WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

738
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/10/2nd-grader-kicked-christian-school-parents-refused-photograph-bathtub/

(post is archived)

[–] [Sticky] 3 pts

“She did send out a message,” Dunham recalled, “saying, ‘you should be in pajamas, be in your uniform, have fun with it.’ But, it didn’t sit right.”

I think this is overblown. From what the story states nowhere does it say anything inappropriate about it and further instructions specifically state to do so in clothing.

Dunham said she spoke with other parents about the request and was met with the same solution: “’Just cover your child up with something.’”

See. This is overblown. I don't get it at all.

The Dunham’s daughter was expelled.

School are dumb niggers too. Just as much as the parents.

[–] 5 pts

I'm guessing this wasn't the first issue the parent, child, and school had with each other. And I had the same conclusion. The title tries to paint a negative picture, but the actions and comments of the school and other parents seem to say otherwise.

[–] 1 pt

The title is ridiculous clickbait and OP should be ashamed as fuck.

[–] 1 pt

"We do not condone taking pictures in the bathroom."

I think it's reasonable to refuse on those grounds.

[–] 0 pt

And I think you're being unreasonable to think taking pictures in the bathroom is necessarily an affront to normalcy where pictures in the dining room or living room wouldn't be. The context of said picture dictates that. The context of this picture was very specifically laid out and for some reason people got upset about it. Those people are far more wrong than the school's expulsion. To be frank, I wouldn't want to deal with a pair of parents who argued over something so insanely clear for a further many years.

[–] 0 pt

An adult can judge that, but a child will not have such a clear idea. I think that was the point of the no-bathroom-pictures rule of these parents.

[–] 2 pts

"While the assignment was completely innocent, out of an abundance of caution and for there to be no misunderstandings, our administration has removed this particular assignment for any future use. We value our children and their safety is our top priority. We will continue to serve the children and families in which the Lord has graciously allowed us to have a part in their lives.”

what they really mean

im sorry we got caught we will properly threaten the children next time so they keep the self produced child porn a secret from mom and dad

[–] 1 pt

You're a retarded kike. Snipping one part of the story out to fit your wanton judaism while ignoring others. Namely;

“She did send out a message,” Dunham recalled, “saying, ‘you should be in pajamas, be in your uniform, have fun with it.’ But, it didn’t sit right.”

Just because you're a degenerate kike who thinks about children that way, doesn't mean everyone does.

[–] -1 pt

i was a kid once, with autism. i would not read the whole message much of the time, if kids are left to their own devices child porn for something like this will be created.

[–] 1 pt

Don’t go down that path or you’ll get permanently banned.

[–] 1 pt

kids will create child porn themselves

Fucking leave kike.

That’s a bullshit assignment and the teacher should be held under the water for a while. Teach the kids science and math, spelling and reading, bitch.

[–] 0 pt

More low-T, numale, faggot reactionary replies. Learn to read and read the fucking article.