The morons are on the march, part 42,527 (Frisco, TX edition)

The BBQ Pit
141

[QUOTE=Miller]
Well, you sure haven’t demonstrated much of the first qaulity in this thread,
[/QUOTE]

I can’t help it if you are a dumbass. But hey some of you morons act like this didn’t happen and couldn’t ever happen again in Texas.

[QUOTE=Miller]
and you’ve failed to show how the second two qualities are remotely applicable to the situation described in the OP.
[/QUOTE]

I said that she was getting a raw deal since it was an accident. Ain’t that kind like compassion?

And if you are such a moral lout that you think Lefthand’s example of a huge picture of a cunt would be art suit for fifth graders as he did in his post about his cool little museum, then you are fucked up.

142

[QUOTE=bdgr]
So, all the other kids in the class have to have a substandard education because the school is affraid of offending a few ignorant parents?
[/QUOTE]

Substandard education? This is a fucking fifth grade field trip. I beginning to think that some of y’all are weirder than whoever would their panties in a wad about this accidental exposure to some tame nude art.

You think they ought spend the second semester studying fertility goddesses and Maplethorp photos, or what? They are a bunch of little kids.

143

This is so thoroughly à côté de la traque that I don’t even have the words to express it.

When I was in grade four, we were going through a timeline of Western civilization, which included images of nude Greek statuary. There was a little spate of giggling, and the teacher blandly said, “Yes, the Greeks believed the nude body to be beautiful and artistic,” and we went on. In a public School suburban Winnipeg in 1989, when we still had the Lord’s Prayer in the morning and God Save the Queen in the afternoon, for pity’s sake.

You’re talking about “nudity” as if they’re looking at Playboy or Basic Instinct, for hell’s sake. Are you familiar at all with the concept of the nude in fine art? How it’s presented for the appreciation of form, the artistic composition of the human body? It’s practically a cliché that fine art has nudes in it.

If this or this or this or this makes you blush or stammer or go into a moral panic, it really says something about your own, and these folks’ own prurient interest that your first reaction to a fine art nude is OH MY GOD I SAW A WOO-WOO.

At some point, some doctor is going to invent a way for babies to be born with clothes on, and he’s going to be hailed as a hero by the same loopy-ass segment of society that thinks that art can or should be taught without ever coming into contact with a statue or painting of a nude.

144

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
Not seeing Greek statues with little peckers and female boobies on field trip while a pre-pubescent male, doesn’t really stunt a childhood IMO.

I’ve seen bulls killed on the slaughter floor. It is just normal, everyday things. Not art.

A bullfight with its beautiful pageantry, costumes, animals, and display of human and animal skill that I and others find to be art.
[/QUOTE]

Not seeing peckers and boobies doesn’t stunt anyones childhool. But it’s pretty damn difficult to avoid a few pecker and boobies if you’re if your goning to have any knowledge of the history of art. The human form, for more reasons than I could write on this bandwidth, has alway been a theme for art. It at least you mean you hadn’t been to a decent museum in your childhood. That’s what I’m sorry about.

Beyond that, yeah, death is normal. So is sex. You still haven’t made a good argument for hiding one from chillren and not the other. I think I would FAR more tramatitised seeing adults killing an animal for…beautiful pageantry than I would seeing them having sex.

Of course they weren’t were they?

Were they? Oh, yeah no.

And you still didn’t aswer my question.

145

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
I can’t help it if you are a dumbass. But hey some of you morons act like this didn’t happen and couldn’t ever happen again in Texas.
[/quote]

Of course, not one person in this thread has said anything remotely similar to this. Yes, it happened. No one had denied this. Yes, on some level, you have to expect things like this to happen, because frequently, very stupid people have children and then send them to school. What’s both surprising and objectionable in this situation is the way the school caved immediately and fired the teacher over it, instead of defending her entirely appropriate (and administration-approved) actions.

That you have to continue to return to this and other strawmen in this debate is ample evidence of the absolute vacuousness of your position.

Sure, but you still haven’t shown how this was at all relevenat to the OP, as anyone with half a brain would expect there to be a fair amount of nudity in a major art museum.

Note, once again, that your assumption to the contrary again bespeaks your singular failure to exhibit anything approaching intelligence in this thread.

And that would be the other strawman. If you want to present yourself as a model of either intelligence or morality, you’d do much to achieve that goal if you’d stop misrepresenting what other posters have said. You’re either doing it out of ignorance of what he actually said, thus demonstrating (again) your own idiocy, or you are doing it deliberatly, thus demonstrating your lack of morals. I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in these sorts of situations, I can never figure out if assuming someone is stupid is better or worse than assuming someone is dishonest.

146

Is this a correct summary of your position, Unregistered Bull?

Parents should have a great deal of control over what their child is exposed to by agents of the government in the form of public school teachers. The parents were not fully informed, and thus not capable of giving informed consent. Therefor the parent has a justified complaint.

147

[QUOTE=Miller]
her entirely appropriate (and administration-approved) actions.
[/quote]

From the editorial linked in the OP, it appears it was not only administrator approved, but administrator initiated.

(Bolding mine.)

Presuming that to be accurate, this situation is even more absurd.

And, I point out again, because of the ridiculous claims of sexual immorality surrounding the nudes, a lot of them will be religious in nature.

148

[QUOTE=betenoir]
I think I would FAR more tramatitised seeing adults killing an animal for…beautiful pageantry than I would seeing them having sex.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Who has more mental and social problems? Children grossly exposed to sexuality (as opposed to walking in once or something like that) or ones that have seen a bullfight? Clearly, it’s the over sexualized children. I don’t think that anyone has made a connection between this old art form and any abnormal behaviour.

[QUOTE=betenoir]
Of course they weren’t were they?

Were they? Oh, yeah no.

And you still didn’t aswer my question.
[/QUOTE]

What the fuck are you talking about? No one said anything about traumatization from seeing art.

149

URB, the first rule of holes is if you find yourself in one, STOP DIGGING!

150

[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Is this a correct summary of your position, Unregistered Bull?

Parents should have a great deal of control over what their child is exposed to by agents of the government in the form of public school teachers. The parents were not fully informed, and thus not capable of giving informed consent. Therefor the parent has a justified complaint.
[/QUOTE]

Hell, I’ve been arguing for so long and going off tangent in replying to posts that I don’t hardly know any more. :o :smiley: I think that could be the jist of it.

Nude art is contraversial, even tame stuff, for fifth graders, especially in Texas which has it’s fair share of social conservatives. They played with fire and got burned.

151

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
URB, the first rule of holes is if you find yourself in one, STOP DIGGING!
[/QUOTE]

Actually I’m filling it in. The hole is just so Goddamn deep that it appears to be a futile effort. :smiley:

152

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
This is so thoroughly à côté de la traque that I don’t even have the words to express it.

When I was in grade four, we were going through a timeline of Western civilization, which included images of nude Greek statuary. There was a little spate of giggling, and the teacher blandly said, “Yes, the Greeks believed the nude body to be beautiful and artistic,” and we went on. In a public School suburban Winnipeg in 1989, when we still had the Lord’s Prayer in the morning and God Save the Queen in the afternoon, for pity’s sake.

You’re talking about “nudity” as if they’re looking at Playboy or Basic Instinct, for hell’s sake. Are you familiar at all with the concept of the nude in fine art? How it’s presented for the appreciation of form, the artistic composition of the human body? It’s practically a cliché that fine art has nudes in it.

If this or this or this or this makes you blush or stammer or go into a moral panic, it really says something about your own, and these folks’ own prurient interest that your first reaction to a fine art nude is OH MY GOD I SAW A WOO-WOO.

At some point, some doctor is going to invent a way for babies to be born with clothes on, and he’s going to be hailed as a hero by the same loopy-ass segment of society that thinks that art can or should be taught without ever coming into contact with a statue or painting of a nude.
[/QUOTE]

That reminds me of the radio personality, Dr. Dean Edell, who points out that circa 1900 anatomy books had FIG LEAVES over the genital parts of the drawings.

But, even more, it reminds me of the most prudish fundie man I have met in my life. I once teased him about the fact that babies were born naked. He took the bait and actually wondered out loud why God did not arrange for them to be born with some kind of covering.

I mean, babies, for God’s sake!

True Blue Jack

153

[QUOTE=Miller]
Ever hear of the Lactation of Saint Bernard?

[/QUOTE]

Damn, at first I thought that was a photoshopped picture! snicker

Seriously, I’m sure that the photo of a woman’s pubic region was probably tastefully done-I doubt it was an up close and pornographic shot.

Jesus, Unregistered Bull, you haven’t even SEEN the photo in question, but somehow you just know it was “inappropriate”?

:dubious:

154

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Damn, at first I thought that was a photoshopped picture! snicker

Seriously, I’m sure that the photo of a woman’s pubic region was probably tastefully done-I doubt it was an up close and pornographic shot.

Jesus, Unregistered Bull, you haven’t even SEEN the photo in question, but somehow you just know it was “inappropriate”?

:dubious:
[/QUOTE]

We’re talking fifth graders. :rolleyes: No, I don’t think that is appropriate for fifth graders.

155

Why? I’m assuming it was a straight shot, simply of her pubic region, her thighs and her belly. What’s so bad about that?

Hell, do you think my parents should have forbid me from flipping through National Geographic as a kid because there were photographs that contained nudity?

156

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
So if they all went for a mass nude bath, you think that should be ok with the parents?
[/QUOTE]
Heaven forfend. Where did you get ‘mass nude bath’ from ‘taking his bath’? Were the statues mass nude bathing? My singular point was that kids have tatas and naynays and they see them every day, with absolutely no sexual context. So I’ll ask again, what is sexual about nude statues?

157

[QUOTE=True Blue Jack]
That reminds me of the radio personality, Dr. Dean Edell, who points out that circa 1900 anatomy books had FIG LEAVES over the genital parts of the drawings.
[/QUOTE]

This here is from a plaque that was included as part of the Pioneer 10 space probe, the first man-made device to escape the solar system. It was included on the (extremely) off-hand chance that the probe might be intercepted by an alien civilization. Notice anything missing from the female figure? Wouldn’t want to go offending the sensibilities of any space aliens that might stumble across it, would we?

158

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Why? I’m assuming it was a straight shot, simply of her pubic region, her thighs and her belly. What’s so bad about that?
[/QUOTE]

Everyone’s morals are different. I don’t think that is appropriate for fifth graders to look at. This constant pushing of acceptable boundaries of nudity and sexuality by the hip and cool toward young minor children is something that makes me not feel so bad when something tame inflames the shit out of some parent and a head rolls. It seems that folks just have to keep pushing the envelope here. How about some Goddamn respect for letting individual parents decide?

159

[QUOTE=Unregistered Bull]
Substandard education? This is a fucking fifth grade field trip. I beginning to think that some of y’all are weirder than whoever would their panties in a wad about this accidental exposure to some tame nude art.

You think they ought spend the second semester studying fertility goddesses and Maplethorp photos, or what? They are a bunch of little kids.
[/QUOTE]

No, but if none of the children can ever go to an art museum…and any art museum in any major city in the US is going to have nudes scattered throughout it…then yes the kids are getting are going to get a substandard education.

160

[QUOTE=bdgr]
No, but if none of the children can ever go to an art museum…and any art museum in any major city in the US is going to have nudes scattered throughout it…then yes the kids are getting are going to get a substandard education.
[/QUOTE]

None? Surely at least some can attend with parents or by themselves when they are older.