Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 224
  1. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    1. It was no boast. I've examined the scene very closely for academic reasons, and she's extremely uncomfortable.

    2. She was using a pseudonym. No boast.

    3. "Employed" seems pushing it. Her actual employment was later. Most teachers first gigs is as some kind of barely paid, barely employed substitute. There's no contradiction there.
    She wasn't a substitute at the time. She was a full time teacher working in a California school district.

    You're twisting the story (or you haven't followed it nearly as close as you say you have) to suit your argument.

  2. #52

    Default

    I'm not twisting any story, I'm just engaging with the smoke screens you guys are throwing up.

    At the end of the day, all your arguments are reasons for why she may be questionable. But the fact is, she was hired, and her performance is not at issue. She proved she could do the job, and as such, should be allowed to keep the job.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  3. #53

    Default

    That's not how the real world works Juggz.

    There's LOTS AND LOTS of people who can be a teacher. Lots. Especially in California where you don't actually teach, you just regurgitate sh1t from a textbook so that your students can memorize it to pass a test.

    However, school districts have to limit liabilities in any way possible. In this case - this teacher was lieing about a job she had (omissions are lies - especially on the job applications for CUSDs). That's grounds for dismissal. It's not just porn, she worked as an escort (both legally in Nevada and illegally in California).

    But, for the sake of argument, let's say that she did porn BEFORE she was a teacher and it was "innocent porn" (as in - she wasn't an escort or prostitute). I realize you think everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy is a bible thumping Christian who hates all things progressive - but bare with me for a moment (pun intended). Someone involved in the porn industry who then wants to work in a field as delicate as teaching children has to realize that there are some risks involved. If the students find out about her past, a simple "just address it, use it as a teaching tool" isn't going to work. For one, there are no "teaching tools" in the California public school system. Secondly, by subjecting students to that (once one finds out - all of them find out), it puts people's kids in a position where they are subjected to material that they may not want them to be subjected to. Whether you think that's a "patriarchal society" or not is irrelevant - people are allowed to raise their children however they wish. When that right is taken from them by the school (whom the teacher becomes a representative of by working there) - it puts the school at liability. That, right there, is enough to fire someone.

    Now, I can guarantee you that the "innocent porn girl" is the VAST VAST minority of these people. It's an incredibly sleezy business where people cannot make enough money by just doing "one or two quick films". It resorts to having sex with strangers for money (which, btw, is illegal in California).

    In this particular case - she lied about what she was doing, and continued to lie about it after she was caught until she decided to fight it in court. There's no excuse for it and she should be fired.

    Now, back to the hypothetical innocent porn girl. If she discloses it up front and the school district decides to take on that liability (who knows if they do or not, maybe they dont) - then I'd be ok with her teaching my son or daughter. I would NOT be ok with it otherwise, nor would I keep someone on my staff if they were dealing with kids on a consistent basis and had lied about it. There's simply too much risk and liability there.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulldogWrestler View Post
    That's not how the real world works Juggz.
    Is ought/fallacy on your part.

    There's LOTS AND LOTS of people who can be a teacher. Lots. Especially in California where you don't actually teach, you just regurgitate sh1t from a textbook so that your students can memorize it to pass a test.
    False. And besides the point of "can teach", she did teach. A qualified experienced teacher > a potential replacement, just on merit of experiencing alone.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulldogWrestler View Post
    In this particular case - she lied about what she was doing, and continued to lie about it after she was caught until she decided to fight it in court. There's no excuse for it and she should be fired.
    No excuse for her trying to get a job? Wow. That's truly disgusting. Not only do you want her fired, but now you victimize her again by not letting her fight back?

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  6. #56

    Default

    Except it isn't. Familiarize yourself with the California school system. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of experienced teachers who were laid off due to budget cuts in various districts going all over the state looking for work.

    Lots of them haven't lied on their resume I'm sure, and lots of them didn't participate in criminal activity (prostitution in California).

    So there are tons of qualified, experienced replacements - if your argument is that she was the best for the job. I can all but guarantee that she wasn't.

  7. #57

    Default

    Let's keep busting up this army of weaksauce strawmen and softballs conjured up by bulldogwrestler:

    Quote Originally Posted by BulldogWrestler View Post
    But, for the sake of argument, let's say that she did porn BEFORE she was a teacher and it was "innocent porn" (as in - she wasn't an escort or prostitute). I realize you think everyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy is a bible thumping Christian who hates all things progressive - but bare with me for a moment (pun intended). Someone involved in the porn industry who then wants to work in a field as delicate as teaching children has to realize that there are some risks involved. If the students find out about her past, a simple "just address it, use it as a teaching tool" isn't going to work.
    These are the same arguments used by your fellow bible-thumping bigots to try to keep lesbians, trannsexuals, "promiscuous women" out of school. It's nonsense. Her past has NO BUSINESS being considered. Period, full stop, none. She teaches 6th graders, the chances of them finding out means:

    THEY WERE ALREADY WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY!!! SHE EXPOSED THEM TO NOTHING. THATS WHAT GETTING FOUND OUT MEANS. SHE IS NO THREAT TO YOUR CHILD, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY "FAILED" YOUR CHILD.

    I also outlined a series of steps as to how this whole thing is easily avoidable (pseudonym).

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    No excuse for her trying to get a job? Wow. That's truly disgusting. Not only do you want her fired, but now you victimize her again by not letting her fight back?
    She wasn't fired for doing porn. She was fired for not disclosing it and then lieing about it when confronted. Familiarize yourself with the case. For someone who has delved down so far into this and got the details on it - you're really clueless.

    I haven't even done a ton of research on this case - I just see it on the news all the time over here.

    Yes, there's no excuse. The school district that hired her shouldn't have to hire her back and any new job she may choose to pursue can weigh the pros/cons of hiring her just as they would anyone else.

    She can fight back all she wants - I just don't believe that her previous employer should be forced to give her a second chance.

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulldogWrestler View Post
    Except it isn't. Familiarize yourself with the California school system. There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of experienced teachers who were laid off due to budget cuts in various districts going all over the state looking for work.
    Not science teachers there aren't. Familiarize yourself with the education system, and basic economics.

    Lots of them haven't lied on their resume I'm sure, and lots of them didn't participate in criminal activity (prostitution in California).
    Being an escort isn't criminal (there's a legal distinction between that and prostitution). Escorts even provide a major source of tax revenue for states, and can be written off on corporate expense accounts. Familiarize yourself with the legal system.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    8,704

    Default

    All i know is that at 12 or 13, if I had a hot teacher who I could see naked whenever I got home, I certainly wouldn't be getting much work done in class

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •