Expelled with one day left. (2 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

1. Ah good one, because the last week of school is when this kind of stuff is expected by the administrative bodies of the school, no other time in the year are the year 12s allowed to dress up in their gender-opposite clothing or to commit any other kind of wierd stunts which are generally harmless. It is this time of the year where teachers take (or should take) the consideratio of the moment and show some lenience.

Lol. Okay. Tell that to the schools. If it's in good fun, like the Knox boys and their annual streak across our ovals? Sure. If it's damaging to the public or potentially sue-able? No.

2. No, i said weapons, because weapons, drugs, alcohol and violent, activities all are offences that should be dealt with by expelling. Apparently waterbombing is being added to this list. How the hell does waterbombing reach the level of severity of those?

Like I said. Sue-able offence if you assault a member of the public, or hurt someone's precious kid who's your fellow student.

3.Which assertion do you mean, the fact that schools should be worrying about the welfare of its students before its reputation, or the fact that kids have a better likelihood of choosing the high school they want to go to than their parents? I'm willing to put money on the fact that kids ultimately have the main choice of which high school they want to attend. Sure there are exceptions (there are always exceptions) but its usually the kid. Would you put your money on it the other way around? You assume that a majority of parents have the almighty power?

Lol really?

And yes, I was asking you to put money on the schools worrying about the HSC prospects of individual students who risk them a lot of money and +rep.

 

[Supaweak]

Lol. Okay. Tell that to the schools. If it's in good fun, like the Knox boys and their annual streak across our ovals? Sure. If it's damaging to the public or potentially sue-able? No.



Like I said. Sue-able offence if you assault a member of the public, or hurt someone's precious kid who's your fellow student.



Lol really?

And yes, I was asking you to put money on the schools worrying about the HSC prospects of individual students who risk them a lot of money and +rep.

1. yup its in good fun, and the likelihood of the acts being severely damaging is as likely as a student sitting on an upstanding pencil and getting an anal infection (which can happen, but again unlikely). Very dependent on how your school is, but on a general assumption, yeah most schools should just stop acting like they have a serious case of unscheduled menstruation, and most schools arent like that (just look at that muckup day thread and all the crap they do, some of that stuff is wayyy more considerable than waterbombing, yet im 90% sure none of those acts recieved any amount of punishment)
2. ok you said it, suable offence if someone is hurt. if someone is severely hurt. Fair enough.
3. Yeah i am dead serious, you wanna put up a poll asking if most of the people here on BOS got to choose their high schools?(i know that alot dont get their first choice and/or make selective but that doesnt count).
4. so you kinda say that schools dont care about their students, just their rep. Well yeah, true, but it should be a moral that the school is suppose to look after their students yes? Well take it this way, when a student throws a waterbomb at you (no not in a rediculous circumstance like in a driveby, just in the playground), do you think that the person is thinking about what your gonna experience? does the person throwing it think about how its going to affect the 'victims' life? No, because he knows that after an hour or so, your gonna stop crying and get the fuck over it, and in the end, it was worth the shits and giggles.

This is not like the 1940's where teachers used to use canes and were uptight and strict. Alot of principles nowadays are very comfortable with their students (i know my year group is) but theres the handful which are just plain faggots who cannot adapt to the times and considers behaviour such as the throwing of a waterbomb as equivalent to someone flipping out their penis infront of a teacher.

 

[untouchablecuz]

holy hell

give up already

 

[untouchablecuz]

It's fun if you consent to being waterbombed/egged. It isn't fun when you don't.

nevertheless

the element of fun remains

 

[Kwayera]

1. yup its in good fun, and the likelihood of the acts being severely damaging is as likely as a student sitting on an upstanding pencil and getting an anal infection (which can happen, but again unlikely). Very dependent on how your school is, but on a general assumption, yeah most schools should just stop acting like they have a serious case of unscheduled menstruation, and most schools arent like that (just look at that muckup day thread and all the crap they do, some of that stuff is wayyy more considerable than waterbombing, yet im 90% sure none of those acts recieved any amount of punishment)
2. ok you said it, suable offence if someone is hurt. if someone is severely hurt. Fair enough.
3. Yeah i am dead serious, you wanna put up a poll asking if most of the people here on BOS got to choose their high schools?(i know that alot dont get their first choice and/or make selective but that doesnt count).

So the moral of the story here is, look up muck-up day policies at different schools before you enroll, if it is that important to you! And I would bet that no statistically significant portion of students "choose" their schools. Feel free to put up that poll, though.

You seem to have this misguided idea that students are entitled to a muck-up week, and that it is some kind of rite of initiation to have a waterbomb thrown at you.

Tell that to the Sydney Girls girl who was blinded, and the Sydney Boys boy who was expelled.

4. so you kinda say that schools dont care about their students, just their rep. Well yeah, true, but it should be a moral that the school is suppose to look after their students yes? Well take it this way, when a student throws a waterbomb at you (no not in a rediculous circumstance like in a driveby, just in the playground), do you think that the person is thinking about what your gonna experience? does the person throwing it think about how its going to affect the 'victims' life? No, because he knows that after an hour or so, your gonna stop crying and get the fuck over it, and in the end, it was worth the shits and giggles.

Lol okay.

This is not like the 1940's where teachers used to use canes and were uptight and strict. Alot of principles nowadays are very comfortable with their students (i know my year group is) but theres the handful which are just plain faggots who cannot adapt to the times and considers behaviour such as the throwing of a waterbomb as equivalent to someone flipping out their penis infront of a teacher.

The point of this is that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant. It is schools' policy regardless. Don't like it? Think it's unfair? Think your juvenile antics should be tolerated because "it's what year 12s do"? Tough shit.

 

[Supaweak]

So the moral of the story here is, look up muck-up day policies at different schools before you enroll, if it is that important to you! And I would bet that no statistically significant portion of students "choose" their schools. Feel free to put up that poll, though.

You seem to have this misguided idea that students are entitled to a muck-up week, and that it is some kind of rite of initiation to have a waterbomb thrown at you.

Tell that to the Sydney Girls girl who was blinded, and the Sydney Boys boy who was expelled.



Lol okay.



The point of this is that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant. It is schools' policy regardless. Don't like it? Think it's unfair? Think your juvenile antics should be tolerated because "it's what year 12s do"? Tough shit.

1. Ok, we went too off topic, your trying to make it seem like im this absolute muck up day fanboi who goes to high school only to live for that moment. Way to totally repell from the main argument here.
well your wrong, im saying that expelling a student for throwing a waterbomb is too far, but you agree with it so ok you got your opinion.

2. Not once did i say students are entitled to a muck up week, but in the midst of things, fun and harmless things happen with no intent to hurt anyone. Im not counting extreme cases here where stuff is damaged and stuff like that

3. Yeah, good to throw in a bit of research of freak incidences. Always helps the argument when you mention an incredibly rare consequence

4. You've made it your point already that the school has all authority and can do what it likes. Do you think that i didnt know that? Do you think that im posting here because its gonna change anything? It is evident in the opening post of this thread that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant. thats what we've been talking about the whole time...
but that doesnt give me incentive to stop talking about why i think it isnt fair though. Your just repeating what has already been demonstrated - well yeah, i get it?


so, unless you want to point out anything else besides what has been demonstrated, do you want to give any more justification of why the punishment of expelling was correct? Or are you just gonna say that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant again?

 

[Kwayera]

1. Ok, we went too off topic, your trying to make it seem like im this absolute muck up day fanboi who goes to high school only to live for that moment. Way to totally repell from the main argument here.
well your wrong, im saying that expelling a student for throwing a waterbomb is too far, but you agree with it so ok you got your opinion.

2. Not once did i say students are entitled to a muck up week, but in the midst of things, fun and harmless things happen with no intent to hurt anyone. Im not counting extreme cases here where stuff is damaged and stuff like that

3. Yeah, good to throw in a bit of research of freak incidences. Always helps the argument when you mention an incredibly rare consequence

4. You've made it your point already that the school has all authority and can do what it likes. Do you think that i didnt know that? Do you think that im posting here because its gonna change anything? It is evident in the opening post of this thread that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant. thats what we've been talking about the whole time...
but that doesnt give me incentive to stop talking about why i think it isnt fair though. Your just repeating what has already been demonstrated - well yeah, i get it?


so, unless you want to point out anything else besides what has been demonstrated, do you want to give any more justification of why the punishment of expelling was correct? Or are you just gonna say that whether or not you think this policy is fair is irrelvant again?

Because it was dangerous, retarded, legally considered assault - which is a crime - and a sue-able offence. The school was entirely justified in expelling him, the idiot.

 

[Supaweak]

Because it was dangerous, retarded, legally considered assault - which is a crime - and a sue-able offence. The school was entirely justified in expelling him, the idiot.

If thats your opinion, okiedokie.

I stand by my opinion that waterbombing was not a serious or dangerous enough offence for what it recieved.

 

[hungwell1337]

australia needs to harden the fuck up

YouTube - Initiation With Ants

 

[NCB619]

What in the hell difference does it make that these behaviours are done in the last week of school? Should we excuse previously mentioned negligent drivers just because it's their birthday?



Didn't say weapons, but drugs, alcohol and cigarettes? Those only hurt the user. Not others.



Are you willing to put money (and by extension, your education) on that assertion?

No. Didn't think so.

OK, I'm not going to weigh in on this argument, because no-one is going to alter anyone's mind, its just a flame-fest.

BUT...I'm just going to point out this one instance above, which is showing how stupid this argument is...

If you're going to say that someones analogy/metaphor/simile/allegory/image, metonymy/personification/similitude/symbol/trope/imagination/example it to NOT use it again in your argument...that is all

 

[Revacious]

Actually I dont think that they ever found the kid who waterbombed that girl from sydney girls, nor does he even know he blinded her. There were no expulsions for that incident.

How can you possibly take an objective stance in this discussion, considering you
A. were unlucky enough to be hit or hurt or whatever by a waterbomb
B. live in a self proclaimed 'sue happy' neighborhood.

I accept that yes, the kid was an idiot and the school could have been liable for blinding, and death how ever small the chances. But have you considered the things people get away with? The punishment does not suit the crime, that should be obvious when you take a look around. Perhaps it's because you live in the north, maybe you should take a trip to the west sometime (to make use of a convenient generalisation).

also, fuck you. there was no need to insult everyone like that.