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

[cressida]

On 27/09/2023 at 16:25, Chekhov said:

the first ones now will later be last...

 

What does that actually mean ? ! ?

I did wonder,   probably the ones who are pushy will now be last,  and the least pushy first.

Edited November 7, 2023 by cressida

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Prettytom said:

>>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.

Except it isn't, that's just your way of getting out of it.

I note you haven't answered the question either, which, I think speak volumes

In fact we were just talking about this at work. We accepted it was  difficult question, but, it seems, in this pious modern world of ours even asking the question opens one up to abuse.

Bit like during Covid when none of the virtue signalling leftie authoritarians ever answered the question what is an "acceptable" death rate for society to get back to normal ?

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob 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 ?<<

 

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. 

You think that's a compromise ? ! ? What definition of compromise are you using ! ? !

The kids in year 6 have been going on 1 or 2 day residentials since year 3, a 4 day residential is like a right of passage. But you think cutting it back to the normal 2 days is something and nothing ?

Even one of the lads at work came up with a better idea than that, why not let the kids who don't want to stay for 4 days go home after 2 ?

Great idea, lateral thinking, though it would require flexibility which is sadly absent in this "computer says no" world of ours....

But he was rather surprised when I replied to him they probably wouldn't do that because some of the kids would then be seen as "different". Though, in actual fact, society celebrates people being "different" in most contexts, but not some it would seem.

 

I have a theory that people who think cutting the residential down to 2 days is "a good compromise" would tend to be the same ones who would also agree parents should be banned from filming their own kids at swimming galas, and that we did the right thing suppressing society for Covid, and that these "zero tolerance for abuse" signs are an excellent idea and furthermore that the "victim" should be the one to decide what "abuse" is ?

Would I be right ? Or wrong ?

 

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

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.

What do you mean by burden of duty ?

And how far should that go ?

For instance, are you against competitive sports days ?

I suspect you may be ?

Edited November 7, 2023 by Chekhov

[Anna B]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

You think that's a compromise ? ! ? What definition of compromise are you using ! ? !

The kids in year 6 have been going on 1 or 2 day residentials since year 3, a 4 day residential is like a right of passage. But you think cutting it back to the normal 2 days is something and nothing ?

Even one of the lads at work came up with a better idea than that, why not let the kids who don't want to stay for 4 days go home after 2 ?

Great idea, lateral thinking, though it would require flexibility which is sadly absent in this "computer says no" world of ours....

But he was rather surprised when I replied to him they probably wouldn't do that because some of the kids would then be seen as "different". Though, in actual fact, society celebrates people being "different" in most contexts, but not some it would seem.

 

I have a theory that people who think cutting the residential down to 2 days is "a good compromise" would tend to be the same ones who would also agree parents should be banned from filming their own kids at swimming galas, and that we did the right thing suppressing society for Covid, and that these "zero tolerance for abuse" signs are an excellent idea and furthermore that the "victim" should be the one to decide what "abuse" is ?

Would I be right ? Or wrong ?

 

What do you mean by burden of duty ?

And how far should that go ?

For instance, are you against competitive sports days ?

I suspect you may be ?

My idea of a compromise would be to allow both. What's stopping those wanting to stay 2 nights to be collected by parents, (or as trips usually have a mini bus at their disposal, returned to school for parents to collect from there) after 2 nights?

With a bit of organisation it's easy enough to arrange. It's not rocket science is it? 

 

[cressida]

On 05/11/2023 at 06:38, 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.

Tactile people,  rarely experienced thank goodness, I like a spacious environment,  let them go and hug a tree instead.

[Chekhov]

Expanding the theme about personalities which are no longer acceptable in this supposedly more tolerant world of ours.....

 

I am reading a book about the Spitfire at the moment. Apparently its designer R. J. Mitchell had a bit of a temper.

I am pretty much certain that these days, he would have been sacked.

So, we'd have gone into WWII with no Spitfire......

[Chekhov]

On 07/11/2023 at 13:47, ECCOnoob 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 ?<<

 

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. 

>>It's irrelevant what the "other [90 to 95% of] kids want"<<

 

Interesting answer......

 

Here's another variant of this problem.

It has been noted by a few of the patents that this same cohort who, most unusually, had the substantially shorter trip away (as mentioned above), also had no Xmas performance this year, nor last year come to think of it. Even more unusually.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume this school year had its school performances cut back or cancelled altogether because 2 or 3 of the kids in that year had "issues" and did not want to do them (but it would look odd if they did not), would that be reasonable ?

Edited December 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

On 07/11/2023 at 17:02, Anna B said:

My idea of a compromise would be to allow both. What's stopping those wanting to stay 2 nights to be collected by parents, (or as trips usually have a mini bus at their disposal, returned to school for parents to collect from there) after 2 nights?

With a bit of organisation it's easy enough to arrange. It's not rocket science is it? 

Excellent idea Anna, but I am pretty sure the school would not want those kids to be marked out as "different", and them going home early would do that.

It's total inconsistent cobblers of course because :

 

1 - I thought modern society was supposed to celebrate diversity and being "different"

 

2 - I am pretty sure all the kids in that year already know those particular kids are "different", so all of this is a complete waste of time. It isn't even virtue signalling because, it's being done surreptitiously.

[ECCOnoob]

8 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

>>It's irrelevant what the "other [90 to 95% of] kids want"<<

 

Interesting answer......

 

Here's another variant of this problem.

It has been noted by a few of the patents that this same cohort who, most unusually, had the substantially shorter trip away (as mentioned above), also had no Xmas performance this year, nor last yea come to think of it. Even more unusually.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume this school year had its school performances cut back or cancelled altogether because 2 or 3 of the kids in that year had "issues" and did not want to do them (but it would look odd if they did not), would that be reasonable ?

It's took you over a month to come back with that.

 

I can't even understand what you are trying to ask. Its just gibberish.  

[Chekhov]

1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

>>Chekhov said:

Here's another variant of this problem.

It has been noted by a few of the patents that this same cohort who, most unusually, had the substantially shorter trip away (as mentioned above), also had no Xmas performance this year, nor last yea come to think of it. Even more unusually.

Just for the sake of the argument, let's assume this school year had its school performances cut back or cancelled altogether because 2 or 3 of the kids in that year had "issues" and did not want to do them (but it would look odd if they did not), would that be reasonable ?<<

 

I can't even understand what you are trying to ask. Its just gibberish.  

OK, let me simplify the question.

Would it reasonable for a school years performances to be scaled back or even cancelled because a few kids in that year have "issues" ?