Expelled with one day left. (3 Viewers)

[Supaweak]

so youd risk injuring someone because its more convenient for you to drive than to wake up at 4am in the morning? does convenience justify the risk any better? hmm..



i hope you get it by now that im not trying to say that driving a car is dangerously bad, im saying that despite all the accidents and deaths, theres not enough justification to stop the production of cars, because the purpose of the car is for the convenience of travel. same goes for waterbombs (but in a different way), the purpose is to have fun, cause someone a bit of grief for what, an incredibly short period, cause others to have fun, and yes, ofcourse every now and then there is an extreme circumstance where its over the top ie someone getting seriously injured, but to factor that into this is like factoring all the issues associated with cars.

Gosh, do you have a clue on what the dynamic is like on the last week for year 12, the last week isnt a week of complete chaos where everyone forgets that oh shit we have the hsc in a couple of weeks. its. the. final. week. of. school. ever. I gaurantee you that your not gonna spend it completely couped up worrying over the HSC (even though you should be to an extent).
Why are you still regarding waterbombs as a weapon of mass destruction? Yeah i know that there are more enjoyable things, but the point is someone got EXPELLED for it. ESPECIALLY in the context that the whole thing was associated with.

Im finishing my payroll shift now and i dont think ill get a chance to reply till tommorow. hope we can continue this then.

 

[mirakon]

you are going to screw up someone's clothes, put them in an uncomfortable position and potentially, although not always the case, harm them.

It's incredibly selfish to say that throwing a water bomb at someone is fun and therefore justified. What you are essentially doing is screwing up someone else's day for entertainment.

You completely ignored this point. Essentially the fact is that he threw the water bomb. He pretty much asked for punishment and unfortunately he got a severe one. The trigger action for this punishment was his throwing of the water bomb and so ultimately it's his problem. Tough luck.

theres not enough justification to stop the production of cars, because the purpose of the car is for the convenience of travel. same goes for waterbombs (but in a different way), the purpose is to have fun, cause someone a bit of grief for what, an incredibly short period, cause others to have fun, and yes, of course every now and then there is an extreme circumstance where its over the top ie someone getting seriously injured, but to factor that into this is like factoring all the issues associated with cars.

However that contradicts the logic below:

Your argument is completely nullified by the fact that conveninece is something that is somewhat of a necessity. We use a car because if I didn't use one I'd have to wake up at 4am to get to school. There is absolutely nothing, on the other hand, necessary about a water bomb. Clearly, your argument is pointless.

Here's further explanation. Convenience is something that is in the case of cars sometimes a necessity. Often there is no other alternative, for example a bike can be too slow to reach the required destination or I may be too old to go through such exercise if I was elderly.

Fun, although it is needed for purpose of living, can manifest in more ways than causing potential harm to others such as with water bombs. There are more options.

Once again, I ask, surely there are things that are just as fun that do not cause such strife? Thus your analogy is ineffective or rather useless in this case.

 

[JackLinScots]

Its a fucking waterbomb, not worthy of expulsion after 13 years of school, especially when there were no serious consequences.

Sick of you public heroes who think breaking the rules is the worst thing imaginable, your support of excessive punishment is morally worse than throwing a waterbomb.

 

[mirakon]

Sick of you public heroes who think breaking the rules is the worst thing imaginable,

We're sick of people like you who think its entertaining to annoy others by throwing water bombs at them. Obviously you are therefore worse.

Maybe the punishment was excessive, but unlike some of the posts above, throwing a water bomb cannot be justified. Punishment is necessary. A suspension was not possible on account of it being the last day of school as it would have no impact. However it had to be a severe punishment because this could potentially injure someone or cause damages to property (screwed up electronics or uniform). So expulsion was pretty much the only option.

 

[JackLinScots]

We're sick of people like you who think its entertaining to annoy others by throwing water bombs at them. Obviously you are therefore worse.

Maybe the punishment was excessive, but unlike some of the posts above, throwing a water bomb cannot be justified. Punishment is necessary. A suspension was not possible on account of it being the last day of school as it would have no impact. However it had to be a severe punishment because this could potentially injure someone or cause damages to property (screwed up electronics or uniform). So expulsion was pretty much the only option.

Can you give me a single example of someone's "electronics" being damaged by a waterbomb? And I'd hardly say a temporarily wet uniform constitutes "damage to property."
Expulsion was not the only option, theres such things as reverse suspensions.
You sound like a fucking robot "punishment is necessary", punishment is not necessary, its the last day of school, punishment, especially expulsion would serve absolutely no purpose, noone would gain from it, unless they made him clean up around the school or something.
Its a fucking waterbomb, seriously man up you fucking pussy, stop trying to make it a huge deal.
The fact of the matter is noone was injured, no damage was caused to electronics, you cant bubblewrap everything.

 

[Aerath]

Can you give me a single example of someone's "electronics" being damaged by a waterbomb? And I'd hardly say a temporarily wet uniform constitutes "damage to property."

Hmmmm, did you read how Kwayera's Ipod fucked up?

 

[JackLinScots]

Hmmmm, did you read how Kwayera's Ipod fucked up?

Thats a freak accident, in which case the guy who threw it should have to compensate the guy, and bad luck to the guy who threw it, but its not like its done with malicious intent to damage peoples ipods and phones.

Lesson learnt I guess, keep your ipod in a case in case it starts to rain or you knock a glass of water over, or someone waterbombs you.

 

[Supaweak]

Ahh back earlier with the chance to flick through.

kwayera's case was with a freaking egg not a waterbomb. Totally fucking different. And it would be even more different if it was a rock.

and my goodness mirakon.... So, does that mean everytime it RAINS and theres no shelter and you get soaked, do you crawl up under a tree and cry and fall into deep depression? what a fucking sad world we live in if people are caused incredible amounts of 'strife' when hit by a waterbomb (excluding kwayeras case). I cant imagine how you people would be like if it rained or hailed on you.

And you totally push away from the main argument. Why did you turn this into a
'Hey Supaweak, theres other ways of having fun instead of throwing waterbombs'.
NO, that was not the initial argument, yes i know that there are other ways to have fun on a muckup day rofl my life doesnt revolve around waterbombs. I never said that waterbombs were the only way to celebrate the last week of your school life. What you're suppose to be implying is
'Hey Supaweak, the guy deserved to get expelled/suspended for throwing a waterbomb' and that is where our true arguement is at..not you trying to tell me there are other ways to have fun that doesnt involve affecting other people in the most minimal manner...fucks sake, im not an idiot.

I cannot believe you associated 'strife' with a WATER BOMB, a toy, a plaything, No, not a knife, not a gun, not a freaking scissor, a water bomb...

If people could not man the fuck up to water bombs then we would live in a very very sad world.


Oh i didnt see that you had a go at my comparison/analogy thing. My analogy is perfectly fine. My situation applies to YOU, not an elderly person. You are perfectly capable of travelling without the use of a vehicle, yet, you take the risk of driving the car which can result in harm. Convenience doesnt equal necessity. So since your escalating the threat of waterbombing people, i guess same should be assumed for every time you travel by vehicle instead of walking/using public transport. You only do it for convenience. Don't cry about waking up at 4am.

 

[Dumbledore]

if the waterbomb did come from a car driving at 60k/hr, fair enough get expelled for either intent, or stupidity (if intent wasn't there).

i don't think OP's case came from a car though, most likely it didn't do any damage, in that case expulsion seems a bit much.

 

[Supaweak]

Im pretty sure it didnt come from a car. Because that means it was done out of school and unless it was outside the schools street and they were in uniform, then i dont think the school has jurisdiction otherwise in their out of school activities, so it was most likely in school and thrown at other students.

 

[Kwayera]

Alright ladies and gents, it's pucker time. Do you want to know why waterbombing is punished so severely? Because harmful accidents can and do happen.

And you know what is likely to happen if schools don't react strongly to discourage such activity, and in the very unlikely event it does harm someone, like blinding that girl?

BECAUSE THE SCHOOL IS THEN LIABLE TO BE SUED FOR A FUCKING WHOLE LOT OF MONEY FOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OVER STUDENTS THEY LEGALLY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR.

THAT is why they make you sign retarded behaviour agreements before excursions. THAT is why they send you home if you behave. And THAT is why they expel or suspend you for throwing waterbombs, EVEN RIGHT BEFORE THE HSC, because the innocent bystander who is blinded by a waterbomb has every right to sue the school for everything it has, and said school has the smarts not to take the risk. One individual student is worth less monetarily than being sued by a grieved innocent waterbomb victim.

The school doesn't care if you think being suspended for throwing a waterbomb is retarded or not, and THAT is why.

Grow the fuck up, you morons.

 

[untouchablecuz]

...yer!

what she said

but in light of this, egging and waterbombing is still frikin fun

 

[Kwayera]

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

 

[JackLinScots]

Alright ladies and gents, it's pucker time. Do you want to know why waterbombing is punished so severely? Because harmful accidents can and do happen.

And you know what is likely to happen if schools don't react strongly to discourage such activity, and in the very unlikely event it does harm someone, like blinding that girl?

BECAUSE THE SCHOOL IS THEN LIABLE TO BE SUED FOR A FUCKING WHOLE LOT OF MONEY FOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE OVER STUDENTS THEY LEGALLY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR.

THAT is why they make you sign retarded behaviour agreements before excursions. THAT is why they send you home if you behave. And THAT is why they expel or suspend you for throwing waterbombs, EVEN RIGHT BEFORE THE HSC, because the innocent bystander who is blinded by a waterbomb has every right to sue the school for everything it has, and said school has the smarts not to take the risk. One individual student is worth less monetarily than being sued by a grieved innocent waterbomb victim.

The school doesn't care if you think being suspended for throwing a waterbomb is retarded or not, and THAT is why.

Grow the fuck up, you morons.

I think being expelled for throwing a waterbomb, is retarded.

 

[Kwayera]

I think being expelled for throwing a waterbomb, is retarded.

Like I said. If it may result in the school being sued, they don't care.

I live in the sue-happy North Shore, and you bet that had one of the Year 12s at my school thrown a water bomb at some member of the public or another student, and had it cause damage, you bet the aggrieved or the parents of the aggrieved would have sued. Hence, we weren't allowed to have a "much up day".

 

[Supaweak]

Like I said. If it may result in the school being sued, they don't care.

I live in the sue-happy North Shore, and you bet that had one of the Year 12s at my school thrown a water bomb at some member of the public or another student, and had it cause damage, you bet the aggrieved or the parents of the aggrieved would have sued. Hence, we weren't allowed to have a "much up day".

wow. So if im reading right, because the person threw the waterbomb its ok for the school to overpunish the student because they can get sued.

How about this (sorry to overkill the car analogy), a man crashes his car into another car, but no one is hurt, but he gets put in jail for life and treated like he committed murder because the situation had the potential to cause more harm. Thus this justifies the courts extreme sentence.

...

Yes fine you can keep saying that what he did was wrong, im saying that what he did was not enough for his punishment.

Im not trying to be a retard, im trying to be fair and realistic.

Please, stop making it seem like every time you throw a water bomb there is an incredibly likely chance to severely harm someone.
Does this imply that all those primary school children who have FUN throwing water bombs at eachother at birthday parties are putting their friends in serious danger every time they throw a waterbomb at eachother? Does this mean the parent of the child who got the waterbomb thrown at is allowed to go over the fucking top and go crazy at parents of the child who threw the waterbomb?

 

[Kwayera]

wow. So if im reading right, because the person threw the waterbomb its ok for the school to overpunish the student because they can get sued.

How about this (sorry to overkill the car analogy), a man crashes his car into another car, but no one is hurt, but he gets put in jail for life and treated like he committed murder because the situation had the potential to cause more harm. Thus this justifies the courts extreme sentence.
...

Yes fine you can keep saying that what we did was wrong, im saying that what he did was not enough for his punishment.

Im not trying to be a retard, im trying to be fair and realistic.

Please, stop making it seem like every time you throw a water bomb there is an incredibly likely chance to severely harm someone.
Does this imply that all those primary school children who have FUN throwing water bombs at eachother at birthday parties are putting their friends in serious danger every time they throw a waterbomb at eachother? Does this mean the parent of the child who got the waterbomb thrown at is allowed to go over the fucking top and go crazy at parents of the child who threw the waterbomb?

That's a stupid analogy and you know it. Again with the straw man. A more apt analogy would be a court finding someone guilty of dangerous/reckless driving even when it doesn't hurt anyone.

Schools frankly don't care if what you did actually had any harm or not. This is why students are expelled for vandalism, for smuggling in alcohol or cigarettes.

In a society that can successfully sue the owner of a home for negligence for breaking the leg of a burglar trying to break in through a skylight, a school with a bottom line and a reputation to protect isn't going to have a second thought in expelling an HSC student that threatens that. Better believe it.

 

[Supaweak]

That's a stupid analogy and you know it. Again with the straw man. A more apt analogy would be a court finding someone guilty of dangerous/reckless driving even when it doesn't hurt anyone.

Schools frankly don't care if what you did actually had any harm or not. This is why students are expelled for vandalism, for smuggling in alcohol or cigarettes.

In a society that can successfully sue the owner of a home for negligence for breaking the leg of a burglar trying to break in through a skylight, a school with a bottom line and a reputation to protect isn't going to have a second thought in expelling an HSC student that threatens that. Better believe it.

alright. But why do you still ignore the context, its the last week of school, stuff like this is happening all over the state, and i know that doesnt justify hurting or harming.
But you brought up vandalism and use of cigarrettes/alcohol. We're not talking about the school thug who repeatedly does shit like this during the year enough to get him expelled. No, this is the normal year 12 student with decent grades getting expelled for having a bit of fun in the last week of school.

and honestly, is it right to put waterbombing right up there with bringing drugs, alcohol, and actual weapons to school?

Yeah ok, you've determined that the school doesnt give a shit about the student, but that does not make the punishment any lighter. The schools first motive should be the welfare of the student, way before its reputation. I don't mind the fact that he should get punished, but his punishment was way too far.

A note on the 'reputation' of a school. Kids these days have ALOT more control on which high school they want to attend, the parents opinion is now usually set back to what the kid really wants. A parent hearing that the school EXPELLING a decently graded student for something as minor as waterbombing is highly unlikely to attract the kid/parent combo looking for a highschool. Good results and high rankings is what makes the parents cream, not hearing that they have incredibly uptight behavorial policies. Then again, schools dont want it on their portfolio saying that a kid got blinded by a waterbomb -> but what the fuck are the chances of that? The chances of that are similar to the school being burned down or having a mass murderer walking in with a machete hacking up furniture.


I dont need to fully express my analogies, because im pretty sure most people are getting the generalized point.

 

[Kwayera]

alright. But why do you still ignore the context, its the last week of school, stuff like this is happening all over the state, and i know that doesnt justify hurting or harming.
But you brought up vandalism and use of cigarrettes/alcohol. We're not talking about the school thug who repeatedly does shit like this during the year enough to get him expelled. No, this is the normal year 12 student with decent grades getting expelled for having a bit of fun in the last week of school.

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?

and honestly, is it right to put waterbombing right up there with bringing drugs, alcohol, and actual weapons to school?

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

Yeah ok, you've determined that the school doesnt give a shit about the student, but that does not make the punishment any lighter. The schools first motive should be the welfare of the student, way before its reputation. I don't mind the fact that he should get punished, but his punishment was way too far.

A note on the 'reputation' of a school. Kids these days have ALOT more control on which high school they want to attend, the parents opinion is now usually set back to what the kid really wants. A parent hearing that the school EXPELLING a decently graded student for something as minor as waterbombing is highly unlikely to attract the kid/parent combo looking for a highschool. Good results and high rankings is what makes the parents cream, not hearing that they have incredibly uptight behavorial policies. Then again, schools dont want it on their portfolio saying that a kid got blinded by a waterbomb -> but what the fuck are the chances of that? The chances of that are similar to the school being burned down or having a mass murderer walking in with a machete hacking up furniture.

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

No. Didn't think so.

 

[Supaweak]

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.

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.
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?
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?