Parent has poem restricted in Florida school

The Poem's not banned

 

Is a school required to provide every book ever written ever, and if they don't then it's censorship? To me, Gorman's poem sucked. It wasn't good, and I think it would be detrimental to a child's education to use that as some sort of framework of greatness. To me, Gorman is the Stacey Abrams of poets--a mainstream media-created sacred cow who they believe should stand in the pantheon of great poets like Walt Whitman and Robert Frost, when, in fact, she's not good enough to kiss their boots.

 

Glad to know your opinion.

Your credentials for judging a poem are?????

No, a school is not required to provide every book ever written. This book, however, was already there and because ONE parent complained access was restricted. Why does the opinion of this parent get to decide for every other parent? What if a parent doesn't like a poem by Frost or Whitman, does that mean those poems should also be restricted?

 

And if you read the title of this thread, that I created, I never claimed it was banned.

 

An IQ above room temperature? That's my credential, I guess?

This is a hilarious case of credentialism.

Please, humor me. What sort of credentials are you looking for to most authoritatively judge a poem or a poet?

Why was the book there? It shouldn't have been there in the first place. No parent should have had to step forward. Are there not better books out there? Let's be clear here: all libraries are finite, and this is certainly not the Library of Congress, where you have more ample opportunity to make place for the more substandard forms of literature. We should be taken the education of children seriously by having forms of literature that best serve their very edification.

 

Media center is a more appropriate place. It should not be taken up physical space. It's not worthy. I think there is an argument for it not taken up digital space, too, for that poem is occupying some space on the server(s). Well, I guess it's an appropriate compromise. I'll begrudgingly accept it.

 

Right there with ya.... Poem sucked... (AKA he either didn't read it, like the complaintant, or didn't understand it)... ergo, it must be restricted...

MAGA thinking in a NUTshell....

I'm sure he's now scrambling on Duck Duck Go to find out when Jack Frost wrote poems...

 

I did note that. You more accurately portrayed the situation that some other Leftists, to your credit.

 

If gun violence happens in Germany, France, the UK or even Japan, it is rare, very rare in said attack. It is slightly less rare if the perpetrator uses a knife, a vehicle, or something. But here, it is really, quite literally, a daily occurrence. It is so bad that even other countries give travel warnings to the US in a similar fashion to Somalia, Rwanda, and other countries with huge amounts of violence.

 

Unfortunately, it's the Florida Law and I am still trying to figure out how that poem has "CRT" in it. For gun violence, it will continue until the gun lobby stops spending millions of dollars in donations to certain candidates in which reasonable solutions can be found. But when any solution comes up, the gun nuts think they are coming after them. Well maybe if they want to storm the WH again or something similar.

 

Bare minimum? A degree in English literature.

I can understand that you don't think it's good poetry. After all it doesn't start, "There once was a man from Nantucket"

And again, you have no way of judging if this material is educational. I sincerely doubt you hold any certification in English, Education or any related field. When I want to know why my leg hurts I don't go to an auto mechanic because he is not trained to diagnose it. When I want to know how good a poem is I'm not going to you because you are not trained to critique poetry.

You can have an opinion on it. You can say that you like it or that you don't like it. What you don't get is input on whether or not it is educational.

 

Gun violence will continue until the left stops the divisive irrational anti gun rhetoric and looks to actually stop things like school shootings with actual security improvements.

 

Who says who gets input on what is educational? You? Lol

Appealing to authority is one of the lowest forms of irrationality.

I don’t need to be a teacher to have input on what is taught in schools nor to understand political activism vs education.

Would appealing to police as an authority on police activity be ok for you? Not being allowed input on what’s justified or not? Ofcourse not…that would be stupid. Astounding lmao.

 

Bravo!

 

Yes bravo for a fallacious post indeed. Lol

 

But why need security in the first place? And who pays?

 

Point out where it is fallacious

 

Tax payers. But hey I’m ok with what we have currently if you are. You won’t get rid of guns, so by all means don’t engage in honest attempts to find solutions. But increased security is the only way to mitigate the damage.

 

I did in my response to it. Appealing to authority. Objectively fallacious.

 

There is a difference between "appealing to authority" (those in charge) and "appealing to expertise" (those who know)

I trust in the science of climate change because those who know say so, those in charge...for the most part...are saying it isn't or that it isn't as bad as the scientists say it is.

You are the one who appeals to authority...those in charge (the school board, the parents, the voters) say these things are bad and must be banned or restricted and you just go along with it. You don't know squat about the subject but because you are in charge (the authority) you get to make the rules.

This is where this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. There was a time when those in authority trusted those who knew. But then those who knew started saying we need to do things that those in authority didn't like so those in authority, we no training in the subject, started to not only ignore those who knew but actively started to do exactly the opposite of what was suggested simply because it was what they suggested.

 

I feel like a freaking broken record.

Why do WE need the security? Why doesn't France, England, Japan, Australia, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada or Italy have these problems?

The RW answer to the problem of guns in schools is, unbelievably, put more guns in schools.

 

Everyone place needs that security, it happens everywhere. And yes, the best way to fight the fact bad guys will have guns is objectively with more guns.

Like it or not you aren’t getting rid of guns. If you wanna stubbornly dig your heels in that’s fine we can continue having this issue. Guns aren’t going away, definitely not during our lifetime. So if you want to protect the kids, it’s done through increased security.

If you would rather dig your heels in at kids expense. That’s fine too, as that’s par for the course.

 

False, appealing to expertise and authority are exactly the same thing. Wanting to have a say so in our children’s education is not appealing to authority lmao. The hoops you jumped through to make such a nonsensical claim further demonstrate I am correct as that’s not a rational argument.

parents aren’t in charge…that’s hilariously misguided. They are fighting for a voice on their children’s education.

so again your post was fallacious. Appealing to authority is irrational and unacceptable.

If that same argument was made in order to take your voice away from changing police policy you would rightfully take issue despite the fact the police are the experts on police activity. Yet that seems to have gone over your head.

The reason the country is going to hell, is because we have Dems making policy decisions based on emotion rather than logic. We have an MSM demonstrate a complete lack of professionalism and bipartisan honesty so no one trusts them.

We have “experts” of fields that are inherently subjective pushing policy and leaders whom listen to them because they are “experts”. There is a difference between an expert of science field like biology or chemistry, and an “expert” of sociology which is inherently a subjective field of study. And as it turns out, these subjective fields of study are only listened to when it confirms with cultural norms. A study isn’t the same thing as science, sociology isn’t science.

 

"We aren't getting rid of guns", that's the "digging in the heels" response.

We aren't getting rid of guns because there are people that don't want to get rid of guns. That's it. To them (and I don't know if you are included in that number) their right to have a gun is more important than the lives of the people being killed by guns. They've drawn their line and they refuse to even consider the possibility of crossing it.

No other industrialized country has this problem. None. Instead of looking to them and figuring out what they are doing that we are not (and trust me it is NOT putting more guns in the schools) you want to try and find a solution that doesn't inconvenience the NRA

 

False, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz and Tommy Tuberville are all in positions of authority but I wouldn't trust their expertise on how to tie a shoelace.

THEY are the ones making decisions based on emotion because it's all they have. Trump is the most ego driven person I have ever witnessed. Ego is emotion. Trump is driven by it. His followers are driven by it. He forces other Republicans to make decisions based on it.

Climate Change is not "inherently subjective" it is based on OBJECTIVE facts. Facts that Republicans, for the most part, ignore because they think the solutions to the problem run counter to their "freedom". That is an emotion based decision. They then line up "experts" who try to tailor the facts to match their conclusions. That is not how science works. That is not how rational, non emotional, decision making works.