rct247 said:Sorry folks for my sour mood. I've just already explained my point of view on SFoT serving alcohol already in another forum post and I don't feel the need to repeat my reasons.Impulse-ive said exactly what I was thinking about the teaching situation. I see no harm in teaching kids like that. Would you rather have the teacher's tell kids that well...alcohol isn't bad for you unless its too much so when you grow up, it will be ok for you to drink it just in moderation. Although that statement is true, telling kids that will only spark more of an interest in it. Tell a kid something is bad now like alcohol, smoking, talking to strangers, and "bad words" like stupid are ok. We all grow up and realize that stupid isn't a bad word, we talk to strangers all the time, and having a drink a party won't kill ya.I think the important thing to see hear is that there is alot of opposition for the park applying for the license and just because most of you on the forums here don't agree with many of the ways people are expressing their opinions toward it, doesn't mean that they are sissys or that they are TOO conservative or that they are completey wrong.In most situations where people have to argue their point, they tend to exagerate and do what it takes to make their opinion toward the subject seem better. Whether that is arguing that churches serve alcohol (to prove that its ok) or that everyone who drinks will get drunk (to prove that it is wrong).Each side has very good points, but as for mine, I'm against. I just think certain things people can do without in certain environments. And for those who argue that other "family" venues like sports games serve it inside the venue, I have to say that I really don't entirely agree with that either, but that's my opinion. (Not totally against it, but still think people can have a great time without it.)So, there ya have it folks. That's my more indepth response for ya.
Whats wrong with a teacher teaching Reading, Writing and Arithmatic, History and other subjects they are supposed to be teaching and QUIT LECTURING CHILDREN on whats right or wrong IN YOUR VIEW.
My teachers NEVER gave input into the war in Vietnam, Nixons Watergate Scandal, Jimmy Carter ect. They taught what they were supposed to teach. The basics. Only later in High School did any OUTSIDE the class BS take place.
Thats a parents job.
Chuck *** Edited 1/16/2008 8:25:10 PM UTC by Charles Nungester***
Plus see my reponse above about local condtions. The chances this woman cares about the issue specifcally and not just teaching these kids that they should stay away from alcohol for another 10 years or so (in addition to English and social studies) are slim to none.
So you're saying its bad to encourage 9-year-olds to not drink?
Impulse-ive said:Did you have drug and alcohol awareness education when you were in third grade? I did and I can tell you its not this teacher who is giving these kids those opinions about alcohol, its the state/nationally sponsored programs that reflect that language. Kids are taught from the time they can read that alcohol is as nasty and deadly as heroin. If the teacher was the one bending their minds don't you think each one would have had nearly the exact same opinion? You're right these are just kids so if something was force-fed to them as a group, they should all have almost the same reponse not variations on a theme like you see here. Plus see my reponse above about local condtions. The chances this woman cares about the issue specifcally and not just teaching these kids that they should stay away from alcohol for another 10 years or so (in addition to English and social studies) are slim to none. So you're saying its bad to encourage 9-year-olds to not drink?
Im saying it's not the schools job to impose morals on anything, Right and wrong yes but this is evil, thats evil ect is complete bull and in twenty years you have a bunch of tottallarian young adults saying you can't eat fried chicken, Drink a beer or smoke a stoggie. Maybe EXCESSIVE ANYTHING but not IT's evil.
A beer, drug, Gun or what not never killed anyone, The USERs lack of responsibility does.
Chuck, who as a kid was told smoking was bad for you, Didn't like it as a kid, Said I'll never smoke. Guess what? I do and Im glad I have the freedom to do it if I CHOOSE TOO.
This is an obvious attempt to use the one thing that tugs at people's hearts. She has is part of the anti-alcohol agenda, and she is shameless enough to use the innocent to get it across. Just like a politician.
Fortunately for the rest of us, and businesses, it's not up to you.
I just think certain things people can do without in certain environments.
The chances this woman cares about the issue specifcally and not just teaching these kids that they should stay away from alcohol for another 10 years or so (in addition to English and social studies) are slim to none.
So you're saying its bad to encourage 9-year-olds to not drink?
If the woman cares about the issue, more power to her. Still, she should not be taking advantage of her students and using them to push her opinion on others. What if she felt that abortion is wrong? Should she be employing ("teaching") her students to write letters about that too?
I don't think it's bad to encourage kids to stay away from alcohol, but at the same time I don't think it's good either. If anything, children should be taught about proper consumption of alcohol because it's unrealistic to think that kids being told the evils of alcohol in the third grade is going to impact their decision-making while in high school. But that pretty much underscores an important point, which is third grade is a bit too early to teach kids about that sort of thing because it's not going to matter all that much later on down the road. Kids who've never consumed aren't going to be able to absorb what they're told. Talk to them after their first drinks and you might get somewhere.
Accroding to the article, the idea came from the kids, who were talking about a story they heard/saw on the news.
"To be perfectly politically incorrect about it, Keller parets are more worried about gourmet meals and refueling their $50,000 cars than they are about alcohol sales at the local amusement park which is located in a pretty ghetto part of the Metroplex that they have to drive 40 minutes in heavy traffic to get to."
So then why concentrate on an issue that's occurring in a world so far away from what these kids experience? And why did most of the letters excerpted express worries about the kids being puked on by drunken riders? Is Keller that perfect that there are no local issues the kids could get revved up about? Maybe the people working in those gourmet restaurants their parents go to are underpaid and exploited.
"So you're saying its bad to encourage 9-year-olds to not drink?"
No, but is it good to teach them they should go around with the attitude that nobody anywhere ever should be able to drink a single beer? So much for your free speech society.
But if that was all that was being taught? We wouldn't have newspaper headlines about it. They wouldn't be little rosy-cheeked pawns in a political battle. And we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In the big picture, this 'little lesson' is actually an overblown stunt and it sucks. Royally.
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
Yes, the original suggestion came from the kid, but that doesn't mean the rest of the class knew about the issue. And they concentrated on that issue because they were already learning about how "alcohol is evil", regardless of whether it involved Six Flags or not. And to a kid in third grade, being puked on *is* one of the big "issues" when it comes to amusement parks, and those kids have obviously already made the connection between drinking and an increased chance of random puk-age (not to mention the connection between riding and increased puk-age). Again, I'm pretty sure that if Six Flags had never come up, the kids would get the exact same message regarding drinking. It's the same message I got in 3rd grade (and I was just lectured to, I didn't get to do something "cool" like write a letter to an amusement park), and the same message everyone I knew growing up got in 3rd grade. So far, we've turned out no better or worse than any previous generation.
This is Texas you're dealing with folks. It's got it's "realistic" parts, but for the most part it's a piece of the Bible Belt, and those Bible Belt folks write the state-wide curriculum. I can guarantee you that the kids in Austin, Dallas, Arlington, San Antonio, etc. are all getting the exact same message about alcohol as was expressed in this article. The part I don't get is why everyone's ready to string this poor woman to the rafters for taking her job to the next level. She's gotta tell kids that alcohol is evil and will ruin their lives or she loses her job ... why not incorporate a couple other lessons? Maybe she believes it, maybe she doesn't. And to bring things back to the first paragraph, how can you accuse this woman of impressing her views if, as was pointed out, the kids brought up the topic in the first place? If she shoots it down, isn't that pressing that view?
I'm not saying Keller's perfect by any means, or any part of the country, and yea, there are other local issues, but when the topic of the month is "Alcohol is bad" and one of the kids starts to talk about Six Flags' alcohol issues, why not seize on the opportunity to bring a little reality into theoretical lessons and make a connection that the kids are probably going to make on their own?
Lastly, this ain't exactly "newspaper headlines" ... it's a newspaper story in a paper that sits somewhere between a "real" regional newspaper and a local community paper. I check this paper's website every morning at work and the first time I saw the article was on here (now granted, maybe I'm just unobservant). More than likely, Keller is this reporter's "local beat" and she couldn't find any other story and decided to do a "good news" type story. No one around here really cares that much.
And do you really think that a bunch of poorly written letters are going to influence Six Flags in any way, shape or form?
The hypocrosy is off the chart here.
It's the same example with Walmart. The "not in my backyard comments" but the same people will drive 1 town over to shop at a Walmart.
My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.
what exactly is wrong with a teacher taking advantage of a local "hot topic" to use as a way to get her kids 1) interested in the world around them outside of Nintendo Wii 2) writing a letter, an invaluable skill later in life and 3) as said before engaged in the way our government and free speech society operates.
How about this teacher focus her attention on things that actually make a difference.
Get the names of people in the armed forces from the Arlington area that are overseas and send them letters from the kids.
As opposed to manipulating 10 year olds to deal with a made up issue.
CoastaPlaya said:But if that was all that was being taught? We wouldn't have newspaper headlines about it. They wouldn't be little rosy-cheeked pawns in a political battle. And we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I'm not sure I've ever agreed with you THIS much. ;)
Which is precisely why I made the comparison to the South Park episode. These kids were being used to manipulate public opinion in an effort to sway a political decision.
Political involvement ROCKS - I wish more kids would get some sort of indoctrination into the national political discourse....just not this way!
Does anyone really believe it was the kids (and not the teacher) who decided to write letters to Six Flags?
Does anyone really believe these kids formulated their opinions on beer sales at SFoT with no encouragement from the teacher?
'Cause I sure don't.
Charles Nungester said:
Thats a parents job.
^That's the problem. I would be as bold to say that half of this nation's parents DON'T do their job.
The thing with children being introduced to moral values isn't a bad thing. Think about it this way, when voting comes around this November, first time teenage voters will probably go off what they have been taught whether that is by parents or school. What I mean by that is if your parents were democrat, you would probably vote democrat. But as time goes one just as these kids grow up, they will gain their own opinions and values because we all think differently, have different personalities, etc. You can teach someone that football is a great sport for instance, but based on how kids were raised, their envrionments, and even their genetics (which seriously is a major factor in our value systems) play apart in forming an opinion on what was taught.
This debate going on in the metroplex hasn't just been noticed by Arlington residents or just by "Bible Belt" people. A lot of folks have heard about this and have formed opinions about it. How is that when I first heard the news and told people I knew about it that the majority of them were against it. Now sure, one could say that if they know me, perhaps they share the same values. That would be logical but false statement. I've mentioned it to parents and friends of all backgrounds. I found it interesting that my friend's dad who would probably let us get away with underage drinking in his house was in agreement with another friend who is a very devoted Christian who still asks her 20 year old son to take pictures with Santa. They both were against it stating that there isn't a good enough reason because greedy (yet helpful to the troubled company) money.
So c'mon folks. If you are shocked at the news of this stuff going on in our nation's school, you would be in for a rude awaking between what is taught, who it is taught by, and how students perform in the school.
For those arguing that the people are boycotting SFoT and then going to probably make the trip to Sea World is probably a fair guess, but the claim that it is hypocritical may not be such. For those of you arguing FOR serving it at the parks, you keep mentioning how it is people's responsibility that is the issue not the actual substance. Well, if you argue that, then perhaps you should also take into account that maybe Sea World knows how to responsibly operate with it, but for some reason I personally don't see SFoT doing to well.
One final note, Charles you said
I would like to kindly point out that beer, drugs, and alcohol have killed people. How do you explain the 2nd hand effects. You can't say that a young child wasnt' being responsible when they find their parents gun and shoot their brother . You can't say that a person wasnt' responsible if they get lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke. You can't say that a person wasn't responsible if they got hit by a drunk driver. Now, in all those situtions, yes SOMEONE was lacking responsibility, but that affects other people too.
"A beer, drug, Gun or what not never killed anyone, The USERs lack of responsibility does."
So how will someone else's lack of responsibilty play into the rest of responsible or even non-drinking, happy guests at the park? Will the money the park makes on alcohol sales be worth it if their image is at stake and they have to spend money to hire extra security?
Ideas may sound good to you at first, but in many cases people don't look at all the angles the cause AND effect. Just CAUSE another park is doing it. Just CAUSE people would like it. Just CAUSE most people are responsible...doesn't mean there aren't effects.
[Again, all based on my personal opinion. Take it or leave it.]
I would like to kindly point out that beer, drugs, and alcohol have killed people. How do you explain the 2nd hand effects.
Which brings me back to my Twinkies and soda post. There's so much heart disease, Type II diabetes, early degenerative effects to backs and knees and early death from people's eating habits that it boggles the mind. Of course, since the diseases tend to be secondary to obesity, nobody has an exact number. But if you purportedly want to save lives, why not that cause instead? Why this one?
based on how kids were raised, their envrionments, and even their genetics (which seriously is a major factor in our value systems)
And as a father of two daughters, I just can't WAIT to hear you explain how my genetics somehow shape the values I give them. I'm all ears.
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
but based on how kids were raised, their envrionments, and even their genetics (which seriously is a major factor in our value systems) play apart in forming an opinion on what was taught.
As a father and someone with a PhD in human development, I am also anxiosly awaiting what ties we have found to genetics and value systems, because apparantly I am reading the wrong journals.
The thing with children being introduced to moral values isn't a bad thing.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding or misconstruing your above statement, but the way I read it, it's a very
Your statement implies that there's one single set of "moral values," and that children should be exposed to and taught that singular set of values. But the problem is that there are many different sets of values, and that it is NOT a teacher's job to impose his or her values upon the kids in his or her class.
Introducing children to moral issues is a good thing. But exposing children to a set of moral values? That's a parent's job...and only a parent's job.
It's song lyrics by Pink FLoyd basically saying a one way view is totallitarian/facist and anyone not perfect in the view of such beliefs is a INFIDEL
Theres nothing in this post meant to be racist. Just perfect words put to a song.
Chuck *** Edited 1/17/2008 8:21:43 PM UTC by Charles Nungester***
You must be logged in to post