'Pornographic' children's book BANNED from local school district

[durablend]

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

"They were asked what do you feel might be the result of viewing or reading this material, and their answer was, 'Children may come to the conclusion that looking at nudity is OK, and therefore pornography is OK,'" he said. "The parents asked us to review this book because their concern was parents should have the right to decide whether or not their children view this book."

[redqueen]

1. Did anyone say the book was pornographic or is that just a way to get clicks?

It's stupid enough what those people are doing without you Daily Mailing / Fox Newsing the title, don't you think?

[MH1]

6. Before you jump all over the poster (oops, too late) you might consider that ...

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]

8. And the TV station doubtless put BANNED in all caps too...

Sorry, the OP is hysteria-mongering.

[MH1]

15. Hysteria about what, books being banned from schools.

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]

11. How did I "jump all over" them?

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]

14. I interpreted the "you" in your post as being directed at the poster:

"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]

17. It's not an affiliate coded link

...and nobody gets paid for impressions, so what is your point about "clicks"?

[Arkansas Granny]

2. OMG, OMG, OMG!!! Oh, wait a minute. What am I supposed to find offensive here?

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]

3. How about teaching the difference between nudity and porn?

So stupid.

[cthulu2016]

4. Is it the OP's view that this book is porngraphic?

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]

16. Did you read the article?

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]

5. OMG, NEKKID!

[knitter4democracy]

7. So, the character takes a bath, and that's porn?

People need to lighten up. Kids don't know nudity is "bad" until they're taught that it is.

[durablend]

9. Edited the title

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]

10. "The book received numerous awards,

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]

12. Annville-Cleona is a pretty fucked up district to begin with. No shock here.

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. Some translations of the Bible have been banned at times. These clowns didn't think up anything new

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]

18. Because the human body is icky and filthy and gross, so we must hide it at all times.

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]

19. These idiots are judging children by their own depraved, twisted minds

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.