A study on school statutes has late appeared: that they are incompatible with the bill, with the constitution that they are incompatible with nothing and in addition are hidden and unavailable. However, it is not essential to read it due to the fact that the well-known jutuber, reviewer and planet creator Krzysztof M Maj has rescued us with an hour-long stream of awareness about this subject:
]]>https://youtu.be/CEqkCMUCqnc]]>
This stream is worth stopping due to the fact that it does not challenge fascists. As is known, the left-wing argument focuses on calling names: Comrade Stalin had it challenged by fascists. We besides have denilists, religionists, scurries, etc. It's not here or very little. However, I must point out that this broadcast corresponds to the current wisdom of the stage, which is no longer present. I besides don't know whether we actually have an incompatibility with the law here, or possibly with his crazy interpretation. It is surely actual to say that the current state prepares children and young people to live in society, due to the fact that it teaches that this full democracy is simply a drink for water.
It does not deal with the issue of how it should be, but with the specified compliance with the law understood positively (unless). So we have a recipe, we look at what comes from it, not any abstract sense or logic. I consider the recipe here as a creation itself. I besides skip the constant KMM obsessions specified as: descriptive assessments, fighting the software base, computer and cellular games. About them another time.
Where do specified divisions come from? According to classical doctrine, the school should raise, and in order to educate there must be a catalog of desirable attitudes that we shape. And there must be a catalogue of adverse attitudes that we fight. In fact, everyone agrees with this principle. However, there is no agreement on circumstantial standards. It's so messed up that society has become a individual and everyone's going their separate ways. School statues correspond to a classical approach which corresponds in turn to the applicable mental.
But with the law, you know how it is. The bill passes through the parliament, the senate, where it is changed, the amendments are. Which means no 1 knows what happened. frequently the inventor himself does not realize the consequences of what he has done. For example, I have repeatedly set an example of a constitution: how many must the ultimate Court presidents be according to the Constitution? There is only a direct mention to the first president, but can the first president be the only one, or must there be another, the second president at least? And this is where the alleged constitutionalists come in, who come from, that as there is no way it is, as there is no constitution it is elsewhere. And to be as it was.
In this light, note the following:
1. Adults can justify their absences. And leave school whenever they want. There can be no limit on attendance.
2. Keeping the grades of adult students from their parents.
3. Similarly, approval for trips etc.
4. The school can only handle clothes, and what's not. Tattoos.
5. behaviour rating is expected to be behavioral, not object grade.
6. An assessment aiming solely at the programming basis cannot be required more.
7. Criminal postcards illegal.
8. Criminal deprivation of the right to participate in self-government illegal.
9. 1 for deficiency of an illegal notebook.
10. The rating can only be for advancement in science, not for any bullshit.
At the same time, I remind you that we are not considering the desired state of affairs here and the present. It may be due to a messy legal state, that is, what they wanted and what they wrote. To what degree are these objections a manifestation of Talmudic thinking?
Let me remind you that we besides have the current wisdom of the phase here, and we will not find any objections to sexPonton: that if he wants to empathize a puppy, let him build a area and let his parents run kindergartens there. Those who want to, of course. This besides applies to all activism. It's going to be in the next stages, and it's not going to say that individual doesn't want to, like they are elsewhere. The situation here is alternatively difficult.
In times of world-view pluralism, it was impossible to justice at all, due to the fact that everyone could say that according to his world-view 2+2=5 and already. The conflict of Grunwald is 1525, not 1410, etc. Fortunately, this doctrine is false, and we have world-view murderism.
That's it for starters, due to the fact that it's a development. I'll keep you posted.
