forsaken

One cannot choose to make sense up to a point.

Year 12, My days aren't scheduled nicely so I'll just list the subjects I do. 1. Legal Studies [2 units] 2. Advanced Mathematics [2 units] 3. Extension 1 Mathematics [1 unit] 4. Advanced English [2 units] 5. Extension 1 English [1 unit] 6. Physics [2 units] Brief explanation of units: In the state of New South Wales, Australia, we have something called the 'High School Certificate' [HSC]. This is a series of tests on your chosen subjects at the end of year 12 which contribute to something called your University Admission Index [uAI]. Effectively what occurs is that you can get a UAI from 0-100. 100 meaning top of the state, 0 being bottom etc. This UAI is calculated from your best 10 units [as you can see, I only do 10 units - but you can do 12/13/14 if you want to, but the best 10 are chosen] comparative to everyone else's best 10 units. Just in case anyone was wondering that. *whistles*

Google Sky? CNN might not have mentioned it but my country's news did a while ago. Pretty awesome eh?

They don't see 'blackness' as you or I perceive it. Blackness is the perception of the lack of light. If you've never perceived light, you cannot distinguish between its presence, or in this case, the lack of it. Those who are partially blind perceive a blur, those who are born blind [without the visual component evident in normal brains/eyes] interpret the world in terms of touch, smell, sound and taste. Led - for the completely blind, the glasses don't help them in anyway. As you mentioned, it's probably to evade awkwardness, although this is just speculation.

We had a thread like this earlier. I'm assuming you're referencing people who are blind from birth. Basically, there are no facts, merely two broad divisions of opinion: 1. That they can dream visually and pretty much that the ability to understand and comprehend visual experiences is an inherent component of the human body. 2. That they can't, because they've never known, nor experienced sensory visual data and thus cannot imagine what they cannot know. Personally, I am of the latter's opinion.

As mentioned, do not categorise yourself, be yourself. By categorising yourself you only make yourself more conscious of the 'apparent' differences between yourself and the mainstream, thus exacerbating the situation. Also, be above them. Don't let their comments get to you. By doing so, it serves almost as an irresistible bait which they just have to bite on.

First of all, the school should not and can not suspend you for a bodily function that is inevitable and a necessity. Secondly, you do not, under any circumstance, attempt to explain a situation's ridiculousness by using the word '[developmentally delayed]ed', especially if it is in the presence of a principal. Thirdly, I suggest you or your parents attempt to speak reason with the school once again, and failing that, raise the issue with the next up in the chain.

The mere fact that a good 3 pages were dedicated to shopping - regardless of the dialogue - makes me question Chris' masculinity mildly. :P

A key comment must be raised about why some seem to view drawing as something that is 'wrong'. Some of you have made the comment "I've done heaps worse things". The point is not in what you've done that's worse - rather, that what was done was not morally 'incorrect' in the first place. Drawing is not a crime. Drawing in a school textbook? That'd just be against school rules. Yet again, not worth a suspension. Not even worth a walk to the principal's worth. Hell, I'd say it doesn't even merit a comment from a teacher because everyone does it.

Hahaha I've made like 10 friends read it. Then that leads to a chain effect. Operation Butterfly Effect in ... well, effect!

The thing you all have to keep in mind is that there are two broad groups that 'bullies' fall into later in their life: 1. The fools who don't know anything and try to clean your car windows at lights. 2. They actually turn out alright - then you can bring what they did up to them, guilt trip them, and then have them feel like they emotionally 'owe' you for the rest of their life. All-in-all, not bad eh?

Sorry I fail to see how drawing can be wrong. To everyone who says it was justified to suspend a child or that there was some modicum of sense to it - get a reality check. It's a drawing. If there's a rule against drawing guns in school I hereby put forth the tacit suggestion that it is a ridiculous rule and should be nullified because it's just a waste of time. I repeat. It is a drawing. A drawing. People draw. I could draw a thousand dead men in my notebook at school, and you know what I would say if a teacher tried to get me in trouble? I would ask them what exactly was wrong with it. There's pictures of dead people in it? Yep. So? What's wrong with that? I would also raise a few quiet questions as to their common-sense. I repeat. It is a drawing. Whatever school this was, I have to say it's a bloody stupid one.

I don't think I've ever been bullied. Either that or I just haven't cared/noticed it. I'm told I have an acerbic wit and an unnerving 'stare'. Those might be possible contributors. edit: Actually I remember an occasion now! In my younger years my parents forced me to go to saturday school to learn their native language. During this period there were a brother-sister pair who thought they were the epitome of hilarity by picking on someone several years younger than them. Alike to some posters above, I have spent many a reflective moment dreaming of meeting them again and teaching them a lesson or two. [;

House-husband. 'Cause I'm awesome like that.

I'm sure a link from the Catholic Apolgetics Society is going to be completley impartial when discussing things which they already beleive is - by divine word - wrong. Doesn't get away from the fact that they are..facts. I could just as easily quote obscure facts from books written in the 1960's - 1990's, all of which probably have different standards and conceptions of what constitutes a homosexual, which convey 'facts' different to those. Plus, I am fairly adverse to being receptive to that list of apparent 'statistics'. When the post itself writes "A phrase that has come up recently in this earth is "sexual orientation." This is a phrase made up by homosexuals to try to make themselves look less filthy than they really are." and draws a tenuous, fallacious link such as " If you're not going to discriminate based on "sexual orientation", then you must not discriminate against any of the following. Bestiality, pedophile, necrophilia., exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, sadism, transvestitism, voyeurism." I am hesitant to believe that it wishes to convey an objective 'statistical' view.

Merely because individuals do not find anything wrong with it does not necessitate comfortability regarding it. Coupled with the fact that homosexuals are a minority, it's unsurprising that some may find it a 'taboo'. What's important to remember is that in the legal sense, the rights of the individual extend insofar as it one does not impugne on the right of the another. Simply put, we can [generally] do whatever or say whatever we want, so long as we do not injure others or attempt to oppose our own views above others. Even if homosexuals are the same in a legal right still many people will impose their views on those that are homosexual. It is common in playgrounds that if someone does something stupid or idiotic then he will be called something revolving around the word "gay". I mentioned something earlier in the thread but on a different response, but I believe it retains relevance here. That is, I do not see the link between immaturity and immorality. Anyway, my point was that people can find something moral whilst they may find it uncomfortable. I am well aware that there are persons who will impose their on views on homosexuals - but I fail to see how this relates to my earlier post.

Merely because individuals do not find anything wrong with it does not necessitate comfortability regarding it. Coupled with the fact that homosexuals are a minority, it's unsurprising that some may find it a 'taboo'. What's important to remember is that in the legal sense, the rights of the individual extend insofar as it one does not impugne on the right of the another. Simply put, we can [generally] do whatever or say whatever we want, so long as we do not injure others or attempt to oppose our own views above others.

You'd be living in a country of idiots if they didnt take checking passengers seriously. They can check whoever the hell they like, they're trying to protect people like you who don't seem to want to draw a line on how intense checking any passenger is. I'd sure as hell rather the people at english airports checking me than if i got through without anyone being bothered. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If airport officials have their doubts about anyone then they have the right to check them as much as they like, its ludicrous people on this board who think the kid shouldn't have been checked. No one said he shouldn't be checked. The issue that was raised was that he was checked several times. Furthermore, it was on the basis that he might have been a 30 year old terrorist who shared the same name. How long, I ask you, does it take to recognise that a 7 year old is not 30 years old? The question here does not lay within the need to check, but the inanity inherent in having to check if a boy, who clearly is a 7 year old boy, was a 30 year old terrorist. Therein lies the issue, and thus the stupidity demarcated in the article.

I don't really see this link between immorality and immaturity that you're trying to draw. My question to you is, who - or what - determines what we 'were meant to be'. Secondly, if that which determines what we were meant to be truly does exist, does that not by the same token mean that it was the causative factor behind persons being homosexual?

motif => theme, conception, idea.

I myself was about to comment about Australia's lack of water, so consider this a re-affirmation. On what basis does your conception of an 'ideal environment' stem from? To me it seems like your reasoning for it is circular. Similar to trying to define a word by using the word itself. Why is a mother and father the ideal parent-couple for a child? Does it stem from the fact that you believe a homosexual couple will unduly influence the child's development? If so, I beg to differ: the mere existence of homosexuality serves as a telling counter-argument. I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that many homosexuals have 'come out of the closet' when they themselves were raised in such an 'ideal' environment. The point of the matter is - the child, when grown - can by and large make their own decisions regarding their sexuality, a fact we see concreted by the existence of homosexuals in the first instance.

Personally, the same principle that I apply for anything that provides enjoyment applies to [soft] drugs. So long as it is used in moderation [and is a process/substance that will not unduly affect your ability to determine what is 'moderate' correctly] then there is no issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. You can die from driving a car too fast. You can die from over-gaming. Hell - you can even die from over-drinking. Point of the matter is, moderation is the key.

I am possibly one of the most unlikely persons to read this type of thing. I just read all 797 pages in one sitting. The relationship between Emily and Ash as well as the comic relief offered by the angels and the sub-plots [which I take care not to mention] effectively sucked me in. Bloody awesome!

Has anyone actually looked at her? Even with the judicious, ludicrous almost pretentious amount of makeup on her she manages to look... Not so good. Imagine her without makeup. Anyway, am I the only one who noticed that the company name 'totes-isotoner' was almost an anagram of testosterone? Totes-istoner => Testosteronio. Subliminal messages, anyone?

Trial HSC this upcoming week. I am not impressed by it, nor the standard of my preparation [or lack there of]. Serephurus: In Australia you have to wear school uniforms. Not casual, but formal. Business shirt [white for seniors], tie, black leather shoes, black pants etc. Enjoy the fact that you only have to wear a polo and khaki pants.