you have complete responsibility for a thing, you should have complete power over it.

That's the short and simple answer.

[Rinoa]

Quote by: iclaudius Because people aren't always rational when they think about things like this and the principal probably wouldn't want to risk his ass if he didn't have to. Politics is everything in this sort of situation.

There's a difference between being irrational and having a different moral standard for your child. Just because you would have believed that something like that would be on the level for my child doesn't mean that I agree, nor does it give you the right to expose them to it without my permission. A parent is considered the legal guardian of a child, and they hold custodial rights. These rights mean that it is their choice to decide what is harmful to the child.

[iclaudius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why do I believe parenting is a right given foremost to the parents? Because those parents are the first ones responsible for that child. If you have complete responsibility for a thing, you should have complete power over it. That's the short and simple answer.

In that case, why is the government allowed to step in when the child is being forced to do back-breaking labor for 12 hours a day? Even if the parent is completely "responsible" for that child (they are obviously not), that clearly does not mean they have total power over it. Tell me, what do you believe a parent's job is?

There's a difference between being irrational and having a different moral standard for your child. Just because you would have believed that something like that would be on the level for my child doesn't mean that I agree, nor does it give you the right to expose them to it without my permission. A parent is considered the legal guardian of a child, and they hold custodial rights. These rights mean that it is their choice to decide what is harmful to the child.

And why do you believe that being irrational and having a different moral standard are mutually exclusive? The ONLY reason 99.999% of the parents who object to violence's presence in school curriculum object at all is a bottom-line knee-jerk response to what they perceive to be "too much." I don't know who you're debating when you start talking about parents having "rights" and how the "law on their side" (whatever that means) since I never actually said they don't. All I was saying is that violence is not, in itself, a bad thing, and that the effect it has on children is not universally something to be avoided. Like sex. If it's used in the proper way, and for the proper purposes, it can be extremely beneficial to the child. It can be especially effective if the children know they are expected to behave in a mature way about it. That a large group of people deny this outright, without thinking about it, makes them IRRATIONAL. I would remind you that this situation is not an either/or thing. It's not utterly detach them from life OR kick them in the balls with it, so that they become damaged. There are grey areas. And by the way, whether or not the parents have rights is completely and utterly inconsequential to this discussion, since we're debating why people are irrational, not whether or not they have "rights" (ugh ).