Teacher told students to call pedophiles 'minor attracted persons'

submitted by meisthebigdumbTransracial BlackX Rockgender Bispecies from dailymail.co.uk

all 27 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Adventurous_Ad6212 13 insightful - 6 fun13 insightful - 5 fun14 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

I propose we call them target practice.

[–]ClassroomPast6178 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Check her hard drives.

[–]bife_de_lomo 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Get to the chipper!

[–]ClassroomPast6178 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

F’ing genius.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I like to give these secret recording Tik To targets the benefit of a doubt but.

"We're gonna call them MAPs, minor attracted persons. So don't judge people just because they wanna have sex with a five-year-old."

Yeah I don't see what context makes this better.

My two cents anyone being this defensive of pedophiles either she is one herself or her husband is one and she is trying to cover for him. Just absolutely bizzare that this is said at all.

Being fired should be followed up with a full legal investigation. She has kids and if they are being abused that needs to be investigated as well.

I absolutely will judge people who want to have sex with five year olds with pejorative terms. I'll give some credit where credit is due that the people who realize themselves how fucked that is and remove themselves from any kind of contact with children to avoid being abjectly evil people. But for those that do rape children the legal penalty for that should be death by immolation.

[–]IMissPorn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

From the article:

It wasn't clear in what context the discussion had been taking place, however students have said it was all part of a class debate as they prepared to read The Crucible.

That actually might explain it. It wouldn't be terribly unusual for a teacher to take a position they don't really believe in for the sake of getting students engaged in a debate.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Yes but what's the debate context? If you watch the video it's pretty clear by her tone that she's upset with this kid of calling a pedophile a pedophile which is weird as fuck.

Devil's advocate is an important position to take in the development of debate but I fail to see at all how it's appropriate to debate not stigmatizing pedophiles with a bunch of minors. Especially when the person making that argument is the adult.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but the Crucible doesn't really have pedophilia as a theme does it? If it does how the fuck is it appropriate for this age range as a class project.

There's basically no way this looks good.

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Devil's advocate is an important position to take in the development of debate but I fail to see at all how it's appropriate to debate not stigmatizing pedophiles with a bunch of minors.

I mean, it's high school, it's not like they were young kids. Still, even if this is what happened it's very questionable judgement, but not as bad as it looks from the clip with no context.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

A fair point however I'll maintain I can't really think of a context where this is appropriate for a teacher. The only real context this would be appropriate to say is mockery, but even then it's inappropriate for the venue.

The apparent situation is that the teacher got upset that someone called a pedophile a pedophile and demanded they not judge people for wanting to have sex with a 5 year old. I fail to comprehend any context where this was a reasonable thing to say in the terms of debate? Were they debating whether or not it's ok to have sex with a 5 year old? That's disturbing and also would be an inappropriate debate for any school teacher to engage in.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If I was going to give devil's advocate for the terms of debate, MAYBE I could see it coming up as a "gotcha" of "Oh, you claim you're so progressive and you support equal rights for everyone...but you think pedophiles are objectively evil? You just showed there's groups you are intolerant of as well; what REALLY makes you so different than the people in the Salem Witch Trials?"...but even then, there's far, far better ways to go about it ("You claim to support tolerance of everyone...what about the people who disagree with you?")

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People seem to be claiming it's basically that. I'm not sure but I'm not there so it's a possibility. Still incredibly stupid to mention pedophilia in a school environment unless its in the context of stranger danger or "report to the proper authorities if you see abuse".

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly; and even if it's the claim I made for that, it ignores that discrimination is not okay if the person has not done anything to deserve that discrimination. But once they HAVE done something evil to deserve discrimination, then it's open season because they proved they deserve it. (This plays the role in pedophiles: If someone realizes the attraction and tries to fight it, they haven't DONE anything yet and are trying not to, so let them be...but if they do act on it? All the discrimination. They did something unforgivable and deserve it at that point.)

[–]IMissPorn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I honestly can't imagine saying "don't judge people for wanting to have sex with a 5 year old" in any context except mockery... like if that was really your position wouldn't you put it a little more tactfully? I donno though, it's a weird situation absolutely, but I don't feel like I'm getting the whole story.

[–]alladd 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

fine. i'll just have to scream "fucking MAP" as hard and as ugly as possible until it becomes a slur for pedophiles too.

one way or another you're fucking kids. it's not a PR issue.

[–]iamonlyoneman 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This sentiment is the thing here: if you call them MAP then MAP will become a slur just like pedo is a slur . . .because pedos deserve slurs and everyone knows it except them and their enablers

[–]cephyrious 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

The school she worked at is "home of the cougars" :D :D :D

[–]FlyingKangaroo 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I propose to call this teacher a perv enabler.

[–]wylanderuk 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I can see the logic behind making a distinction between having the attraction and not acting on it and having the attraction and acting on it.

What I can't see is how to do it without is how to do it without providing cover to the woodchipper fodder that act on it.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's good reason here for medical privacy laws for people who need to see a psychiatrist or need to get castrated. No need to publicly state the reason behind it to everyone if no crime had occurred.

But the instant you've got someone in a position of authority making statements publicly like "Don't judge people just because they want to have sex with a 5 year old" yeah you shouldn't be anywhere near education. Like you absolutely should judge people who want to have sex with a 5 year old as evil. And if you don't, that means you are also evil and will be judged accordingly.

[–]wylanderuk 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But the instant you've got someone in a position of authority making statements publicly like "Don't judge people just because they want to have sex with a 5 year old" yeah you shouldn't be anywhere near education.

Agreed...

Like you absolutely should judge people who want to have sex with a 5 year old as evil. And if you don't, that means you are also evil and will be judged accordingly.

Thats where I somewhat disagree, they act on it? Yeah up against the wall they go, they don't? Then no.

Thier urges are abhorrent, no ifs no buts and if they act on them? They should be removed from society in a permeant manner be it locked up for life or executed. If they don't act on it or take steps like chemical castration, they may have evil urges but they have not moved into the realm of being evil.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If there are these hypothetical pedophiles that don't act on it then they are for all intents and purposes to the rest of society not pedophiles since we can't read minds. Schrodinger's pedophile?

Someone merely saying "Don't judge people for wanting to have sex with 5 year olds." Isn't and should not be "illegal" falls under free speech as distasteful as it is. But it is definitely speech that any reasonable person shouldn't tolerate as normal and I'd argue is absolutely evidence that the person in question lacks good judgement and is unfit for any position of authority. But if course they've yet to commit a crime so arrest isn't possible. But I'd watch them very closely.

This isn't much different than discussing something like murder. If the teacher said something like "Don't judge people just because they want to kill niggers." I'd have the same thing to say. You're not a murderer yet, but if you go around talking about how you want to commit genocide on people, yeah you're getting judged by me as a very strong candidate for future murderer.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it's perfectly fine to judge someone as long as you treat them fairly. Like if you know a person is attracted to children but never acts on it and sees a mental professional... Sure judge them but treat them fairly if they never act on it.

The teacher seemed to be taking more of a speech(-100) stance which sounded like she was condoning the activity. An English teacher probably should have the ability to construct a better sentence if she meant something else.

[–]Newzok 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A redditor on stupidpol(iirc) mentioned that the case here was that she's demonstrating tolerance taken to the extreme. Basically she's being facetious, and quoted out of context. This whole thing is a retard take on an issue that isn't an issue. She's arguing for the opposite of what is being accused.

[–]iamonlyoneman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Too late. By the time they know what pedos are, they call them pedos.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Everyone should be suspicious about short clips like that.

It is both scary and disturbing that that an edited 18 second clip could destroy a 30 year career when taken completely out of context. She is exemplary as a teacher and truly cares about the students

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Time to bring back tar and feathers.

[–]deusex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

After seeing this:

https://reduxx.info/ontario-high-school-teacher-seen-wearing-massive-prosthetic-bust-to-teach/

..It is clear where the West is heading. If you're a parent, better pull your kids out of public school ASAP. The pedophiles have won.