Watcha Gonna Do Then?

[BlackShanglan]

For a poster who has not the courage to even state and defend his own gender, expressed a deep and irrational faith that cannot be defended, to become openly hostile to observations that do not mesh with his belier's, indicates another layer of irrationality that expresses itself ad hominen.

I object to that.

Object all you like. What my opposition to your suggestion that children are to blame when adults have sex with them could possibly have to do with my gender, or in what way I demonstrate cowardice by declining to reveal my genitalia to the world, is of course beyond me. I shall content myself with observing the irony of you upbraiding me for ad hominem attacks based on my objection to specific arguments you introduced to this thread by offering your personal feelings and experiences as evidence, while you direct your ire at the completely irrelevent issue of my gender.

There is a world wide and time immemorial lustful interest in young innocent girls by older men. Child prostitutes permeate every Brothel in the world. I did not make it so, nor do I necessarily condone it, but I do not ignore it nor do I sweep it away with broad generalizations.

"Broad generalization." You mean like this one?

So, let's skip on by the typical feminist male bashing of sexual predators to the real root cause of underage sex, those lovely little gals who know exactly what they are doing and why.

Yes, in fact, you did sweep it away with a broad generalization. There it lies.

JBJ linked to an article, a rather long one, concerning teachers being accused of sexual contact with students under their control. I read the article and noted the emphasis placed on condemning these teachers as sexual predators and I raised a small objection.

You did not. You made a sweeping, ridiculous, and ugly claim. It's right up there in the last quotation.

My thesis, that young girls solicit attention, is an observation, not necessarily a personal preference or practice, just an observation.

That was not your thesis. Your thesis, which I repeat because you are displaying a remarkable lapse of memory on the topic, was this:

So, let's skip on by the typical feminist male bashing of sexual predators to the real root cause of underage sex, those lovely little gals who know exactly what they are doing and why.

You didn't claim that they "solicit attention." You claimed that they, rather than adults who have sex with them, are the real root cause of the problem. Very clear. Very certain.

Defend it if you like, and remove any doubts as to the depths you'll stoop to in order to shove blame off onto anyone who doesn't look like you, or acknowledge what a ridiculous and offensive thing it is. Do not, however, pretend that you didn't say it. I'll remind you just as often as you deny it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

HUCK

The lawsuits are hurting the Catholic Church.

This state (Florida) presently spends about 11K per student for education. Some school districts are spending 50-60K per child. Student-teacher sex is common around my area anymore. And I imagine these kids will suit the school boards.

As a taxpayer, what do you think should be done about the problem?

HUCK, it's not a math problem.

 

[scheherazade_79]

As a taxpayer, what do you think should be done about the problem?

So let me check I've got this right, James.... The thing about child abuse that needs addressing the most is the financial burden it places on the taxpayer?

Do you think that's a normal opinion to have?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No. The question is: WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT SO IT DOESNT DESTROY YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS? This isnt a math or trick question.

Where I live they pretty much plan to do NOTHING. They resist background checks, they resist law enforcement investigations, they resist penalizing teachers/staff. In this state (FLORIDA), twenty years ago (1988) the Department of Education had the laws changed so that schools became exempt from most police and state scrutiny. That is the schools were allowed to handle their own problems, and sex abuse became a problem.

Current laws here allow schools to tell judges to go fuck themselves. And they do.

 

[scheherazade_79]

No. The question is: WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT SO IT DOESNT DESTROY YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS? This isnt a math or trick question.

Where I live they pretty much plan to do NOTHING. They resist background checks, they resist law enforcement investigations, they resist penalizing teachers/staff. In this state (FLORIDA), twenty years ago (1988) the Department of Education had the laws changed so that schools became exempt from most police and state scrutiny. That is the schools were allowed to handle their own problems, and sex abuse became a problem.

Current laws here allow schools to tell judges to go fuck themselves. And they do.

In Britain no one can work with children or vulnerable adults without a stringent background check, which doesn't just bring up convictions, but cautions for all offences.

I thought it strange that a similar system didn't operate in the USA, so I did some of my own research.

This is a list of requirements for anyone wishing to undertake a teacher training course. Trainee teachers have no unsupervised contact with students, and this is how stringent they are.

I can't comment on the situation in 1988, but this is how it's been since 2004 - in black and white:

The 2004 Florida legislature passed Senate Bill 2986 amending Sections 1012.32 and 1012.56, Florida Statutes. Effective June 10, 2004, all students in educator preparation programs who are engaged in field experiences and who have direct contact with PreK-12 students are required to supply the school district with fingerprints for the purpose of completing a criminal background check. The legislation became effective June 10, 2004.

There'll always be some who slip the net, but to claim that nothing is being done to stop child abuse in the public school system from eating into your bank account is absolute bunkum, not to mention distasteful.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The law you cite doesnt require background checks for vested faculty. So if you were a licensed teacher when the law took effect, youre home free.

I've worked with kids since 1986 and the law has always required me to be checked and submit to fingerprints, etc. But I'm not a teacher.

Realistically, people who work with kids should always be suspect and monitored.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In today's paper two local girls are suing the school board because of a teacher fondling them. Turns out he has a drug problem the school knows about (crack) and he's been disciplined numerous times for cursing students and parents.

 

[keeblercrumb]

I don't know.... but somewhere between JBJ worrying about his taxes because of teachers being sued for child abuse... and Amicus worrying about all those nubile young things trying to get into his manly pants…..

This thread deserves to die. Isn't there a prize for that?

Can I end it?

-KC

Please?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KC

Scheherezade needs the practice organzing her thoughts. She's the lead debater on our Special Olympics Debate Team. Better keep the thread alive a bit longer.

 

[Stella_Omega]

KC

Scheherezade needs the practice organzing her thoughts. She's the lead debater on our Special Olympics Debate Team. Better keep the thread alive a bit longer.

Are you sure you're not xssve's long-lost twin?