Do ebooks burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit, too?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DNSB

And if the child sits in the library reading the book? Or perhaps gets their buddy to obtain the book from them? The first law of security applies (the one that reads if you don't have physical security, you don't have security).

Blame the parents for not teaching their children better. They have no right to restrict everyone's access just because their kids might gain access.

Now I have to wonder where I got the impression that you were Norwegian from.

No idea, though I'm nearly half Norwegian by ancestry.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Blame the parents for not teaching their children better. They have no right to restrict everyone's access just because their kids might gain access.

That's censorship and that's just plain wrong. I do not want access taken away just because of a small minded parent.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Reading further in the article reveals that the Epic app was returned to the school computers with an opt out for parents to activate to remove it from their kids gadgets (I presume from the school).

I’m fine with this, parents should have this right and it doesn’t diminish others ability to keep access.

Digital libraries only speed up the process of curating, if anyone thinks physical libraries aren’t curated especially school libraries, I’ve got a bridge for sale.

I've got a bridge for the parent that thinks banning something from their kids will prevent their kids from getting access! Guess what that kid'll do? They'll get what they want to read from another kid whose parents *didn't* opt out.

MY parents wouldn't let me go see The Godfather movie. Highly annoyed, I promptly checked out the book from my CATHOLIC high school library (in TEXAS, no less) and I'll tell you, the book was seamier than the movie! The 'rents would have been horrified!

Now, I also read many a classic from that library. Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Hesse, Solzhenitsyn, Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and so many, many more. So if my parents had a) found out and b) laid a number on the school, they'd possibly have prevented me from reading any number of great titles.

Give your kids a phone or tablet, you give them the world. I bet most learn how to get past or around parental controls right quick.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Instead of banning books from school libraries, require children to get parental permission to use these libraries. Library collections remain in tact and parents can keep their children sheltered from books they find offensive. Problem solved.

Makes sense to me. And the smart parent would hopefully give permission.

I grew up in Texas, and I'm thankful *my* parents didn't interfere with my reading. I got my first public library card in third grade. Never looked back.

I'd have HATED to be limited to only *age-appropriate* materials when I was young. I read anything I could get my mitts on and would've been bored out of my ever living skull if I'd been limited that way.

Oddly, despite all my reading, a fair amount of which probably WAS age-inappropriate, I didn't turn into a junkie or prostitute or anything else untoward. Instead, I turned out fairly well-read and with a decent vocabulary. I had no trouble handling anything I was assigned to read in school, in many instances, I'd already read it years earlier.

Literally, I had a college professor who struggled to find something I *hadn't* already read for an assignment. He took me through quite a list! We finally ended up on Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's a two-way street with a lot of parents who think that they're the moral guardians of other people's children. The happy middle ground is for parents to choose which books their children can and can't check out from school libraries. That way, no one's rights are infringed.

The difference is that those parents can supply their kids with the books in question. Parents don't have similar options when teachers override their parental rights and makes choices for others' kids.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Considering the number of parents who seem to feel the teachers are responsible for instilling manners and morals in the student?

I'm not definitely not one of them. I think most parents (wrongly) assume that teachers remain neutral on moral issues. I know that's often not true, that's why my kids were home schooled.

Originally Posted by DNSB

I take it you agree with the zealots who let their children die rather than expose them to medical treatment that does not fit their world view. Their children and their right to let them die.

I take it that you're prone to hyperbole. What have I written that could possibly lead you to these conclusions?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The difference is that those parents can supply their kids with the books in question. Parents don't have similar options when teachers override their parental rights and makes choices for others' kids.

Assuming they have the funds to buy or get to the books which isn’t always the case. Even with public libraries and digital content.

I’m not sure when parents stopped expecting to have to actually parent and started thinking that the world should do it for them, but I’m more than tired of it. Don’t want your kid reading things you don’t approve of? Instill in them the need to check with you about their reading. Don’t limit everyone else based on what you don’t want your kid to read.

Originally Posted by rcentros

I'm not definitely not one of them. I think most parents (wrongly) assume that teachers remain neutral on moral issues. I know that's often not true, that's why my kids were home schooled.

Funny because I know more than my fair share of teachers and they actively don’t impose their morals on students in general nor in reading suggestions or assignments.

I think many parents see neutral as not being neutral because it doesn’t align with their beliefs. This seems to be more and more common recently.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by rcentros

I take it that you're prone to hyperbole. What have I written that could possibly lead you to these conclusions?

Originally Posted by rcentros

Ultimately parents should make the final decision for their children (especially young children), not the schools.

The quote above sound familiar? I was wondering how far you carried that opinion considering the number of times over the last decades that children have died due to parental decisions on their health care. Not to mention that number of people who are willing to rear up on their hind legs and support the belief that a child is the parent's property to do with what they will. Given that background as to the nightmares that parental control can cause, I have trouble accepting claims that parents know what's best for their children.

BTW, one of my friends was a child bride from the Bountiful community. She was "married" at 12 with the enthusiastic consent of her parents and their religious leaders. Is this okay by your standards since, by most people standards, she was a young child at the time of her "marriage" and her parents sincerely believed they were acting in her best interests?

After all, "Der Weg zur Höllen sey mit lauter gutem Vorsatz gepflastert."

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The difference is that those parents can supply their kids with the books in question.

No, absolutely not!!! Parents who allow full access to a school library's collection shouldn't be the ones who have to jump through hoops. The parents who restrict access should be the ones who have to jump through those hoops. No book banning!!!

Parents don't have similar options when teachers override their parental rights and makes choices for others' kids.

I've only addressed what children have access to in school libraries. What teachers require for reading is a separate issue and one I haven't addressed so far.

[koboy]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I take it you agree with the zealots who let their children die rather than expose them to medical treatment that does not fit their world view. Their children and their right to let them die.

personally speaking i don't take anything from what someone hasn't actually said.

best wishes koboy

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Assuming they have the funds to buy or get to the books which isn’t always the case. Even with public libraries and digital content.

So, is your solution to expose all kids to age inappropriate books because some parents can't afford to buy them? What rights do you think parents have in the education of their children?

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I’m not sure when parents stopped expecting to have to actually parent and started thinking that the world should do it for them, but I’m more than tired of it. Don’t want your kid reading things you don’t approve of? Instill in them the need to check with you about their reading. Don’t limit everyone else based on what you don’t want your kid to read.

The problem is, when kids are at school, the parents have no control over what the teachers teach. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of teachers who think they "know better" and have the "right" indoctrinate other people's kids. This is not a recent thing, it's been going on for decades. Which is why my wife and I decided to home school.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Funny because I know more than my fair share of teachers and they actively don’t impose their morals on students in general nor in reading suggestions or assignments.

I'm glad to hear that. You must be in a good school district. Doesn't change the fact there are a number of teachers who do abuse their positions.

Originally Posted by MGlitch

I think many parents see neutral as not being neutral because it doesn’t align with their beliefs. This seems to be more and more common recently.

I think your definition of "neutral" may be a little fuzzy. The whole point of a belief system and parental rights is that teachers don't try to undermine it and indoctrinate the kids into their belief system (which is often not that neutral).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No, absolutely not!!! Parents who allow full access to a school library's collection shouldn't be the ones who have to jump through hoops. The parents who restrict access should be the ones who have to jump through those hoops. No book banning!!!

How do you that when your kids are in school where some teachers are hell bent on indoctrinating kids into their belief system?

It's funny that movie theaters have figured out how to keep underage children out movies that aren't age appropriate (except when accompanied by a legal guardian). Shouldn't libraries be able to do the same? Couldn't a children's library card be age restricted (like movies) unless the parent decides to override that age restriction?

Seems like a simple solution to me.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

How do you that when your kids are in school where some teachers are hell bent on indoctrinating kids into their belief system?

Take it up with the principal and school board.

It's funny that movie theaters have figured out how to keep underage children out movies that aren't age appropriate (except when accompanied by a legal guardian). Shouldn't libraries be able to do the same? Couldn't a children's library card be age restricted (like movies) unless the parent decides to override that age restriction?

Seems like a simple solution to me.

School libraries are already age appropriate.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, is your solution to expose all kids to age inappropriate books because some parents can't afford to buy them? What rights do you think parents have in the education of their children?

Whereas yours is to bar all children based on the desire of some parents. Yes I’ll take the option that allows more information and knowledge to be available to those who want it every time. Sorry not sorry your beliefs do not trump others right to public knowledge. The onus is on the parents not society nor to certain degrees teachers to enforce the parents views. Teachers are limited in what they can teach without being terminated, and possibly depending on the school districts regulations are required to get parents consent on certain topics. No consent results in their child being excluded from lessons on tat topic. And those parents have absolutely zero right to inflict their views on children not in their care.

The problem is, when kids are at school, the parents have no control over what the teachers teach. And, unfortunately, there are a lot of teachers who think they "know better" and have the "right" indoctrinate other people's kids. This is not a recent thing, it's been going on for decades. Which is why my wife and I decided to home school.

Barring fringe cases the teachers likely are more informed on the subjects they’re teaching. As to your claim that teachers indoctrinate students, if there was any merit to this claim teachers would be paid significantly more and be treated significantly better by both parents and students alike. Unless you’re claiming that the majority of the teachers you say are indoctrinating children are only doing so on topics which in no way directly benefit them.

I'm glad to hear that. You must be in a good school district. Doesn't change the fact there are a number of teachers who do abuse their positions.

Let’s say you’re right, there are also parents who abuse their children. Your solution to the thread issue would imply that the solution to this issue would be to remove all children from their parents because some abuse their positions of parental guardians. Those opposing your view would solve the issue by removing the access to the child. In the case of parents by giving custody to the other parent, or if that’s not suitable then to any of a number of options. In the case of a teacher they would be dismissed if any of these allegations of long standing indoctrination could actually be proven. For both examples simply saying it’s so does not meet the bar of requirement.

And for the record my experience with teachers both in school and after I graduated has covered numerous districts in several states.

I think your definition of "neutral" may be a little fuzzy. The whole point of a belief system and parental rights is that teachers don't try to undermine it and indoctrinate the kids into their belief system (which is often not that neutral).

A teacher can literally not support every belief system of every parent of every student in their class much more school and much much more district. These systems are often mutually exclusive it is ludicrous to expect anyone to try and actively support the belief system of each individual. Rather it is more sensible to require the teachers not present any belief system as right or wrong, merely to provide factual information about those systems. If your belief system is so fragile it can’t stand up to believers actually knowing about it well I’ve got a nice compound in the middle of nowhere and a person in authority there who, for a percentage of your income, will enforce only that belief system.

Want full control over what your kid learns and how? Home school then (as you did) and bar them from talking to anyone who doesn’t follow your beliefs. You should also probably never expose them to the internet because eventually whatever safeguards you put in to shield them are going to be breached by them.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by rcentros

So, is your solution to expose all kids to age inappropriate books because some parents can't afford to buy them? What rights do you think parents have in the education of their children?

School libraries don't stock "age inappropriate" books. [As an aside, my experience is that when children do come across a book inappropriate for their developmental level, they just put it aside. It's not fed into their eyeballs like age-inappropriate TV or movies; they control the input.]

Some parents need to wake up and realise that their children are separate beings who are part of a broader society; not a parent's personal property. The books that are most frequently objected to are those that acknowledge that LGBTQ+ people exist in the world. Simple recognition of reality is not something that people need to be 'shielded' from just because they're minors.

These books aren't going to turn your kid gay, so get over it. They might just, however, play a part in saving their lives. There are many stories to that effect. Children are far more likely to be damaged by censorship and control than by having access to books.