No, you fucking moron, YOU brought in the sex stuff.
Your very first post in this thread included this line:
But, of course, you didn’t say anything about sex.
I probably shouldn’t have resorted to this, but I’m rather tired of Unregistered Bull’s dodging, weaving, strawmanning, and out and out lying in this thread.
The art bit was a joke, son.* You do realize that most of the thread wasn’t really even about the OP? But about how someone could find nude art, especially an example of nude art featuring a huge photograph of a nude woman’s pubic area inappropriate for fith grade (10 year olds) students. And that some people might not even imagine nude art being at a museum for which a fifth grade field trip was planned. And it sure seemed like folks were acting like they were hipper and cooler in their dismissiveness of what I thought was plain common sense and widely held attitudes. I went further off topic :o in using a legitimate art, bull fighting, that I thought might offend some here as an analogy where folks could find some art objectionable for young minor children (this went nowhere nor do I think that it is bad for children or in any sensible person’s view, immoral). As to the OP, I’ve said that it sounds like the teacher is getting a raw deal, but that really should have been expected and could easily have been rememedied with a slightly more detailed permission slip. I don’t feel that a majority gives you moral superiority. It gives you power for sure. Just look at all the complainers of Texas schools on this thread. A lot of their complaints are not majority held views.
*This line is also a joke.
No I didn’t. Fucking moron.
Your posts are here for all to see, you ass.
YOU were the first person to make any claims of sex in this thread. If you hadn’t claimed there was something sexually immoral about nude art, there would be no discussions of sex in this thread.
But, again, dodging, weaving, and outright lying.
I don’t know if you’re kidding or not, but so? It’s pretty tame. Absolutely nothing wrong with it.
I don’t believe the children in question viewed such a photograph
Only a totallay ignorant person would not know that such art would be in museum. Since children going to art museums is the norm in this country, and those museums having nudes is the norm, then there is no reason for the district to react.
Had nothing to do with hip or cool…again kids have been going to art museums for as long as anyone can remember. Widley held attitudes? by who, the ataliban? I grew up in Fort Worth, a very conservative right wing city, my parents were baptist seminary proffesors, I come from about as conservative a background as is possible this side of utah and still I find the idea that parents wouldnt know there were nudes and that anyone would object to an art gallery trip so absurd as to be laughable
I dont think Mr bull here realizes that we can scroll back and see what he typed before
I have to admit, I don’t see at all why Unregistered Bull is defending … anything here.
Here’s the series of events (as near as I can make out)
[ol]
[li]Teacher gets field trip approved by principal.[/li][li]Teacher sends home field trip permission slips telling parents 5th graders are going to the Dallas Museum of Art; said slips are returned and away they go. (The DMA is a really good MoA, btw).[/li][li]Kids goto DMA, and see a few works involving nude or semi-nude humans. Having been to DMA, I can honestly tell you that, unless things have really changed there, it’s not a very controversial MoA. Not a whole lot of Pollock, Leichtenstein, etc.[/li][li]Parents get uppity about the nudes seen while on this trip.[/li][li]Parents complain that they did not know about the presense of the nude works; TPTB in the school district fire the teacher.[/li][li]We are now on the 5th page of a thread wherein one person seems to be defending, if not the final result, then the people who brought about the result and that mentality.[/li][/ol]
Please correct me if I’m wrong in any of the above.
From what I can tell, Unregistered Bull seems mostly to be defending his position that the parents reasonably might not know that there would be works of art involving nudes at the museum. My response would be:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SO FUCKING WHAT?
If they were so absolutely paranoid that poor Johnny and Jane would be traumatized by seeing ARTWORK in a FUCKING museum, then they should have checked the FUCKING museum for any exposed flesh that would harm their poor special spawn. They signed off on the field trip perm slip. They knew exactly where the kids were going. Countless other children have gone into this museum and returned unscathed. What in the bloody-blue-fuck gives these parents a moral right to demand the firing of a teacher who has done nothing more than taking kids to an art museum? If seeing nude artwork would be something that offends their morals, then they should have had the brains to NOT ALLOW THEIR CHILDREN TO GO IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.
Secondly, why THE FUCK are TPTB of that school district even listening to these retards? If the parents did not have the brains to suspect that there might be nude or semi-nude artwork in the DMA, TPTB should have told them, “We’re really sorry that your child saw something that offends you. Thousands of schoolchildren go to this museum for field trips every year. Thousands of adults go on their own time. How you managed to grow up not knowing what would be in an art museum is both incredible and quite frankly hard to imagine. We are not about to admonish this teacher for doing her job.”
Unless there is something drastic that is being hidden from the stories, all this breaks down to is a bunch of ignorant, easily offended, “moral” people throwing a hissy fit and having town officials caving in a most cowardly way.
Apologies for taking it that way, then, elderly dude. 
No, that was what your posts were about. Most of the thread was about the OP and the OP’s case; it was mostly you who went off on that little side trip.
“Some people”, in this case, is you and the parents of the kid in question. Two or three people.
Hey, they weren’t dismissing plain common sense and widely held attitudes; they were just disagreeing on what constituted plaing common sense and widely held attitudes. And it sure seems like you were acting like you were smarter and less shallow in your dismissiveness of them.
I’d say bullfighting’s a sport, myself, but that’s just my opinion. And seeing as how it went nowhere, does that not give you a clue that you might be getting the wrong end of the stick as to what others are saying in this thread?
Why was the permission slip needed? Only two people, you and the parent, weren’t aware that a museum would likely contain arts showing nudes. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that most people would automatically think a museum contained nudes; thus, not having a specific permission form is reasonable. It would be like having a permission slip for a trip to a theme park warning parents there might be rollercoasters; well, duh, of course there are!
I don’t feel that a majority gives you moral superiority either. I do think that generally when a vast, amount of people hold a different belief to you own that their point is worth checking out, though. It doesn’t mean they’re right - merely that it’s worth consideration.
You’ve used this word several times (as well as “pussy”…do you have something against the word “vagina”?) and yet you have no idea what the artwork in question looks like. If it’s in a regular art museum, I’ll bet it’s very tasteful. What did a vagina do to you that makes you so distainful toward them all?
Georgia O’Keefe paintings must make you very nervous.
That was my point.
Whew… Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system…
There’s something either veerrrryyy fishy or verrrryyy stupid going on here. If the article is mostly accurate, Ms. McGee should have a very good case for a lot more than one year’s salary. (28 years experience, right? She should be approaching retirement. If this impacts her ability to collect, she has every right to sue for not just her salary for the year, but any moneys she would have obtained down the road. AFAIK, anyway.) That money would be coming straight from the school’s or town’s coffers, wouldn’t it? Why would the administartion risk that over (what seems to be from the article) one parent’s (or possibly two) complaint?
I say, look for more of the story coming out regarding either the teacher or some altercation between the teacher and the administration, or the coming lawsuit.
Two points that I think are important missing:
-
The fact that the parents of exactly ONE child complained. Out of 89 children involved in this particular trip, and many more who’ve done the tour in other groups. So one of the defenses of the suspension and firing are nonsense - either she didn’t ‘stupidly’ go against the area’s prevailing morality or the majority of the parents in the area who would object to their kids being exposed artistic nudity know that such art is likely to be found in a museum and thus refused to let their children go, so it’s not really reasonable to believe that these parents WOULDN’T realise it.
-
The fact that in response to the reaction to the suspension, the school apparently invented ‘earlier’ infractions to explain it. Which is just underhanded.
(Not a criticism of your post, of course…you’re quite right in everything you said…I just think those two points are important, too.)
Seriously - do yourself a favor and check out an art museum. Not a gallery, not public stuff - go find a museum (or even just look through the Dallas Museum of Art website that was provided earlier by mhendo. I’ve been to a few and wouldn’t expect to see anything from the first link unless it was a special exhibit (except for the lone nude statue) and I wouldn’t expect to see anything from the second link unless at a special exhibit or a modern museum.
I’m tired of him doing it, period-this isn’t the first time he’s pulled shit like this.
Sometimes I feel badly for individuals in a thread who seem to be overlooked/ignored in their ideas, as the debate swirls on around them and the back-and-forth passes them by. That’s because I then I see the others where one person (like good ol’ UB here) completely monopolizes everything, bringing the focus to whatever inanity spewed and strawman they desire to push and letting the actual real content matter flutter to the side, like so much fluff, while emphasis is wasted on fighting his/her idiotic thesis. However, a revelation then strikes… perhaps the occasional invisible poster is infinitely better. Og knows that would be preferable than the obvious waste.
For at least then, honest conversation may ensue. Addressing the issues instead of pandering to trolling. In my opinion, of course, and as an observer of many an instance where this seems to be the gleeful goal (IE: something sought after very early on versus just a vague happenstance) of certain participants. Especially of the wishy-washy, proud-to-be-willfully-obtuse variety.
~faithfool, who is definitely NOT a parent, not cool or hip, nor thinks body parts should be described in mocking, derogatory terms for emphasis to make non-existent points – yep, from the same third grade class that took me to see a Pompeii exhibit in the mid 70s (can we say penis galore??!), and is also the very one that helped to cement my usage of the word ‘vagina’ rather than something gleamed from a playground, like pussy – I suppose aiming for being an adult over an adolescent is to strive for, right?
/steps off soapbox
Hmm, slaughtering animals is “art”, but an artistic depiction the human vulva is just a “pussy picture” of a “cunt” in Unregistered Bull’s eyes.
Dude, If thy eyes offend thee, rip them out of your otherwise empty and worthless skull.
Well, since they’re just “(somewhat offensive euphemism for breasts) pictures” of “(offensive euphemism for breasts)” and not “pussy pictures” of a “cunts” I can’t see you having a problem with them.
BTW, nice little “troll”, post a probably NSFW link, (after making it clear that you know both the rule, and that the link can be posted in a disabled manner (Post 178) and if you get called on it by a mod you can claim that it proves your point that not all “art” is acceptable for public viewing.
(of course the whole point of NSFW has little to do with the content of the material being viewed, it’s the time and place it’s being viewed. The cool new online version of solitaire isn’t safe for work either, 'cause bosses tend to want their employees to do actual work when they’re on the clock)
CMC fnord!
You don’t have to go to Europe for public nude artwork.
My town, it isn’t fantastic art but it’s not bad and I’m really glad it’s there. I think Ashcroft had people like UB in mind when he bought those expensive drapes to cover up the statue in the Justice Department… and made us a laughingstock. The human form is beautiful and has been admired and studied since the begining of human history, knowing the basics of fine art is essential to a decent education. I went to a private catholic school and rest assured I saw ALOT of fantastic art featuring the nude body from an early age… SOME of it religious. This whole thing is just unbelievable and in no world should that poor woman have been fired.
Yeah, good point. I was rather startled by UB’s contention that there are no public works of art that contain nudity anywhere in Texas. No where in the entire state is there so much as a single naked tit on a statue in a public space? I find that highly unlikely.