• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hooters - should this teacher be suspended for this?

Was it correct to suspend this teacher for taking the students to "Hooters" restauran


  • Total voters
    81
I understand your point perfectly, actually. What you are doing is trying to have me answer irrelevant questions that you think will help prove your point.



IF I remember correctly, you either stated or indicated that I was one of these people, "who think the "family unit" is an arbitrary social construct that perpetuates patriarchal authoritarianism". In fact, I think that you stated it directly....

Also, I am against coaches taking students to Hooters which should not be classified as a "family restaurant" and I am Conservative... there goes your stereotype I guess. ;)

Can't fit everything into a nice little box...



The fact that waitresses dress "sexy" is TOTALLY RELEVANT and Hooters IS NOT a mainstream restaurant and I'm not certain that it should be OK to take kids there either... the fact that they dress sexy is the entire point, one that you completely fail to acknowldge, instead opting to lrepeat that it is legal and anybody that disagrees should give up since they have no point when it is exactly the opposite...



You keep saying family restaurant now right after yousaid that you didn't buy into those who think the "family unit" is an arbitrary social construct that perpetuates patriarchal authoritarianism and that a family restaurant is offensive... Do you have dual personalities? :2razz:

Keep saying I am a fringe leftist all you like, you might even actually believe it too! Also, it is Conservatives that would dislike women dressing trashy and liberals that are for it, Conservatives that are for keeping children within the bounds of morality and Liberals that are for stretching morals to the breaking point, so I think that you have the political spectrum backwards... ;)

Bodhi, I think you're very confused right now. I haven't made ANY comments about your personal beliefs, at all. Until we get this straight, this conversation cannot progress.
 
Hooters is not MacDonalds. Hooters is unlike almost every other restaurant/bar out there and THAT is the point. It is not comparable, hence your scenario is moot.

You didn't answer my question.
 
It's the name! If the joint was called "Uncle Bob's" and had sexy waitresses and was racy nobody would have come down on the woman.

But the name is "Hooters" which implies a naughtiness not fit for kids.

What about a restaurant named 'Well Hung', with only waiters in tight bicycle pants? How would that be? :lol:
 
Why it is not what?

Woman also get abortions when it is not needed since it is legal, does that make it right or positive?

you are straying from your argument that hooters is not like any other restaurant
my point is that it is a typical restaurant because it serves food and is open to the public
you seem to think that it is somehow unique and underserving of being identified as a restaurant
i want you to explain why your idea is so wrong
 
Bodhi, I think you're very confused right now. I haven't made ANY comments about your personal beliefs, at all. Until we get this straight, this conversation cannot progress.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
yes... of which Hooters is not. My coaches took us out all the time and from what I recall, parents were always informed of that fact, but not of the particular restaurant, it was no big deal. Today, teachers have to give out consent froms for parents regarding every part of a trip, in most cases...

Originally Posted by Ethereal
Also, I would take offense if someone took my child to a "family restaurant". I do not recognize the tyrannical patriarchal social construct your refer to as the "family unit".

Post #329

I'm just reading what you are writing, incorrect grammar and all (just playing about Grammar Nazi, but it should be "you") that is all... If you mean something else, then by all means, clarify your position. :2razz:
 
You didn't answer my question.

A coach can take kids to MacDonalds without prior consent. Hooters is not MacDonalds though, so the scenario is irrelevant...
 
you are straying from your argument that hooters is not like any other restaurant
my point is that it is a typical restaurant because it serves food and is open to the public
you seem to think that it is somehow unique and underserving of being identified as a restaurant
i want you to explain why your idea is so wrong

You want me to explain why my idea is so "wrong"? Huh?

...And I was not straying from anything, rather I was making a logical analogy as to why I am correct. Define what you mean by "public", because I can go into a topless strip joint that serves food and is open to the "public" as well, by your standards, I can take a kid or some horny little teenage boy into a topless bar since it serves food and is open to the public.
 
Last edited:
Post #329

I'm just reading what you are writing, incorrect grammar and all (just playing about Grammar Nazi, but it should be "you") that is all... If you mean something else, then by all means, clarify your position. :2razz:

You misunderstood me...:2razz:

I was taking a hypothetical stance against the concept of a family unit. I wasn't implying that YOU thought the family unit was a tyrannical social construct, no, that was MY hypothetical objection to it. I was just trying illustrate the absurdity of catering to every crazy ideal out there.

We kosher?
 
A coach can take kids to MacDonalds without prior consent. Hooters is not MacDonalds though, so the scenario is irrelevant...

But what if an anti-corporatist, ultra-leftist takes offense that their child is patronizing a business that slaughters innocent animals for profit? Should the teacher be suspended because he or she offended that person?
 
You misunderstood me...:2razz:

I was taking a hypothetical stance against the concept of a family unit. I wasn't implying that YOU thought the family unit was a tyrannical social construct, no, that was MY hypothetical objection to it. I was just trying illustrate the absurdity of catering to every crazy ideal out there.

We kosher?

All good man, I thought that seemed a little severe for you... we're Kosher as a Jewish Rabbi chewing his Kosher dog... :lol:
 
But what if an anti-corporatist, ultra-leftist takes offense that their child is patronizing a business that slaughters innocent animals for profit? Should the teacher be suspended because he or she offended that person?

I lived in Sonoma County, great wine and food region with some of the greatest restaurants, John Ash and French Laundry... well, some of those very people would break windows of restaurants and use stink bombs to clear them out during "game week" and such events... these people are psycho.

I think that we have to be balanced and realistic. Society can't make everybody happy... but I think that Hooters is in a class by itself, it is not a mainstream restaurant, since it is unique and just happened to be tossed into that catagory probably due to corporate pressue so that they would have a bigger client base so that they could maximize profits. I think that they should be in a different catagory that does not allow minors into it without parental consent, that is all... I don't think that this is asking anything that is not reasonable, if you can show how this is not reasonable, then I will listen, otherwise, we simply disagree. :2razz:
 
I lived in Sonoma County, great wine and food region with some of the greatest restaurants, John Ash and French Laundry... well, some of those very people would break windows of restaurants and use stink bombs to clear them out during "game week" and such events... these people are psycho.

I think that we have to be balanced and realistic. Society can't make everybody happy... but I think that Hooters is in a class by itself, it is not a mainstream restaurant, since it is unique and just happened to be tossed into that catagory probably due to corporate pressue so that they would have a bigger client base so that they could maximize profits. I think that they should be in a different catagory that does not allow minors into it without parental consent, that is all... I don't think that this is asking anything that is not reasonable, if you can show how this is not reasonable, then I will listen, otherwise, we simply disagree. :2razz:

I would first have to understand your reasoning behind such a requirement (parental consent). What is it about Hooters that minors should have to obtain consent?
 
Just a point to the person that said something about schools "micro-managing" events, etc...

As a parent and a school employee, I have to say that unless a student is over the age of 18, then the parents MUST be notified when there is a school event that requires the student be transported off school grounds. If a school employee is chaperoning a student event, then I would (as a school employee myself) sure as hell make sure all the parents of the students were informed of my plans, if nothing else, to cover my own ass.

I don't care if these are high school seniors - if these kids were going to a school event and then following said school event, they were being escorted *by a school district employee* to dinner at ANY restaurant (hell, I don't care if it's Chuck E. Cheese!) then those parents of those students attending, should have had to sign a permission form.

Now if this was an informal - NOT SCHOOL RELATED - outing, then NO.. micro-management would not be needed. But let's be real here. If either of my own teenagers went to a school led event such as this and I hadn't signed a persmission form for them to go out and eat with their classmates AND teacher after that event - and one of them wound up getting injured or something else happened that was detrimental to their safety or well being - then who do you think should or would be held responsible.

Nothing did happen, but it could have. And that is the point - at least in my mind. I could care less if they ate at McDonalds, Taco Bell or Hooters.

Bottom line - these kids are minors and their parents are their guardians until they reach the age of 18, where at that time, the child is responsible for their own safety and decision making. They are at that time, considered adult.

It is not about people being anally knotted about their kids going to Hooters, it's about being informed and being involved in the process that I believe SHOULD be at the center of discussion here. Not the fact that it happened to be Hooters.
 
Last edited:
A coach can take kids to MacDonalds without prior consent. Hooters is not MacDonalds though, so the scenario is irrelevant...

Not according to some. Many here have indicated that they would object to any restaurant without prior approval.
According to some...we have to accomodate every parents whim and/or sensibilities.
 
I think that they should be in a different catagory that does not allow minors into it without parental consent, that is all... I don't think that this is asking anything that is not reasonable, if you can show how this is not reasonable, then I will listen, otherwise, we simply disagree. :2razz:

Oh...please.....if the society felt that minor should not be allowed in "Hooters"...they would have laws to prevent it.
Yes.....what you are asking is VERY ureasonable....at least to the vast majority of people who live in our world.
 
Just a point to the person that said something about schools "micro-managing" events, etc...

As a parent and a school employee, I have to say that unless a student is over the age of 18, then the parents MUST be notified when there is a school event that requires the student be transported off school grounds. If a school employee is chaperoning a student event, then I would (as a school employee myself) sure as hell make sure all the parents of the students were informed of my plans, if nothing else, to cover my own ass.

I don't care if these are high school seniors - if these kids were going to a school event and then following said school event, they were being escorted *by a school district employee* to dinner at ANY restaurant (hell, I don't care if it's Chuck E. Cheese!) then those parents of those students attending, should have had to sign a permission form.

Now if this was an informal - NOT SCHOOL RELATED - outing, then NO.. micro-management would not be needed. But let's be real here. If either of my own teenagers went to a school led event such as this and I hadn't signed a persmission form for them to go out and eat with their classmates AND teacher after that event - and one of them wound up getting injured or something else happened that was detrimental to their safety or well being - then who do you think should or would be held responsible.

Nothing did happen, but it could have. And that is the point - at least in my mind. I could care less if they ate at McDonalds, Taco Bell or Hooters.

Bottom line - these kids are minors and their parents are their guardians until they reach the age of 18, where at that time, the child is responsible for their own safety and decision making. They are at that time, considered adult.

It is not about people being anally knotted about their kids going to Hooters, it's about being informed and being involved in the process that I believe SHOULD be at the center of discussion here. Not the fact that it happened to be Hooters.

Maybe you are a day late....but the issue isn't consent to take the trip. Consent was given to take the field trip. The micro-managing comes in requiring consent to whatever restaurant the students eat at during the approved trip.
Its like I said....I went on many debate trips in high school. Those trips were approved by parental consent. However, it silly to think that the school was required to scope out every restaurant within a one mile area and have my parents check off which places I was allowed to have my lunch while away on the trip.
As long as I was not being taken to restaraunts that did not allow underage kids....then the school has done their duty.
 
I'm one of those conservative-Christian traditional-family-values types that many of you so love to hate.

High school boys? 16-18yo? No, I wouldn't freak. I might frown slightly. I might even say, to the teacher, "I wish you had asked me if that was okay first." That's all. I wouldn't have tried to get anyone suspended over it.

I've been to Hooters, once. The food is okay, the service is mediocre, the prices are a little high for what you get, and yeah the girls are cute and the outfits are tight enough to interfere with blood circulation. The theme is embarassingly obvious and IMO kind of tasteless for a "family" restaurant, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

I can get better food elsewhere for less money with better service, and not feel uncomfortable that a girl young enough to be my daughter is bending over to give me a good look at her cleveage in hopes of a big tip. (shrug)

But, like I said, I wouldn't freak out over it.

G.
 
I'm one of those conservative-Christian traditional-family-values types that many of you so love to hate.

High school boys? 16-18yo? No, I wouldn't freak. I might frown slightly. I might even say, to the teacher, "I wish you had asked me if that was okay first." That's all. I wouldn't have tried to get anyone suspended over it.

I've been to Hooters, once. The food is okay, the service is mediocre, the prices are a little high for what you get, and yeah the girls are cute and the outfits are tight enough to interfere with blood circulation. The theme is embarassingly obvious and IMO kind of tasteless for a "family" restaurant, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

I can get better food elsewhere for less money with better service, and not feel uncomfortable that a girl young enough to be my daughter is bending over to give me a good look at her cleveage in hopes of a big tip. (shrug)

But, like I said, I wouldn't freak out over it.

G.

Sounds reasonable.
 
You want me to explain why my idea is so "wrong"? Huh?

...And I was not straying from anything, rather I was making a logical analogy as to why I am correct. Define what you mean by "public", because I can go into a topless strip joint that serves food and is open to the "public" as well, by your standards, I can take a kid or some horny little teenage boy into a topless bar since it serves food and is open to the public.

so now you want to equate a topless facility with hooters
your weird, off-the-mark analogies, have no credibility
hooters is a public restaurant, open to all ages ... not so the topless facility you would want us to - unreasonably - compare it to
come back when you have something to offer which reasonable people would find convincing
 
I'm one of those conservative-Christian traditional-family-values types that many of you so love to hate.

High school boys? 16-18yo? No, I wouldn't freak. I might frown slightly. I might even say, to the teacher, "I wish you had asked me if that was okay first." That's all. I wouldn't have tried to get anyone suspended over it.

I've been to Hooters, once. The food is okay, the service is mediocre, the prices are a little high for what you get, and yeah the girls are cute and the outfits are tight enough to interfere with blood circulation. The theme is embarassingly obvious and IMO kind of tasteless for a "family" restaurant, but I don't lose any sleep over it.

I can get better food elsewhere for less money with better service, and not feel uncomfortable that a girl young enough to be my daughter is bending over to give me a good look at her cleveage in hopes of a big tip. (shrug)

But, like I said, I wouldn't freak out over it.

G.

I'm one of those subjective morality atheists who thinks our country is way too puritanical types that so many people like to blame for the degradation of family values in this country and I have an almost identical view of Hooters in general. :lol:

It's odd because the sexuality itself is not what I find distasteful.

It is the way places like Hooters place a primacy on superficial things (looks and such) while substantial things (such as service and food quality) are given a secondary consideration.

It's a restaurant. It should be selling food and service, not boob and cervix. (Obviously, comic liberty was taken here. Semi-witty one-liners do not need to be factually accurate.;))

I know I would not want a daughter of mine to work at any place that taught her that superficial things like looks were more important than substantial things like quality of character and practical skills. A place where being pretty was more important than being intelligent or being good at the job.
 
I pretty much imagine all my waitresses naked, so the outfit is really not an issue. But it is why I stopped going to truck stop diners when I was 16.
 
I know I would not want a daughter of mine to work at any place that taught her that superficial things like looks were more important than substantial things like quality of character and practical skills. A place where being pretty was more important than being intelligent or being good at the job.

Then you apparently don't want her to work at all. If you believe that anywhere in the corporate world that people don't get jobs and/or promotions based on looks then you are fooling yourself. Sure, there are a lot of people that get performance based promotions, however, in America and a lot of the rest of the world, looks and being "pretty" always give people a step up.
 
Then you apparently don't want her to work at all. If you believe that anywhere in the corporate world that people don't get jobs and/or promotions based on looks then you are fooling yourself. Sure, there are a lot of people that get performance based promotions, however, in America and a lot of the rest of the world, looks and being "pretty" always give people a step up.

So your theory is that corporations place more importance on looks than intelligence or skills?

Name one.
 
So your theory is that corporations place more importance on looks than intelligence or skills?

Name one.

I didn't say that. What I said was that anywhere you go in the working world there is always going to be an element of people getting hired or promoted based on looks. Do corporations put MORE importance on it....probably not in most cases. However, getting your foot in the door is often the most important aspect and face it....an "ugly" person or a "fat" person often loses that first chance to make a good first impression no matter what their resume says about their intelligence and skills.
Sad to say...but that's the reality of American (and probably many other) culture.
 
Do corporations put MORE importance on it....probably not in most cases.

How on earth could you possibly say

Then you apparently don't want her to work at all.

in response to

I know I would not want a daughter of mine to work at any place that taught her that superficial things like looks were more important than substantial things like quality of character and practical skills. A place where being pretty was more important than being intelligent or being good at the job.

If you weren't saying:

corporations place more importance on looks than intelligence or skills

:confused::confused:

On top of that, they "don't want her to work at all" implies that there exists no job that doesn't disregard looks entirely. That's asinine, and I know it to be 100% false by the simple fact that I have run a company and I had some hideous mother ****ers working for me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom