General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums'Pornographic' children's book BANNED from local school district
I originally posted this in the PA forum but figured everyone would like to see it. These are the kind of regressives we're up against, folks.
http://www.ldnews.com/ci_20436349/c-board-votes-remove-dirty-cowboy-book-from?source=most_viewed
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It's stupid enough what those people are doing without you Daily Mailing / Fox Newsing the title, don't you think?
MH1
(17,600 posts)news websites OFTEN change their headlines from whatever it was originally posted as, without any notice or record of the change appearing on the site. (Some will change the article content as well.)
Given the following line in the article:
"Houser clarified earlier reports and said the parents never referred to the book as pornography."
I'm guessing the OP here merely quoted the headline as it appeared at the time they posted it. Maybe, maybe not (only the poster can say), but I think there's enough evidence that perhaps your accusatory tone isn't warranted. Just saying.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Sorry, the OP is hysteria-mongering.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Yeah, I see no reason to be up in arms about that at all.
p.s. the poster called the people banning the book "regressives". They're not being "hysterical" about the content of the book, but about those regressives banning a book from the school library because one set of parents is worried about the kid seeing partial nudity and somehow concluding from that that pornography is ok.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I asked if it was said or done for attention, and then asked if they agreed that that kind of spin was unnecessary and stupid.
MH1
(17,600 posts)"It's stupid enough what those people are doing without you Daily Mailing / Fox Newsing the title ...."
I read that as you assuming the poster called the book "pornographic" on their own.
If I misread your post, my apologies.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...and nobody gets paid for impressions, so what is your point about "clicks"?
Arkansas Granny
(31,518 posts)I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that many of the same parents who found this "nudity" offensive would have no problem with their kids playing violent video games.
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)So stupid.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Or just making stuff up? The article never says it's pornographic, which makes it mysterious why "pornographic" is in the headline in quotes.
MH1
(17,600 posts)the people who complained about the book are equating the partial nudity in the book with pornography. The poster is merely reporting their idiocy.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)knitter4democracy
(14,350 posts)People need to lighten up. Kids don't know nudity is "bad" until they're taught that it is.
durablend
(7,460 posts)Wasn't meant as my implication, but rather that of the school board (and those parents) that made the broad brush of innocent nudity somehow = pornography (which they conveniently backed away from)
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)including the International Reading Association award in 2004, the Parents Choice Gold Medal, and the Bulletin Blue Ribbon from the Bulletin for the Center for Children's Books."
But none of that matters to these talibornagain frootloops.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)On Edit: I believe it was about 8 years ago that they banned "In the Night Kitchen" because of a little penis in one of the pictures.
davsand
(13,421 posts)I feel sorry for the kids.
The adults, on the other hand, elected this crew of idiots to the school board. For that reason all by itself they should be ashamed. There will be an even bigger reason for shame if they re-elect a single one of these people. Book challenges and book banning are nothing new, nor are they peculiar to any region or philosophy--never forget that the liberal side has been equally stupid with challenges to books like Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer.
Stupid is legion.
Laura
DutchLiberal
(5,744 posts)Imagine a child seeing a completely natural naked body! Who knows what trauma's that would cause? Luckily, we're here to protect the children so they may, too, grow up with a backward and suppressed sexual moral.
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)People who think children who look at nudity in the context of taking a bath would amount to looking at pornography must either be closeted pedophiles or porn addicts themselves.
What are we supposed to do? Take a bath with our clothes on?
The only reason these morons on this school board banned "The Dirty Cowboy" is that every member has a dirty mind.