Results 81 to 90 of 165
-
02-17-2012, 05:16 AM #81
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Maleny, Australia
- Posts
- 7,977
- Blog Entries
- 3
Thanked: 1587Bruno says: "Chmod not, lest ye be chmodded".
James.<This signature intentionally left blank>
-
02-17-2012, 05:42 AM #82
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Location
- Middle of nowhere, Minnesota
- Posts
- 4,623
- Blog Entries
- 2
Thanked: 1371There's something biblical about chmod 777, I think.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
-
02-17-2012, 07:42 AM #83
Well, all I know is chmod 666 is definitely in the Bible - it's about all reading and writing the book.
Now if you want to add the executions to the mix you'll be very lucky and chmod 777.
-
02-17-2012, 09:31 AM #84
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Brisbane/Redcliffe, Australia
- Posts
- 6,380
Thanked: 983I'm gonna have to Google the conversation on this page so far, or maybe Google Translator...You blokes are speaking in tongues...Or out yer Ar...I better not say anything more...
Mick
-
02-17-2012, 04:42 PM #85
A problem I have is with trying to protect everybody from everything.
A TINY percentage of people have a problem with peanuts so we ban peanuts.
A TINY percentage of people don't feed their kids right so we blow piles of money on laws and food police.
I could go on, but I won't. Piles of well meaning but misguided regulations are burying us. Just leave us all alone.
Freedom also means the freedom to screw up.
-
02-17-2012, 05:02 PM #86
There are kids with peanut allergies all over the place. If you run a school, is it safer to say: "it's a small percentage" or is it safer to say "no peanuts"? Strictly from a liability standpoint, I'd ban the hell out of any nuts in schools. I've seen someone almost die from getting the smallest taste of sesame. Wasn't her fault, but she still almost died in my car as I rushed her to hospital. Would you rather your kids see their little buddy die in front of them or forego a PB & J sandwich for school lunch?
The story in question in this case is a very cursory description of the situation. We don't know the details in full, the background or the story behind the story. There have been a whole raft of assumptions made and conclusions jumped to without basis. I suppose that is the nature of hyperbole, especially on the internet. Then GIFT takes over, salvos are fired and returned and we end up with 9 pages of mostly rhetoric based on a very shallow foundation.
Unfortunately, people have proven that we need these sorts of regulations. If everyone was a great parent and fed their kids well, then there would be no need. But when the parents fail, and believe me, they do, it is our responsibility as a society to ensure their kids are protected, as best we can. That is part of being in a human community. The collective representative of society is government, as elected by us. So, when there is a need for this sort of thing to be regulated, that's what they do.
That doesn't make what that woman in this particular case did right, but it also doesn't mean the spirit of the regulation is wrong. It also doesn't mean that the government can or should tell someone how to raise their children, in minute detail. As long as the kids are relatively healthy and not being abused, that's where their responsibility stops. I would probably be considered a left-wing or liberal in your eyes (ridiculous labels, as I am probably conservative on some matters and liberal on others, just like most people), but I don't think the government has any right beyond what I've just described, nor do I see them stepping beyond that in this case. An overzealous worker simply went a bit too far on one occasion. All that was needed was some communication between parents and school and this wouldn't be an issue, but instead someone took the drama queen route and here we are.
School is where your kids spend the majority of their time, so it behooves the parents to be in constant communication with the people who are helping raise their children. No one raises their kids in a vacuum. No couples raise their kids on their own. Communities raise kids.
-
The Following User Says Thank You to jdto For This Useful Post:
PensacolaTiger (02-17-2012)
-
02-17-2012, 05:12 PM #87
-
02-17-2012, 05:21 PM #88
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Posts
- 4,562
Thanked: 1263
-
02-17-2012, 05:23 PM #89
Are there no workhouses? Why are they in school in the 1st place? Let them work for their lunches!(:-(
Let them learn there's no 'free lunch' in this country... Except for the rich or big business.Last edited by Johnus; 02-17-2012 at 05:27 PM.
-
02-17-2012, 05:23 PM #90
Quite simply, you can't. No matter how great parents are, your kids need interaction with other people. Teachers, coaches, grandparents, aunts and uncles, family friends, parent of the kids' friends, family doctor, etc. All of these people contribute to raising your child. It's a normal part of living in a society. It's not a problem at all. How could you raise your kids without these people? Keep them in your house 24/7?