Strikes to go ahead

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

You are a idiot arn't you. I never said that the school should look after my child but is fairly obvious child care is based around school.

To counter your argument though I presume you think parents should not send children to school as they are ultimate responsible for everything, including education.


Tell me when you have some reason and logic and we can carry on the debate rather that this futile OTT reactions to rational points.

No, you're an idiot because you have resorted to name-calling. Strange that it has never been obvious to me that first and foremost that I am for work-related child care. I have alway understood that my responsibility is to teach children well enough such that they learn, for that to happen then they must be in my care and I must care for them while they are. What their parents are doing with themselves at this time is entirely irrelevant.

What you go on to 'presume' is entirely incorrect and largely nonsensical; I am not surprised as you presumed it.

Futile, OTT reactions to rational points? A rather hypocritical accusation don't you think? I have been neither OTT nor have I been futile. Your futile, OTT reaction to my rational posts demonstrate this.

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

oh dear, oh dear.

Did you need to change your post after to say "political" to make the above post, it is still clear what I quoted.

Just admit you made a point that was wrong or miss worded instead of having ago, your mistake not mine.
I just pointed out it was not mentioned on the thread, you then felt the need to change it and then try to make out I am not up to date on a point you never made!!!!

I think there may be a fair amount of political rhetoric on the thread now though.

Oh my. You are getting flustered aren't you?

I will admit that, while there was absolutely nothing incomprehensible about my post without the insertion of the word political, the insertion of the word has certainly clarified the meaning and will prevent snotty comments like:

Has it been mentioned?
A quick search of the thread seems to hint it has not been.

So, tell me, what was the point of the above comment? You were spoiling for a reaction weren't you? Or did you think that it had true value?

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

No, you're an idiot because you have resorted to name-calling. Strange that it has never been obvious to me that first and foremost that I am for work-related child care. I have alway understood that my responsibility is to teach children well enough such that they learn, for that to happen then they must be in my care and I must care for them while they are. What their parents are doing with themselves at this time is entirely irrelevant.

What you go on to 'presume' is entirely incorrect and largely nonsensical; I am not surprised as you presumed it.

Futile, OTT reactions to rational points? A rather hypocritical accusation don't you think? I have been neither OTT nor have I been futile. Your futile, OTT reaction to my rational posts demonstrate this.

ooh so now you have done it I was right in the first place then?:D (all though stating things I never said and genrally using snide comments is fine)

You have clearly said I expect schools to look after children while I work, (never said that)
I have debated clearly and you have not responded to the points of debate.
If you cant I will stick with my assessment of you and use the ignore button.
If you still can't see how a strike may cause problems for some parents I would say think about the points raised then come back with some logical debate of why some parent are not inconvenienced other than making up stuff people never said.

It is not a clever form of debate, it is a style of debate I usually associate with my previous assessment.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

Oh my. You are getting flustered aren't you?

I will admit that, while there was absolutely nothing incomprehensible about my post without the insertion of the word political, the insertion of the word has certainly clarified the meaning and will prevent snotty comments like:

So, tell me, what was the point of the above comment? You were spoiling for a reaction weren't you? Or did you think that it had true value?

Without the word political inserted it was more than plausibel it related to the debate on this current thread. (seen as this is the debate here)
Putting political in it completely changes the relevance and I would not argued (even though I have not heard the abandonment claim TBH)

Even you must realise putting "political" in makes it specific, with out it it is not specific.

Orpheo

You haven't made any points worth challenging that I haven't challenged.

I have not argued that working parents will not be inconvenienced. Or as you might say:

Has it been mentioned?
A quick search of the thread seems to hint it has not been.

Perhaps you should use the ignore button. I think it would be better for you if you did.

You don't have a style of debate. What you have is a sense of entitlement to be correct and to not be disagreed with.

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

Without the word political inserted it was more than plausibel it related to the debate on this current thread. (seen as this is the debate here)
Putting political in it completely changes the relevance and I would not argued (even though I have not heard the abandonment claim TBH)

You are now ceasing to make sense.

Really2 wrote: »

Even you must realise putting "political" in makes it specific, with out it it is not specific.

I have already said as much.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

You haven't made any points worth challenging that I haven't challenged.

I have not argued that working parents will not be inconvenienced. Or as you might say:



Perhaps you should use the ignore button. I think it would be better for you if you did.

You don't have a style of debate. What you have is a sense of entitlement to be correct and to not be disagreed with.

So why not reply back to why parents may be miffed on the fact that they will have to take holiday/ pay for child care/ unpaid leave to teach their own child at home in term time given that they are paying taxes for state education.
Your assertion was

It has not wound up the public,

my responses was about incovienence
and you said

Then you think that school is there to look after you kids while you go to work. You have the education system you deserve.

If your whole idea of this not possibly causing some problems to the public is based on parents are responsible for children 24/7 it kind of makes a mockery of the point of education as we should not trust others with children?

You are going about getting support the wrong way.

I am not affected by this but the way you think the public is unaffected shows just how out of touch you are. There will be many affected and possibly justified miffed if the attitude to them is the same as your.

Really2

Orpheo wrote: »

I have already said as much. Well I would argue you ignored the fact you edited it in your response

Orpheo wrote: »

In fact the term rhetoric, for me at least, seems to imply that I was referring to our politicians

Well perhaps you need a greater understanding of the rhetoric it is the use of language with persuasive effect.
You are using it at the moment, it is not reserved for just politics. (although I feel a certain amount of political motivation from your posts)

Anyway, glad you now admit that my response was valid as there was not indication it was about politicians other than in your head.

mintedmatty

Having read through this thread I really am torn on what I think? Part of me thinks I would be on the side of the strikers if I were a teacher, nobody likes the thought of their future changing for the worse and if you are going to be worse of in monetary terms/ have to contribute more to your future then I'm sure I would be annoyed?

The other part of me thinks that the Strike could have such an outreaching effect to the country, have the Teachers (and Union) really thought what the after-effects will be of such a strike? Respect is a massive word and I have always been brought up to think that you can/should discuss anything until you reach an agreement? What good will come of a strike? I just feel the circumstances that Teachers already have makes this nonsense seem a bit 'teddy throwing' I have friends who are teachers and know they work longer hours marking/preparing etc but they know this when they chose their career path and the pension is just one of many pros in a teaching career.

Final salary/gold plated pensions are finished pure and simple, unaffordabel! People like myself dont even have an employer that contributes to a pension and I accept that and realised when I set my pension up I would have to make sacrifices to make sure i am comfortable in retirement, call me naive but shouldnt 'those who can....teach' lead by their own example and accept the changing economic climate and put in what everybody else has to?

Orpheo

Really2 wrote: »

Well perhaps you need a greater understanding of the rhetoric it is the use of language with persuasive effect.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Been using google have we?