• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UPDATE: Anther teacher just being herself with her student.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
He wasn't one of her students...problem not found. As for firing, if the there is a policy then so be it. As far as criminal charges, bullshit. Again, people need to mind their own fucking business in cases like this (other than a possible firing).

Well they never said if she was when he was in 9th grade as far as I saw or maybe his sister was thus where the note passing took place.

Also she was the monitor during his lunch period it said and they were texting during that time so plenty of blame for that.
 
Well they never said if she was when he was in 9th grade as far as I saw or maybe his sister was thus where the note passing took place.

Also she was the monitor during his lunch period it said and they were texting during that time so plenty of blame for that.

Regardless, a firing is as far as it should go (based on the work policy that she was under), no further.
 
I believe we had a ruling in Arkansas that once the student turns 18 he or she can be a consenting adult regardless of the authority.
 
The problem is she is in a position of authority over her students thus why this is a common law.

Getting fired while he is still a student I am fine but that's as far as it should had gone.

I agree in the position of authority because any teacher at the school could be in a position of authority. However it isn't a criminal matter and it looks like we both agree on that. The law as written making it a criminal matter for two consenting adults to be engaging in Sex could probably be challenged under constitutional grounds.
 
It's funny how there is such a sudden epidemic of this in the past years. It used to be priests, now it's teachers. Though with teachers more than half the time it's with the student's consent as it's typically older kids. If there is consent (and not coaxing) I see nothing wrong from a legal standpoint. Sex before marriage is wrong but that's another story.
 
I agree in the position of authority because any teacher at the school could be in a position of authority. However it isn't a criminal matter and it looks like we both agree on that. The law as written making it a criminal matter for two consenting adults to be engaging in Sex could probably be challenged under constitutional grounds.

What?

What part of the constitution? Please educate me.
 
It's funny how there is such a sudden epidemic of this in the past years. It used to be priests, now it's teachers. Though with teachers more than half the time it's with the student's consent as it's typically older kids. If there is consent (and not coaxing) I see nothing wrong from a legal standpoint. Sex before marriage is wrong but that's another story.
I'm going with "information bias" on this one, in that we're simply hearing about it more - and the "news" outlets know that, so they'll try to capitalize on it as much as they can.
Sex has been a big deal for our species for a very long time. This type of behavior is nothing new.



Information bias is interesting.
A semi-related example: Penguins. I'd always known that the way they'd come out of the water was to launch themselves out of the water, and then land feet-down on the ice. That's how they're often shown in US-made documentaries.
Or animals doing crazy acrobatics and never messing up. A lot of those shows are evidently edited to show only the "good" takes.

Watching some British-made documentaries, and they show that the penguins don't get it right all the time. They show them launching out of the water and landing face-first, feet-first, doing belly-flops, or bouncing right back into the water.
Or a fishing bird skimming the surface of a lake and then "tripping" when a wing hit the water, causing it to fall right in.
Or a monkey trying to jump to another branch, missing, and flopping into the stream below.

The stages of filtration and editing can really skew the information you get to see, and with media giants growing larger and more concentrated, the information distributed is edited by fewer and fewer people, allowing their own biases and preferences to influence a larger audience.




(I'll also add that the British-made documentaries are so much better than US-made stuff. A US-made documentary on sharks had a gruff narrator that sounded like he was straining to push a shark from his intestines, and they're all so over-dramatized. They'd try to add drama or tension to dandelion seeds: "How many will survive cold winter and predators???" Give it a rest.)
 
Last edited:
They have a similar mental defect as any sexual predators. These are more similar to the male bosses that prey on young secretaries to get sex. The big deal is the willingness to violate the position of power for sexual gratification. He's 18 so prison time may not be called for, but permanent dismissal from teaching and being forbidden to teach again anywhere sure is. Fraternization causes a lot of harm.

bullshit
 
What?

What part of the constitution? Please educate me.

For privacy the same way the constitution was found to support abortion and the laws against sodomy between consenting adults was unlawful by SCOTUS. I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar but I can easily see how a case could be made that Sexual activity between two consenting adults is none of the states business.
 
For privacy the same way the constitution was found to support abortion and the laws against sodomy between consenting adults was unlawful by SCOTUS. I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar but I can easily see how a case could be made that Sexual activity between two consenting adults is none of the states business.

in a government funded school it is.

Go away
 
in a government funded school it is.

Go away

You asked I gave you a clear evidence that SCOTUS over the years has found the right of privacy in the constituion. So if two 18 year old student's of a government funded school are having consensual sodomy then it is the state's business? I don't see how just because the school is funded by tax payers means that a right to privacy is somehow given up by either the students or the employees of the institution. So if a school is state funded does a student give up the right to have a abortion while attending the state funded school?
 
Good thing she kept that hyphenated last name, so she can retain that good reputation she built before getting married.
 
in a government funded school it is.

Go away

So if you work for the government, the Constitution doesn't apply to you?

(Not saying it does or doesn't apply to this case but just commenting on your general idea that the Constitution doesn't seem to apply in this case since it's a government funded school).
 
So if you work for the government, the Constitution doesn't apply to you?

(Not saying it does or doesn't apply to this case but just commenting on your general idea that the Constitution doesn't seem to apply in this case since it's a government funded school).

Actually if you work for the governmint the constipation doesn't apply to anyone. It's just a peace of papyrus. An inconvenient truth if you will.

C10382-15A.jpg


GWB%20chewing%20up%20the%20constitution%20spitting%20it%20out.jpg
 
Back
Top