NJ Possible wrote:
Then grow up and recognize simple percentages.
Where are all of you people when someone makes a comment about Catholic priests?
NJ Possible wrote:
Then grow up and recognize simple percentages.
Where are all of you people when someone makes a comment about Catholic priests?
No Name. This Sapce Is Blank. wrote:
I know this sounds awful, but I am beginning to get suspicious of anyone who chooses to work with kids, especially "disadvantaged" kids.
You're right, no one should have kids, especially not poor people.
That's not the topic. If you have an issue with that, then create a forum topic about the defense (or lack of defense)of Catholic priests.
Madrunner wrote:
That\'s not the topic. If you have an issue with that, then create a forum topic about the defense (or lack of defense)of Catholic priests.
Yes, it is completely unrelated.
That said, I think there is something odd about grown men who want to spend their time with young children for little money and even less respect, socially. Society is right to question the motives of \"coaches\" and \"counselors\" and other types of extracurricular leadership. I understand teaching to a certain extent - few hours, summers off, benefits - especially for lazy people, but you\'re still suspect.
Teacher = wrote:
That said, I think there is something odd about grown men who want to spend their time with young children for little money and even less respect, socially. Society is right to question the motives of "coaches" and "counselors" and other types of extracurricular leadership. I understand teaching to a certain extent - few hours, summers off, benefits - especially for lazy people, but you're still suspect.
I hope you're trolling. If not, I "suspect" you're an idiot.
Teacher = wrote:
That said, I think there is something odd about grown men who want to spend their time with young children for little money and even less respect, socially. Society is right to question the motives of "coaches" and "counselors" and other types of extracurricular leadership. I understand teaching to a certain extent - few hours, summers off, benefits - especially for lazy people, but you're still suspect.
You really don't know any teachers, do you? Or, you just don't pay attention to what they do for work. Most teachers I know work very hard, long hours. They probably work as much as any salaried person in the business world. Their vacations are well-deserved after dealing with the little shits they teach. Most that I know actually work during their vacations to improve their skills or knowledge, or simply to prepare for the upcoming year. (Side note: I am not a teacher, but I am related to a few and friends with many).
I do agree with you on one point, though: teachers and coaches do need to be screened fairly thoroughly. 99% are good-hearted people that enjoy helping kids in activities that enhance their lives. But, there are always those who prey on kids in these situations.
Teacher = wrote:
Madrunner wrote:That's not the topic. If you have an issue with that, then create a forum topic about the defense (or lack of defense)of Catholic priests.
Yes, it is completely unrelated.
That said, I think there is something odd about grown men who want to spend their time with young children for little money and even less respect, socially. Society is right to question the motives of "coaches" and "counselors" and other types of extracurricular leadership. I understand teaching to a certain extent - few hours, summers off, benefits - especially for lazy people, but you're still suspect.
So... Altruism and Charity are not valid motives to do anything anymore? These are simply masking traits of all kid touchers?
No Name. This Sapce Is Blank. wrote:
I know this sounds awful, but I am beginning to get suspicious of anyone who chooses to work with kids, especially "disadvantaged" kids.
From this guy, Sandusky and the ReVille guy from Charleston, SC, this "sector" seems to be full of sick perverts.
I apologize to anyone out there who is sincerely trying to help these poor kids. These guys just make it really hard to trust you.
A small percentage of people who go into teaching, coaching, the Catholic priesthood or other professions that deal with kids in fact do it because they are trying to get in positions where they can molest kids. The huge majority of people do it because they want to work with kids, they like the work, they just need a job, etc. As a result, things need to be set up to screen out people to begin with and to protect kids from people who get through the screening by having rules on things like one-on-one contact and so on.
However, it is really unfair to paint everyone with a broad brush because of the tiny exceptions. It's also harmful to society because we will end up with normal people avoiding working with kids because they are scared of false accusation or social stigma. A society where only secret perverts or people desperate for a paycheck work with kids will be a much worse society. So keep your suspicions rational.
I fall under the latter of the two. Yes, I am lazy, I like the kids but am not attaced to them, the benefits are good and I love my 14 weeks off each year plus my 11 days of comp time. I am a good teacher btw.
Defenders!!! wrote:
NJ Possible wrote:Then grow up and recognize simple percentages.
Where are all of you people when someone makes a comment about Catholic priests?
Catholic churches are different because they were actively covering for pedophile priests. Most priests aren't pedophiles, but it doesn't say much for the church when it shields abusers from justice.
kids ain't us wrote:
Clambake Hypnoist wrote:Say what you want, but I agree with him.
Me too. When I hear someone say "help", "work with", "coach", etc. in the context of someone else's children I'm thinking usually they really mean "grope", "have sex with", "bone", etc. But I hate other people's children so it's difficult for me to imagine actually wanting to have anything to do with any you don't have to, unlike your own.
As a teacher and a coach, I have to say these types of things all the time because I like a paycheck. I never wanted to coach, but I was "asked" to by the school board. I hate spending more time with my students, after the 3 oclock bell, it cuts into my "me time". I went into teaching because I love my subject area, but I can barely stand high school students. But I still have to put on a show and act like I love them. Geez, after posting this, I think I need to get a different job.
Freelove wrote:
Catholic churches are different because they were actively covering for pedophile priests. Most priests aren't pedophiles, but it doesn't say much for the church when it shields abusers from justice.
Unlike a school, where no one would ever sweep accusations against a coach or a teacher under the rug?
Freelove wrote:
Catholic churches are different because they were actively covering for pedophile priests. Most priests aren't pedophiles, but it doesn't say much for the church when it shields abusers from justice.
Unlike a school, where no one would ever sweep accusations against a coach or a teacher under the rug?
Well, I guess we're going to find out if a really good D1 runner can outrun the cops.
Teacher = wrote:
Madrunner wrote:That's not the topic. If you have an issue with that, then create a forum topic about the defense (or lack of defense)of Catholic priests.
Yes, it is completely unrelated.
That said, I think there is something odd about grown men who want to spend their time with young children for little money and even less respect, socially. Society is right to question the motives of "coaches" and "counselors" and other types of extracurricular leadership. I understand teaching to a certain extent - few hours, summers off, benefits - especially for lazy people, but you're still suspect.
Does the same apply to parents? There are thousands of sick fathers who sexully abuse their children. As a person who dislikes kids of all ages, I can't imagine why anyone would want to have kids, but people still do. It doesn't mean that because some kids are sexually abused by parents that all parents have kids just to diddle them.
As for teachers, at least they are getting paid to be around the little brats.
heheeandhoho wrote:
I fall under the latter of the two. Yes, I am lazy, I like the kids but am not attaced to them, the benefits are good and I love my 14 weeks off each year plus my 11 days of comp time. I am a good teacher btw.
Where do you teach that allows you 14 weeks and 11 comp days.
I get 9 weeks off....No comp days (they were made illegal by state legislator) and if you take a sick day you have to go to the doctor and get a note or you have to pay for the day (required by state legislator).
The problem may be that you have a "state Legislator" instead of Legislature. You might be giving that one legislator too much power. Or maybe teachers that know the difference have better benefits?
Can you see who paid the bond? Do the court records show that?
Like others have said, I can see this ending in suicide.
5 will get you 10 it was Wetmore.