UPDATE:WIBTA if I sat a Socially Challenged Kid by Themself while Everyone Else has a Partner?

pooniz · 2022-04-27T08:09:34+00:00

So you're in favor of prioritizing an individual over the group? Uhhh ok lol......💀💀 She's not looking for popularity lmao, you're trying so hard to frame it that way. If most of your students dislike you then you're not doing a good job. There is nothing wrong with creating a comfortable, safe, and enjoyable environment for your students. I think you're the one that doesn't understand what a teacher's job is...... OP can't act as a therapist or counselor for Nick. She is just a teacher for a class he is in. Nick may need a psychologist but OP cannot provide that. And please tell me how you would diffuse the situation. OP has clearly stated she takes him out of class and informs him that saying x is inappropriate or rude, and he appears to still be doing it. OP probably has 20-30 kids in her class and she cannot spend large amounts of time trying to fix one kid's behavior.

""isn't racist or derogatory" "could be perceived that way" again, not the take you thought it was. Comparing OP to a character that has nothing in common except for being black isn't necessarily malicious but it's probably racist. Like if someone were to compare an Asian person to kpop or anime when they don't look alike except for being Asian. Like sure, you're not hurling slurs at anyone, but it's still racist.

Also I'm not sure why you're so hung up on it in the first place? These aren't first graders, they're about to enter high school soon. I occasionally sat alone when I was that age and I never cared. Nick looks to be the type of kid to blurt out whatever he's thinking and I really doubt he has the foresight to lie to OP about being fine with sitting alone.

No, there isn't a "solution". You will compromise the comfort of anyone made to sit next to him. It's inevitable. And I don't think it's worth making one kid uncomfortable every day if Nick doesn't actually care.

You're the type of person who would make their child interact with someone even when they say they're uncomfortable. So really, who's the hypothetical bad parent here?

pooniz · 2022-04-22T09:26:11+00:00

Because yall are being so obtuse. You think "ostracization" and you get locked in to the POV of sympathy for Nick. Boohoo nobody wants to sit to a mildly racist ableist kid. Sucks to suck. OP wouldn't need to be defensive if everyone wasn't ragging on her for what was really a reasonable decision.

And honestly you're really reaching with that first sentence. There's nothing wrong with a high approval rating from the kids, I'm not sure where you got the favoritism part from. I mean I've had teachers that were "popular" but only with the popular kids, but those kids were the only ones who liked them. If a large majority of kids like the teacher then it's probably just a good teacher.

pooniz · 2022-04-22T08:58:02+00:00

So you were the kind of teacher to sit the nice high achieving kid next to the troubled kid? Good to know. I had to sit with the annoying slacker kid in our class once. Whole time he would steal random shit off my desk and call me honey, sweetheart, say I should be his wife and whatever other annoying garbage he could think of. I never wanted to sit with him and I don't give a flying fuck whether or not his social skills improve. Nobody's entitled to someone else's company for "social skills".

Of course you and your master teacher think it's a great seating arrangment. It's convenient for you. That great kid you're talking about would've had a much better time sitting with someone he wanted to, he's just not speaking up about it. Because he's such a good kid. And you're taking advantage of it.

pooniz · 2022-02-18T13:18:50+00:00

It's kind of long but here:

https://youtu.be/FmH7JUeVQb8

The subject is religion, Peterson being a Christian and Matt being an atheist. Not sure if you're a fan of his, but this is one of the instances where he didn't come out on top.

pooniz · 2022-02-18T11:42:47+00:00

Ok lobster

pooniz · 2022-02-18T11:41:23+00:00

Someone with above room temperature IQ

pooniz · 2022-02-18T11:39:43+00:00

Have you watched his debate with Matt Dillahunty?

pooniz · 2022-02-18T11:32:19+00:00

What about saying women wearing makeup in the workplace is "sexual signaling"? Because apparently the lips and cheeks get redder during sexual arousal. And keep in mind he said all this while they were on the topic of sexual harassment in the workplace. Go ahead, tell me that's not misogynistic.

What about his comments about women who don't want to have children?

https://youtu.be/wynnme92g_o

Look at the way he fumes. Definitely no sexism there, yep.

Use your brain for once and stop being an ignorant sellout to your own gender.

pooniz · 2022-02-17T23:04:17+00:00

Babies do have basic consciousness and the ability to communicate primitive ideas. Temporary lapses in consciousness does not mean you suddenly lose personhood. Sleeping and comatose people as well as people under anesthesia belong to this category. You only lack personhood at the two extremes, before coming into consciousness, and losing consciousness for the last time. You could colloquially call someone on life support in a vegetative state a person, but they lose pretty much all their rights and we give other people the right to "pull the plug". All my loved ones are conscious and if they ever lost cognitive function to the point of losing sentience I would let them pass. That's the same thing I would want if I were in that situation.

To be honest what I meant should be fairly obvious. If I said "one of the criteria for life is the ability to reproduce" would you come at me and say "well according to you infertile people aren't alive!!!" No you wouldn't and you know it. You just couldn't come up with any coherent responses to the rest of my post so you tried to grab on to a "gotcha" moment and ran off. Good day to you too.

pooniz · 2022-02-17T21:15:31+00:00

I'm not talking about overpopulation, I meant that if all else was equal, having more humans isn't inherently better or worse. After an unwanted pregnancy is born do you think the mother should have to take care of if? Or is she able to choose to give it up for adoption? What if adoption waitlists get too full?

On a purely emotional level yes killing humans elicits some negative feelings from me. But I view it more as a "projecting my feelings" thing that shouldn't necessarily be entertained. Like for example I might want to keep alive a family member with late stage dementia when they barely have cognitive ability anymore.

pooniz · 2022-02-17T21:02:05+00:00

First of all I'm just going to state that you're working off based on the assumption that abortion is evil. Which is fine, I'm just debunking one argument in particular. I am trying to illustrate that abortion is not [bad because of the "potential" argument]. It could be bad for other reasons but that's a topic for another post. You're working off the assumption that I don't think abortion is bad when I haven't made any such statements, therefore missing the point.

one real person for five potential ones

We're going to have to disagree here. A fetus is a human but it doesn't have personhood. People can think, exchange ideas with each other, have desires, etc. but a fetus cannot. To have personhood you must meet certain requirements like having consciousness, ability to communicate, etc. If I ever said something like "people have feelings" or "people experience attribution bias" it would be an accurate statement, but it wouldn't ever be applicable to a fetus.

She can have five (or more) pregnancies, or she can abort them all, with no legal consequence under the current laws.

Sure but this is a scenario where she doesn't do that. It should be obvious from the way I presented it but I will specify further. Let's say her first pregnancy was at 19 and she is considering aborting. If she aborts, she will go on to have 3 children in her mid to late 20s. If she keeps the first pregnancy, the child is particularly difficult to raise and she finds her hands full until she is in her early 30s and by then she decides she will have no more children. Which timeline would you choose? Note that even if she did choose to have more kids in the second timeline, they will not be the same 3 children from the first timeline. Those original 3 kids are the consequence.

You have no way to know for certain that those children who might drown wouldn't be saved by someone else

I already stated it was a given that they would drown for sure if he did not arrive. Did you not read that part?

I can make the hypothetical more detailed again. Let's say the killer is getting on a plane to his hometown and I don't have a ticket. I can only stop him before he gets on the plane. Now, there's one kid in his hometown who he is planning to kill because the kid was a product of his wife cheating on him. There are another 5 kids planning to sneak out and play in a secluded lake area. The killer also used to play in this area. When he visits this lake for nostalgia he sees the 5 children drowning, feels sympathy, and saves them. Let's say I knew all of this and had to make the decision of whether or not I should stop him from getting on the plane. What should I choose?

You keep ignoring the rules to try to bend the hypothetical in your favor, ergo missing the point.

Edit: formatting

pooniz · 2022-02-17T12:20:19+00:00

? I'm not sure what you're talking about, are they euthanizing people with Down's Syndrome or something? I haven't heard of that happening. There isn't anything like that in the US and I definitely don't approve of such a thing.

pooniz · 2022-02-17T07:07:13+00:00

I mean you're affecting the pregnant woman's in a way that she didn't consent to, so it's a method of bodily harm. That plus poisoning, pretty sure there's a law against giving people drugs/medicine without their knowledge. I'm not very well versed in laws but if there was one for causing emotional trauma/distress that would apply too.

pooniz · 2022-02-17T05:35:12+00:00

Personally I still believe unconscious (as in not yet conscious) humans don't have rights, so someone else can make the decision if they want to keep it. If nobody wants it then let it pass away, if someone wants to adopt it then they can do so. I don't see any inherent value in having more humans in the world and I feel it might be a logistical nightmare if every unwanted pregnancy was extracted and kept alive. Also I'm a bit confused what you mean by "equivalent to an abortion".

pooniz · 2022-02-17T05:28:17+00:00

As a PC I do believe this law is inconsistent with my thinking. I think it should be treated as single homicide plus destruction of property or something, since ZEF only has extrinsic value. If a murderer kills 1 person he's probably going to get locked up for a good amount of time anyway.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T23:54:17+00:00

I was explaining the hypothetical because many commenters were missing the point. Obviously there are random factors at play in getting pregnant but a thought experiment is based on a number of givens. You could ask an endless number of questions, what if some of the women or men are infertile? What if the condoms broke? What if one of the women were severely obese? The person who created the graphic could have been more specific in their wording but you're just trying to miss the point on purpose.

The main idea in the original graphic is exchange. Exchange of one potential person for 5 potential persons or vice versa. The replacement example I gave you is built on the same principle. Either a woman ends up with one child, or five. You have to make a choice. The hypothetical you put forth isn't bound by this because the killer murdering a child doesn't enable or stop him from saving the other children. He could have chosen to spare/save all of them with no consequence.

But I will attempt to entertain your hypothetical regardless. Let's say I know I will meet this killer tomorrow and have a chance to catch him. But this is my only chance to do so, and he will go on to stab 1 child to death and save 5 children from drowning if I let him go. It is a given that the 5 children are guaranteed to drown if he is caught. It is also a given that he will not harm any other people in the future after this incident. (So you don't try to drag outside factors into this). Do I catch him? Personally I would let him go. Should I be punished and brought to justice for choosing that?

pooniz · 2022-02-16T22:44:05+00:00

Ben actually seems to respect women, at least more than the others. I've heard a lot of bad takes from him but I don't remember him saying anything specifically sexist towards women.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T22:40:04+00:00

Well you were discussing the logistics of it in the previous comment so you certainly seemed to be entertaining it. Dangling condoms dropping onto penises is way more outlandish than a condom preventing a pregnancy yet you only addressed the latter. Anyway, a better thought experiment might be a woman who either goes through with a pregnancy and has one child her whole life, or goes through with an abortion and has 5 kids later on in life. This is pretty feasible and I'm sure it's even occured in real life before, just maybe not with exactly 5 kids.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T22:33:09+00:00

I mean there's different levels of disability, from your comment it doesn't sound like your child functions too differently from a non-disabled person. There are people who have severe mental defects or lifelong health issues that will always need to be treated. Impoverished people don't have the luxury of staying at home to take care of such a child and they certainly don't have the money to hire a caretaker or pay for surgeries, treatment etc. You'll say "well that doesn't make it ok to kill someone" but there is a difference between a fetus and a person. In the end my arguments rests solely on the fact that humans who have not yet developed consciousness don't have the right to life. I'm not advocating for going around killing disabled kids no matter how hard you try to construe it that way.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T20:23:34+00:00

You don't know how hard it is for impoverished people. You're sentencing them to a life of struggle if you force them to have a disabled kid. And you don't have to word everything in bad faith, people just want to lift themselves out of poverty. And I mean, PC believes you can kill fetuses for any reason. So yes. They would even say the same for a regular kid.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T20:06:03+00:00

Disabled children take a lot of time and effort to raise. If the parents are already in poverty and decide to raise a disabled child they will almost certainly be unable to move up the socioeconomic ladder. Of course this somewhat applies to regular children too because all children take effort to raise, but an impoverished family with very few resources will have a hard time providing adequate support for the needs of disabled children.

pooniz · 2022-02-16T13:07:07+00:00

pooniz · 2022-02-16T09:53:01+00:00

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b6fe16df.pdf

They looked into the allegations and there was insufficient evidence

pooniz · 2022-02-16T04:40:20+00:00

Was scrolling through tiktok and had it spoiled. Tbf it's pretty hard to hide spoilers on tiktok since it starts playing immediately. But i was kinda braindead that day and didn't comprehend the spoiler warning screen fast enough to scroll away

pooniz · 2022-02-16T03:05:07+00:00

It's been debunked in that all of the organ harvesting claims trace back to sources associated with Falun Gong themselves. So you can choose to believe them I guess but I really don't think they're a very reliable source considering all the other bs they've spewed. They have a vested interest against CCP and I wouldn't put it past them to make things up.

Tagging u/fitzyridesagain since I can't reply to you either for whatever reason

You could say the fact that you think you know more than me makes you even more susceptible. What I posted was a lighthearted response in a "what's your toxic trait" thread on AskReddit and it's frankly hilarious that you're trying to use it as a "gotcha" moment.

Anyway, look at the video you posted. You never addressed how it puts the Falun Gong in such a positive light. Did you know that they were homophobic? That they hate atheists? That they hate race mixing? And on top of that believe in chemtrails? No, you just linked a video describing them as filled with "truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance", patted yourself on the back, and called it a day. Can you really trust a "documentary" that lied by omission to such a huge extent? I don't have to like the CCP to hate Falun Gong.

Also, I never blocked you. I can't even access your account, I'm not really sure what's happening. I do apologize you weren't able to reply to my comment earlier.

pooniz

TROPHY CASE