- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Judges say Calif. middle school teacher can't shake porn past, must not return to
Before she was dismissed there were parents crying for it. Don't pretend otherwise.
Personally I never said otherwise. But it is still a crappy thing to do.
No it is semi-valid. Don't over blow things into a "crisis"...we get enough of that from our politicians. The reason that it is only semi-valid is that the kids would get over it fairly quickly.
An anology is not a strawman. Would there or would there not be distractions caused by a former athlete teaching? Say Michael Jordan? Or what about if Robert Pattenson decided to teach? Should they not be allowed to teach because of the distraction that they would cause?
Yes the teacher did know how it would be recieved. She said that when she said that she was afraid to mention it because of that. That is a valid excuse to not mention it. Hell it was perfectly acceptable to lie in the military with the DADT and before that gays never mentioned it to prospective employers for the same reason. And it is quite obvious that the teachers fears were valid since she was fired for being in a porn movie...not for the omission or the lie.
There is no one "crying for her dismissal". She has already been dismissed. The only people crying are the ones who find themselves trying, in vain, to gloss over the fact that putting porn stars in the classroom is an inherently bad idea.
Before she was dismissed there were parents crying for it. Don't pretend otherwise.
And her subsequent dismissal was equally legal, like it or not.
Personally I never said otherwise. But it is still a crappy thing to do.
The disruption argument is totally valid. Minimizing the truth does not help anyone.
No it is semi-valid. Don't over blow things into a "crisis"...we get enough of that from our politicians. The reason that it is only semi-valid is that the kids would get over it fairly quickly.
Straw man numbers 1, 2, and 3 right there. The issue has nothing to do with celebrities. We're talking about whether or not a former porn star should be allowed to teach a class of 12 year olds. Anything else is just a diversion and a direct avoidance of dealing with the situation as it is.
An anology is not a strawman. Would there or would there not be distractions caused by a former athlete teaching? Say Michael Jordan? Or what about if Robert Pattenson decided to teach? Should they not be allowed to teach because of the distraction that they would cause?
OR... you could say that the "omission" is proof positive that the teacher herself knows full well that a person with a porn past has no business teaching 12 year olds. If that wasn't the case, why not be upfront about it?
Yes the teacher did know how it would be recieved. She said that when she said that she was afraid to mention it because of that. That is a valid excuse to not mention it. Hell it was perfectly acceptable to lie in the military with the DADT and before that gays never mentioned it to prospective employers for the same reason. And it is quite obvious that the teachers fears were valid since she was fired for being in a porn movie...not for the omission or the lie.