Law Covering Sexual Contact With Students Passes House
 

Teachers, coaches, counselors and other school officials who have any type of sexual contact with students would face jail and lose their jobs under legislation the Louisiana House of Representatives approved Wednesday.

This is bull****.....

It's already illegal to "date" minors, now we want to give teachers crap pay AND make it illegal for them to engage in a sexual relationship with other consenting adults just because they have NOT dropped out of high school or they chose to attend college and further their education?!?!?!?!

For a teacher at NSU in Natchitoches, this proposal would eliminate probably 1/3 of our city population from the dating pool, and that's not taking into consideration the number of residents who are married, in a relationship, or otherwise unavailable.

And let me tell you, if you've never lived here, then you don't know what it's like to live in a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall...anyone still unclear about why I'm REALLY still single?

Actual numbers:

City of Natchitoches total population: 17,815 (2004 census estimate)
Natchitoches Parish total population: 40,805 (2004 census estimate)
NSU total undergraduate enrollment: 8,034
NSU freshman population: 2,431 (Fall 2006)
Female/Male undergraduate ratio: 68%/32%
Total undergraduate population from outside Natch. Parish: 89%

And I agree, this is a bad law.

I agree it is a bad law. I prefer actual numbers over actual guessing.

Is it just me or is the government slowly trying to make sexual intercourse illegal? The line between who you can have sex with and who you can't is becoming fuzzier all the time.

We just need to set a minimum age of consent and prosecute anyone dumb enough to have sex with someone under that age. Whether or not that person is in school is irrelevant.

As far as teachers having sex with their own students, that can be a complicated matter. If the student is in that teacher's class, then they should not be in a relationship together. It compromises the teacher's ability to make unbiased decisions regarding the student's grade. If the student is NOT in the teacher's class, then relationships should be permitted assuming the student is over the age of consent.

Permitted by whom? I'm fine with a school board/private school/college firing a teacher that bangs an of-age kid, but it shouldn't be a crime.

I can agree with that. It's wrong, but shouldn't be illegal.

Sounds like a case of the student becoming the teacher and the teacher becoming the student. I speak of college age only. There was a real good English literature teacher at LA Tech back in the day and if you did good in her class you would get a straight A :D to bad she only taught one class ;)

I don't get it. Isn't that how it is suppose to work with any teacher?

You can thank the leftists/socialists for this garbage. They think the answer to any problem is big government. If theres a way to grow the government and make it more intrusive they'll do it.

You are so right Al. The ACLU at work again pushing their socialist agenda. Oh Anime that was my freshman year and I really enjoyed that class :D evil woman taking advantage of a 19 year old boy :laugh: my roommate took her class the next quarter and got a A too.

You know. .I can agree with wanting smaller government.. but it seems our current republican administration is ALL ABOUT BIGGER government... if you ask me..

This bill by the way was authored by a Republican.

As wrong as the ACLU often is, I don't think this is the sort of thing they support.

Unfortunately, both parties seem to be all to willing to grow bigger and bigger government. Someday we could reach a "tipping point" at which time we we have a 50%+ tax rate and at the same time invent one or two new genre of music! It is my theory that "rock and roll" and "R&B", and "jazz" are artistic responses to political ideologies gone awry.....

Just so everyone understands, republicans can be just as liberal as any democrat.

Well there you go, 68% of 8,000+ in a city population of 17,000+ is still about 1/4th of the total adult city population. Keep in mind, we don't just have undergraduate studies either, we have Graduate Studies and the Scholars College too, so that number would be inflated by several hundred students, and let's not forget that 17 is the age of consent in Louisiana, this also encompasses most high school seniors and a significant portion of juniors regardless of how anyone feels about that, which brings the Louisiana School for gifted children, into the mix, which brings in students from abroad as well as the 2 local high schools within the city limits.

To large of a portion of society to make it a crime to "socialize" with....

The "man" is keepin' me down, power to the people ! Rock On Dude. TGIF

You said about 9,000 Freshmen move to Natchitoches each year, about half of whom were women. I was giving the actual numbers: about 1,471 people meet those criteria so nobody was utilizing incorrect figures to make decisions or form opinions.

The census numbers for Natchitoches don't include students from outside Natchitoches, so you have to add those to the total to figure percentages. And my population numbers were just for the people in the actual city limits. The Natchitoches MSA (which I believe includes students, but I could be wrong) is (as of 2004 census estimates) 38,741, meaning about 3.8% of the population meets your criteria of (incoming female Freshman) if you consider "Natchitoches" to mean the Natchitoches MSA instead of the actual city limits. If you just include the people inside the city limits (a number of about 25,000 once you include NSU students) it's about 5.8%.

You now seem to be talking about all female students affected by the law instead. Let's look at those actual numbers:

NSU has (as of Fall 2006) 3,375 total students age 20 or under. This includes the Scholar's College (which only has 108 students total of any age/sex), grad students (NSU only has 61 of those), and part-time non-degree-seeking students. I don't have the non-undergrads broken down by sex, but there's no reason to think it deviates much from the 68% female rate, especially since undergrads make up the bulk of the under-21 students. That would be 2,295 under-21 female students. That's ~9% of people inside the actual city limits (a population, including students, of around 25,000) or ~6% of "Natchitoches" as most people consider it.

Let's look at those actual numbers: :clap: :clap: :clap: I will have to place my chip on joepole. Good post joepole :clap:

I understand you weren't arguing with me, Joe, and I'll admit the number of incoming freshman was considerably larger in my day than it is currently specifically because they have raised the qualification standards at NSU. I am also speaking specifically about people who live within the city limits of Natchitoches. It might not be anything for you to drive 10-20 miles to pick up a date in Shreveport/Bossier, but 10-20 miles puts you in another town in any direction you leave from Natchitoches...and let's not forget that people who have not lived in the same dwelling for a significant period of time aren't actually considered part of the population just like a student attending BPCC isn't counted in the Bossier population especially if he missed the census. Simply put, they aren't counting dorms rooms or post office boxes as permanent residences.

Once again, we are in near total agreement on the issue, but you're an ******* who tries to make a mountain out of every molehill you find and I'm an idiot for thinking a habitual criminal who regularly puts the life of his own children in danger would be any different. Not to mention you seem to have this overwhelming desire to separate graduating seniors, Graduate school students, Scholars college students, and High School student of or beyond the age of consent from your numbers, just like you wanted to omit the clarifications I made on the water topic.

It's was fun, but you're predictable and apparently not as smart as you pretend to be......

Beat at your own game :rotflol: :rotflol: :rotflol: Knowing you have totally lost the debate you turn to insults and name calling :eek: very cheap defense.

LAF

Only an idiot who doesn't know HOW to debate would call exposing the errors in his "stats" to be losing a debate OR calling a spade a spade an insult.

and imagine my surprise at YOU being the first to chime in.

I have read all of your post Tracy and all of joepoles post too. You are not even in the same league as joepole. joepole does not have to beat his chest or go on rants to make a point he does it in a way that we all can learn from even when we do not agree. I will give you a E for effort :clap:

>you seem to have this overwhelming desire to separate graduating seniors, Graduate school students, Scholars college students, and High School student of or beyond the age of consent from your numbers, just like you wanted to omit the clarifications I made on the water topic.

You specifically mentioned incoming Freshmen:

"a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall."

...so my original numbers only included those. I didn't include graduate students because I didn't have the same age/sex/hometown breakdowns for them and they were so small in number (I was actually wrong, about the number, it's more than 61.) I broke them down by age, regardless of school year because the law only applies to people up to age 19. I went up to 20 because that's how the data I had listed the age groups. High school students don't apply because your statement specifically applied only to incoming college Freshman girls.

>I'll admit the number of incoming freshman was considerably larger in my day than it is currently specifically because they have raised the qualification standards at NSU.

When were you there? Enrollment has been increased fairly steadily at NSU from the mid 80s until a few years ago. It never (in the data I have) had Freshman classes near 9,000, however.

Total (male/female/total) undergrads in:
1974-2,307/2,777/5,084
1984-1,955/2,594,4,549
1989-2,379/3,881/6,260
1994-2,866/5,040/7,906
1999-2,807/5,233/8,040
2004-3,198/6,216/9,414

>I am also speaking specifically about people who live within the city limits of Natchitoches.

That's fine, but you should keep in mind that when most people speak about the citizens of a town they talk about something similar to the MSA, not the city limits. I live in Shreveport and I would certainly consider people living out on Ellerbe Road to be in the potential dating pool.

>we are in near total agreement on the issue...

There really isn't an "issue," I was just giving the actual, correct numbers to go along with what you were saying. Yours were way out of line with reality.

1. The bill DOES NOT specify freshmen only. You are arguing me, not the topic, and although not a violation of the rules the admin reposted, it is annoying none the less and why you remain on my ignore list even though I choose to read some of your posts. It's all females, 19 and under I think it was, that are enrolled in school....and that encompasses pretty much over half of the TOTAL posts you've wasted on this subject. Feel free to carry on like you're retarded or something if you wish...we all know better and the chances of me reading two replies if your next one is even similar in nature are slim and none.

2. I realize 10-20 miles in the Shreveport/Bossier area is insignificant but it IS in Natchitoches. That's specifically why I picked MY city and those distances instead of YOUR city and another distance.....AGAIN you are arguing a moot point just for the sake of arguing.

3. I'm not way out of line with reality, you chose to argue my random estimate of the number of citizens this would be affected in a special town with special settings....namely Natchitoches, then attempted several times to justify your pitiful argument by consistently excluding students from 2 colleges and 3 high schools.....and as you can see by Isaac's post, this type of "propaganda" can be quite effective....but you already knew that too, huh? :)

>The bill DOES NOT specify freshmen only.

I never said it did, You were the one that specified Freshmen-only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

>I realize 10-20 miles in the Shreveport/Bossier area is insignificant...

I never said anything about 10-20 miles, I said the Natchitoches MSA which is more like what most people consider to be "Natchitoches" when discussing people that live there. I also gave numbers for the strict city limits.

>I'm not way out of line with reality,

You said over 4,500 Freshman girls come to Natchitoches each year. the actual number is much smaller than this so I was correcting your way-off estimate. You then tried to justify your estimate by claiming that the numbers were higher when you were there. I again gave you the correct numbers that showed this was not the case.

Someone that consistently misunderstands and misinterprets clear contradictory evidence shouldn't throw the word "retarded" around so freely.

>justify your pitiful argument by consistently excluding students from 2 colleges and 3 high schools

"My pitiful argument" consists of the actual, correct population numbers, they don't need justification to any reasonable person. I excluded nothing. The numbers I gave included the Scholars College (total enrollment 108). The numbers in the first post didn't include grad students because you had specified incoming Freshmen.

My entire point was that "a city with about 15-16,000 people and have an influx of about 9000 freshmen, over half of which are totally legal females on their own for the first time and ready to party!AND it happens EVERY fall!" is not an accurate description of Natchitoches. I then provided evidence to support this. Then you rambled, changed the subject, and flung ad hominem arguments to deflect the fact that you are unable of admitting when you're wrong, just like when you couldn't read and comprehend LA's castle doctrine statute.

I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman. My original statement was neither misleading nor unclear in any way as we can ALL see in your quote of my text. You didn't even bother to add ONLY to my text, dummy!! (see people, I'm trying)

As I have stated in just about every post now, you are creating arguments out of nothing just for the sake of arguing and that's why you'll remain on my ignore list. I specifically asked you in my previous post to refrain from such activity and your post above shows a blatant disregard for my wishes as well as noncompliance with the Admin's wishes to keep threads on topic.

Should I choose, at some point in the future, to start reading your posts again , feel free to remind me again why you were on my ignore list in the first place.


Have a nice day.

>I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman.

If you cannot see that contradiction then I am genuinely surprised you have the motor function to operate a computer keyboard.

>My original statement was neither misleading nor unclear in any way as we can ALL see in your quote of my text.

Correct, it was neither misleading nor unclear, it was just wrong. I corrected it. then you changed the subject.

>you are creating arguments out of nothing just for the sake of arguing

I corrected your erroneous numbers and then you began arguing against my actual, factual, legitimate numbers with ad hominem and straw man arguments.

>feel free to remind me again why you were on my ignore list in the first place.

We all know why, because I constantly correct you erroneous posts.

Joepole you have it nailed and you can not talk to a tree stump and expect it to listen. Good post Joepole :clap:

Hey that explains alot about your grammar skills Isaac!:laugh:

Oh Isaac.....you just got :arrow: . How's it feel?????????????

And we see here you admitting that my number was wrong, but my statement was neither misleading nor was it unclear as you indicated in your initial paragraph....and you have the audacity to use a term like contradiction.

YOU chose to argue a point I never made...namely freshman only, and that's why you're still on my ignore list.

FURTHERMORE, I never changed the subject, it's still about the proposed bill, you CHOSE to argue my numbers, and the number of people you INCORRECTLY thought I said the bill would affect rather than remain on topic. AGAIN, 100% your fault, and I'm pretty sure is a lie as well, because if you read the story then you already knew the proposed bill would affect considerbly more than incoming freshmen at NSU only. I guess it's true what they say about giving a man enough rope.


I NEVER argued your numbers, and I'm STILL not arguing your numbers.

I'm arguing you habitual omission of several hundreds students that are also affected by the proposed law, but do not fall into the category of undergraduate student, AND your insistance that the term ONLY or a synoym of said term appeared in my initial stat. I never made the stipulaation Freshman only, I merely provided aguess at the total number of the largest group of individual affected by the law in my area . Simply put, you've just told ANOTHER lie, the logical conclusion for someone of your ilk.

No, it's because you lie. I'm an adult, more than capable of making mistakes, and value the input of others ESPECIALLY when I'm wrong. Unlike many of you, I appreciate the education process and I'm not ashamed to learn from other

...the "problem" is you're still trying to argue a point.

A) I never even tried to make, and

B) that you have fabricated by intentionally omitting every single clarification I have made where you have expressed an inability to think for yourself.

As I have stated numerous times, you are creating an argument out of nothing. I gave you an inaccurate estimate of the number of incoming Freshmen to NSU every fall, EVERYTHING else is the bull**** lie you're trying to perpetuate here....and look, you've even succeeded in winning the hearts of the three stooges (I guess they've already forgotten about the car seat fiasco, huh)?

>you have the audacity to use a term like contradiction.

Of course I do, when you post things like:

"I did not specify freshman only, I gave you an estimate of the number of incoming freshman."

>YOU chose to argue a point I never made...namely freshman only

See there it is, again. You most certainly specified Freshmen only:

"...have an influx of about 9000 freshmen..."

>...the "problem" is you're still trying to argue a point.
>A) I never even tried to make

You made the statement that 9,000 college Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year. My point was that 9,000 Freshmen do not come to Natchitoches every year. Then I posted the actual number of college freshmen that coem to Natchitoches every year and you:

1. Stated that this number was not the complete set of people affected by this law. This is called "changing the subject/putting up a straw man argument" because I wasn't arguing about whether or not any of there people were affected by any law, I was arguing that your "9,000 Freshmen come to Natchitoches every year" was incorrect.

2. Said that you were mistaken because the enrollment was higher when you were there, a statement also shown to be incorrect.

I seriously hope you're being intentionally obtuse in the hope that it will obfuscate the fact that you're completely wrong to those that don't care to read every post because if you aren't then this is a lack of reading comprehension that is stunning in its magnitude, even for you.

I went to LA Tech and even in the "day" I would have never guessed that each spring we had 9000 new freshmen come in :confused: I think joepole has the facts in order and yes "obtuse" is the perfect word for "the" problem on this board. Great post joepole :clap:

Then you apparently don't know the definition of the term "only" OR the specific reason I did not use that term.

But we ALL know your smarter than that, that's why I use terms like "butthole" to describe you instead of idiot.

And exactly where do you see the term or a synonym of the term "only" in my sentence? As I indicated above, there is a very specific reason I DID NOT use that term.
I never intended to change the subject away from who the law affected by providing an estimate to support my opinion. That was 100% of your own doing. My sole intention was to show how a law like this would adversely affect teachers in my hometown to a greater extent than teachers in other areas, like Shreveport/Bossier for instance. I EVEN indicated that I used my town specifically because of the special circumstances that exist in Natchitoches.

As I've indicated all along, you're making up arguments for the sake of argument. You've neither argued nor even attempted to address the topic of this thread

Maybe if you tried sticking to the subject instead of arguing individuals in basically about 95% of your total posts, then you wouldn't be so far out of the loop in the first place and wondering why someone else is being "obtuse".

Remember, no one said freshmen only other than you...

"obtuse"
This is the perfect word for a social deviant that is the master of smoke and mirrors. Plain facts will in no way change this obtuse individuals mind. Broken record. :rolleyes:

OK, now I know you're doing this on purpose. Otherwise you're trying to honestly tell me that when you say "have an influx of about 9000 freshmen" you aren't specifying only Freshmen, you're saying the phrase "9,000 freshmen" means "9,000 freshmen and persons of other assorted ages and grades?"

>My sole intention was to show how a law like this would adversely affect teachers in my hometown to a greater extent than teachers in other areas, like Shreveport/Bossier for instance. I EVEN indicated that I used my town specifically because of the special circumstances that exist in Natchitoches.

...and in doing so you used wildly incorrect population numbers. I corrected them.

To take a page from your book:

How were we supposed to know that "if you've never lived here" meant only Natchitoches? Where in that sentence do you see the term or a synonym of the term "only?"

LOL, ya think? :D

A famous quote from Brainsmasher, "numbers matter only in quantifiable measurements"

And a famous quote I once heard from my A/C repairman "if you ain't measurin', then your're guessin'".

It's those darn unquantifiable measurements that always come back to git cha! :D

AGAIN, not one single time did the term "only" appear in my post. This is, and always has been 100% your own spin. I gave you an estimate of the number of individuals this would affect, in the largest group my town had to offer, incoming freshmen. Nothing more, nothing less.
What a coincidence, I never argued your corrections nor am I arguing them now nor is this the first time you've read this statement.

Take the hint.
Well you could have used the context of the entire post like a normal human being instead of picking it apart and starting arguments over moot points like a common troll because I specifically mentioned Natchitoches in the second paragraph. You even could have looked directly underneath my avatar and found out exactly where "here" is, and that's assuming you don't already know where I live like every other regular user of this forum....of course that would require utilizing your intelligence for good rather than "evil", and that's just not your style, is it?