It's a simile. The teacher should have said so.

quote:

Originally posted by AustralianGQ here i am wasting my time tryna defend myself and for what?

lol,
My name is Tryna and i'm here to eat your babies.

quote:

Originally posted by Plump Funk lol, My name is Tryna and i'm here to eat your babies.

haram

___________________
www.elkdee.com
Soundcloud sampler: www.soundcloud.com/elkdee

quote:

Originally posted by El K Dee haram

says who?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Clowns don't act like clowns... They are clowns, they have no choice. You are a girl. If you say something 'manly' and someone tells you to stop acting like a male. They didn't call you a male, you are a girl acting like a male. If you said something girly, and they told you to stop acting like a girl, it would make no sense, you are a girl, you have no choice. (and don't start on the whole feminist "Well I actually DO have a choice because I am Powerful Woman, and if I want to be a male, I can damn-well be a male!" I'm just illustrating a point) By telling you to stop acting like a clown, your teacher was implying that, in fact, you are NOT a clown, and thus, should stop pretending to be one. If Bozo the Clown were in your grade 5 class, and was creating a disturbance, there's not a whole lot your teacher could have said to him, except to calm down and remember that the whole class isn't filled with clowns.

the fact is that i called him on calling students names and he used fuzzy logic to cover it up. whatever, i say, WHATEVER! i am still damaged as we can tell.

quote:

Originally posted by The Highroller lol uhhh, maybe you should have.

Meh.

___________________
I love rev... Rev-y, Rev, Rev

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree I totally agree, given that the existing ideas and ways are life are still demanded by the majority. Values and priorities in a country are constantly changing and evolving, and as long as the majority of the representatives in the legislative/judicial/executive branches of municipal/provincial/federal bodies agree with said new ideas, then I say get rid of the old ones!

This is exactly why most free countries have constitutions - to protect the citizens from the whims of politicians and the lobbyist groups they represent. It doesn't matter how many representatives in any branch of any level of government agree with some idea, if the implementation of said idea is unconstitutional. And if there's legitimate reason to believe that the constitution didn't account for some real-world situation, there is a system for dealing with that and it's called a referendum.

The "test of the majority" is not a legitimate excuse for elected officials to ram through legislation in order appease minority groups. Simply because it doesn't result in a civil war does not prove that the majority agrees with or even accepts the values represented by such politicking; it only highlights their general apathy and ignorance. Remember we live in a country that obsesses over tolerance, so even if we utterly despise a particular idea or way of life, we are told to simply deal with it and move on with our own lives.

Elected officials in a democracy are elected to represent the values and principles of the majority. Their function is not to test the ideological limits of those they claim to represent, nor is it to use those people as guinea pigs for new philosophies and methodologies. That is the polar opposite of a democracy or republic. In a healthy one, the people decide when they are ready to accept new ideas by voting for the candidates who represent those ideas, and anyone who believes that politicians need to pander to special interest groups in order to achieve progress needs to go back to page one of their history books.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut This is exactly why most free countries have constitutions - to protect the citizens from the whims of politicians and the lobbyist groups they represent. It doesn't matter how many representatives in any branch of any level of government agree with some idea, if the implementation of said idea is unconstitutional. And if there's legitimate reason to believe that the constitution didn't account for some real-world situation, there is a system for dealing with that and it's called a referendum.

No, dealing with a conflict of a real-world situation with the constitution is not called a referendum, it's called a test of the proportionality principle from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms at the Supreme Court level. That's why I included the federal judicial level in my post, because constitutional rights will be protected at that level. If you're referring to an amendment to the constitution, then yes, a referendum would take place to amend it. Once again, get your facts straight

Response to your other two paragraphs to follow...don't have enough time to refute everything right now!