Christ Really Was Right, The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth (By Order).

[Chekhov]

18 hours ago, Prettytom said:

Tell us more about these over sensitive types.

Do they over-react to trivial issues?

The obvious question is what are you defining as a trivial issue ?

How about being banned from filming their child winning his first ever Fly race ?

That might be considered a "trivial issue" to people with no kids (and/or no empathy).

 

9 hours ago, Hecate said:

I want to hear more about those 'people who are just tactile'.  I have a list of synonyms I'd like to narrow down a bit.

I would consider myself a naturally tactile person, a bit like Latin types. My wife was telling me the other month you must try not to touch people when talking to them. Funnily enough we were in an Italian restaurant a few weeks after that and the Italian staff were touching many of the customers (mainly putting their hand on their shoulders) as they talked to them.

Society is intolerant of that now it seems.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

The obvious question is what are you defining as a trivial issue ?

How about being banned from filming their child winning his first ever Fly race ?

That might be considered a "trivial issue" to people with no kids, and/or no empathy......

It is trivial.

 

Speaking as someone who has both of those things.

[Chekhov]

3 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

>>Chekhov said:The obvious question is what are you defining as a trivial issue ?

How about being banned from filming their child winning his first ever Fly race ?

That might be considered a "trivial issue" to people with no kids, and/or no empathy......<<

 

It is trivial.

Speaking as someone who has both of those things.

Irony of ironies....

With that answer you have just proved you do not have any empathy.

Actually you probably do have empathy, but only for people who think like you do, as such you are a false empathiser.

 

PS - I would bet you large amounts of money none of your kids won their first ever fly race, or you definitely would not be thinking as you do.

Edited November 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

4 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Irony of ironies....

With that answer you have just proved you do not have any empathy.

Actually you probably do have empathy, but only for people who think like you do, as such you are a false empathiser.

 

PS - I would bet you large amounts of money none of your kids won their first ever fly race, or you definitely would not be thinking as you do.

Are you feeling ok?

 

If so, could you edit that pile of hogwash and make it coherent.

 

Thank you 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Prettytom

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Prettytom said:

Are you feeling ok?

 

If so, could you edit that pile of hogwash and make it coherent.

 

Thank you 

You've  gotta   laugh though,  haven't you ?

[Chekhov]

On the subject of life being modified for everyone to fit in with the most vulnerable (or weak or whatever word you want to use) a very interesting hypothetical question was posed to me the other day.

 

Every year a school has a 4 day trip away for pupils in the last year before they go up to Secondary school.

This particular cohort has a few kids with issues who could possibly cope with 2 nights away but not 4.

Should the trip be :

1 - shortened to 2 nights away those 2 or 3 kids would be more likely to want to go ?

Or

2 - should it be kept at 4 nights which is what the other 50 kids would want ?

[Prettytom]

19 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

On the subject of life being modified for everyone to fit in with the most vulnerable (or weak or whatever word you want to use) a very interesting hypothetical question was posed to me the other day.

 

Every year a school has a 4 day trip away for pupils in the last year before they go up to Secondary school.

This particular cohort has a few kids with issues who could possibly cope with 2 nights away but not 4.

Should the trip be :

1 - shortened to 2 nights away those 2 or 3 kids would be more likely to want to go ?

Or

2 - should it be kept at 4 nights which is what the other 50 kids would want ?

Have you ever stopped to wonder what has triggered your crusade against the weaker and more vulnerable members of society.

 

It’s quite unusual, to say the least.

[Chekhov]

27 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

>>Chekhov said:
On the subject of life being modified for everyone to fit in with the most vulnerable (or weak or whatever word you want to use) a very interesting hypothetical question was posed to me the other day.

 

Every year a school has a 4 day trip away for pupils in the last year before they go up to Secondary school.

This particular cohort has a few kids with issues who could possibly cope with 2 nights away but not 4.

Should the trip be :

1 - shortened to 2 nights away those 2 or 3 kids would be more likely to want to go ?

Or

2 - should it be kept at 4 nights which is what the other 50 kids would want ?<<

 

Have you ever stopped to wonder what has triggered your crusade against the weaker and more vulnerable members of society.

It’s quite unusual, to say the least.

So you haven't answered the question, as usual.

Just more trolling actually.

 

And I am not "crusading against the weak", I am simply pointing out that these issues are almost never as simple as people like you seem to think. This question about the school trip away sums it up perfectly, here 2 or 3 people may get what they want, at the cost of 50 people not getting what they want. And, we note, you haven't answered it because it is a difficult question to answer. Much easier to just start insulting people, typical leftie authoritarian in fact

 

You could, of course, have put your question more reasonably, like when did you become so  focussed on the "cost" of skewing society towards the weak (as you put it).

Simple answer : Covid, or more accurately the response of this government to it.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

10 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

So you haven't answered the question, as usual.

Just more trolling actually.

 

And I am not "crusading against the weak", I am simply pointing out that these issues are almost never as simple as people like you seem to think. This question about the school trip away sums it up perfectly, here 2 or 3 people may get what they want, at the cost of 50 people not getting what they want. And, we note, you haven't answered it because it is a difficult question to answer. Much easier to just start insulting people, typical leftie authoritarian in fact

 

You could, of course, have put your question more reasonably, like when did you become so  focussed on the "cost" of skewing society towards the weak (as you put it).

Simple answer : Covid, or more accurately the response of this government to it.

 

 

What a pile of nonsense.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

On the subject of life being modified for everyone to fit in with the most vulnerable (or weak or whatever word you want to use) a very interesting hypothetical question was posed to me the other day.

 

Every year a school has a 4 day trip away for pupils in the last year before they go up to Secondary school.

This particular cohort has a few kids with issues who could possibly cope with 2 nights away but not 4.

Should the trip be :

1 - shortened to 2 nights away those 2 or 3 kids would be more likely to want to go ?

Or

2 - should it be kept at 4 nights which is what the other 50 kids would want ?

It's irrelevant what the "other kids want" they don't have the burden of duty for ALL students. The school does in matters like this.

 

Therefore, the obvious compromise and reasonable adjustment would be a two day trip.  That means the all students can be included with nobody singled out or missing opportunity to take part in the activity.

 

The rest of the kids still get their trip away. Still can enjoy it.

 

Hardly think it's a great drama. 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by ECCOnoob