- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Is there some reason you chose to respond only to the most ancillary element of my reply to your central question?In this case, it was specifically commented that her issue was with the sex part. In fact, she said what brought her attention to it was her son repeated the word "hard-on", as if he was questioning it (which is sort of odd for a 14 year old to not know). Then she said she read some of that particular part of the book and that it talked about a porn store (or someone selling porn) and people having sex. She noted he was within the last 10 pages of the book.
You wrote in your OP:
What that woman thinks or said, or what you or others think or say on the matter, has nothing to do with whether I would or have pushed "to get a book removed from the required reading list for its content." You asked the question; I answered it, explaining why as well.My question is have you or would you push to get a book removed from the required reading list for its content?
Red:In this case, it was specifically commented that her issue was with the sex part. In fact, she said what brought her attention to it was her son repeated the word "hard-on", as if he was questioning it (which is sort of odd for a 14 year old to not know). Then she said she read some of that particular part of the book and that it talked about a porn store (or someone selling porn) and people having sex. She noted he was within the last 10 pages of the book.
Well, insofar as that's what the woman said, why did you in your OP describe your comprehension of her objection as:
I've never read the book myself but read a brief synopsis of it, which sounds like the sex part she didn't approve of was found at the end of the book mainly.
- "Specifically commented" and "she said" do not indicate your, the third party teller of the story, having made an inference. "Sounds like" indicates you, the reteller of events, have made an inference based on something.
Other:
A mother said she went to the school to talk to them about removing a book her son had to read, Slaughterhouse Five, from the required reading list due to the content within the book....I've never read the book myself but read a brief synopsis of it, which sounds like the sex part she didn't approve of was found at the end of the book mainly.
This story is becoming less and less coherent, or the woman is every bit the idiot portrayed by your depiction of her deeds and words. Who in her right mind would ask a school's teacher/administrator that a book be removed from only her child's required reading texts when the child has all but finished reading the book?She noted he was within the last 10 pages of the book.
- It's not as though the teacher is going to not-teach the lessons planned in association with the book.
- The child has already read the ostensibly offending passages. It's not as though he can un-read them.