Is a word used too often these days.  We have people claiming to be 'proud' of their specific brand of disability, from deaf pride to fat pride. 


Quote:

FORMER MasterChef winner Julie Goodwin said she is in robust good health and has hit out at claims she needs to lose weight after posing in her swimming costume for a woman's magazine. The mother of three said using size as the only indicator to someones health is facile after Sunday Telegraph Insider social columnist Ros Reines attacked her looks after appearing on the cover of New Idea. Reines said it was irresponsible for Goodwin to pretend it is fine to be overweight and said she needs owes it to her children to downsize. Goodwin hit back in her online blog yesterday saying she was proud of her body with all its magnificent imperfections.

It is one thing to be 'not ashamed' of her body, I can understand that, but to be 'proud' of it is another entirely.  Doesn't, or shouldn't, one usually feel pride -genuine pride - at ones achievements, rather than ones weaknesses?   

This is another way of saying that 'all shall have prizes'.

And if everyone is proud, no-one is ashamed.



Bring Back Stigma
Roger Scruton

It is now orthodox to regard social stigma as a form of oppression, to be discarded on our collective quest for inner freedom. But the political philosophers and novelists of former times would have been horrified by such a view. In almost all matters that touched upon the core requirements of social order, they believed that the genial pressure of manners, morals, and customs—enforced by the various forms of disapproval, stigma, shame, and reproach—was a more powerful guarantor of civilized and lawful behavior than the laws themselves. Inner sanctions, they argued, more dependably maintain society than such external ones as policemen and courts. That is why the moralists of the eighteenth century, for example, rarely touched upon murder, theft, rape, or criminal deception; instead, they were passionately interested in the small-scale mores on which social order depends and which, properly adhered to, make such crimes unthinkable.

Stigma has evaporated in our era, and along with it much of the constant, small-scale self-regulation of the community, which depends on each individual's respect for, and fear of, other people's judgment.

Read on at http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html

That's it - bring back stigma. 

I know that these 'pride' organistaions aren't really filled with 'proud' people, but rather ashamed people who want support from those who share their affliction, and I can respect that.

But when they start using their collective as a means to bludgeon society into accepting their favourable orthodoxy when do you say enough is enough?  When do you quit tiptoeing around their flaws in the name of sensitivity and give em a bit of 'tough love'? 


Quote:

The odd result of this movement to reject stigma, however, has been the introduction of stigma of another kind. "Judgmental" people find themselves condemned with a vehemence that would have gone down well in Salem. Those who live by the old morality end up paraded with abusive labels: if you deplore illegitimacy and the welfare dependency that often follows it, you show yourself to be "mean-spirited" and lacking in "compassion"; if you oppose the normalization of homosexuality, you are "homophobic"; if you believe in Western culture, you are an "elitist"—all labels that can damage a professional career. Stigma floats free in the anarchic world of individualist life-styles, ready to attach itself to anyone who stands up for self-restraint. It is in this context that we should understand political correctness. The new kind of stigma creates a new kind of fear. Political correctness is not a morality in the traditional sense: it does not require you to change your life, to make sacrifices, or to live by an exacting code of conduct. It tells you to watch your language, so as to avoid the only prevalent adverse judgment, which is judgment of the adverse judge. It tells you to speak inclusively of other cultures, other life-styles, other values: never take a disapproving stance or use words that might imply one. Hence the extreme volatility of the new speech codes. Any phrase or idiom that seems to imply judgment of another category or class of people can become, almost overnight, an object of stigma. Unlike the old forms of stigma, however, whose function was to bind a community together and to seal each member into the common fate, this new form of stigma has precisely the opposite aim: to permit social fragmentation. The talk of "social inclusion" is a mask for the reverse.

and it is precisely this 'social fragmentation' that allows relatively small bands of whine-mongers to impose their will on a divided public. 

Soren wrote on Jan 10^th, 2012 at 9:54pm:

This is another way of saying that 'all shall have prizes'. And if everyone is proud, no-one is ashamed.

LOL

And there is much to be ashamed of, methinks.

But that is a thought that should never be uttered today, it seems.



So much wrong.

And so much denial [of any wrong].

......and when the chooks come home to roost?





No accountability.

That is the [false] morality which this generation has been encouraged to embrace, imo.

It is sad.

I agree with your sentiments, Honky, but I think what the Masterchef lady's getting at is that fat ladies are UNFAILY stigmatised.

In most other cultures they're high status fertility godesses, just as they were here until the 1930s or so.

When do you quit tiptoeing around people's flaws? Yadda should be able to answer that one.

When you've removed your own. Only Dr Phil is allowed to dispense Tough Love. It gets good ratings, you see.

People seem to have this unquenchable thirst for the blood of others. It used to be gladiators, now it's Dr Phil and public housing tenants getting their comeuppance on Today Tonight. You think stigma doesn't exist?

Today you're stigmatised for not wearing the right brands or not having a marketable body. The goalposts have changed to suit the economy. In the past you'd get stigmatised for getting yourself knocked up or not getting yourself killed in the trenches. Stigmas have always been used as a form of social control.

Stigmas are the weapons of bitter old gossips with nothing better to do than meddle in other people's lives.

Yadda and I prefer to follow the teachings of Jesus, thank you.

Karnal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 2:32pm:

I agree with your sentiments, Honky, but I think what the Masterchef lady's getting at is that fat ladies are UNFAILY stigmatised. In most other cultures they're high status fertility godesses, just as they were here until the 1930s or so. When do you quit tiptoeing around people's flaws? Yadda should be able to answer that one. When you've removed your own. Only Dr Phil is allowed to dispense Tough Love. It gets good ratings, you see. People seem to have this unquenchable thirst for the blood of others. It used to be gladiators, now it's Dr Phil and public housing tenants getting their comeuppance on Today Tonight. You think stigma doesn't exist? Today you're stigmatised for not wearing the right brands or not having a marketable body. The goalposts have changed to suit the economy. In the past you'd get stigmatised for getting yourself knocked up or not getting yourself killed in the trenches. Stigmas have always been used as a form of social control. Stigmas are the weapons of bitter old gossips with nothing better to do than meddle in other people's lives. Yadda and I prefer to follow the teachings of Jesus, thank you.

Whats unfair about it?  She eats too much and doesn't move enough.  There's no "glandular problems".  She's not "big boned"  She's fat and unhealthy.  Her caloric intake exceeds her output.  Greed AND sloth.  2 out of 7 deadly sins right there. 

We've all got out faults, but usually we know that they are faults, and not something to be proud of.  They are something to be worked on, to be overcome.  But if you have enough people telling you it's "normal" or even "good" what reason is there to work on it?

I know stigma still exists, it's just been redirected.  It's in that Scruton essay - To stigmatise is the greatest stigma there is.

Quote:

To stigmatise is the greatest stigma there is.

not really. is it a stigma to stigmatise against a racist? a homophobe? a 'bigot'? a sexist? a reactionary? a 'fascist'? a right wing authoritarian? etc. no. is it a stigma to stigmatise against smokers? no. i even think the taboo against stigmatising the obese is largely exaggerated and fabricated - fat people do get the occasional loser defending them (usually beta males flying air cover for fat chicks they want to get with) but really most of the time they get a lot of sh1t.

oh, and people saying that obesity is caused by poverty, but that only happens whenever the correlation between obesity and poverty is broached. personally i think the prevailing nutritional dogmas (carbohydrates overemphasised as good, for you 'low fat' obession etc) needs to be heavily scrutinised if we want to get anywhere with the obesity issue.

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 8:04pm:

oh, and people saying that obesity is caused by poverty, but that only happens whenever the correlation between obesity and poverty is broached. personally i think the prevailing nutritional dogmas (carbohydrates overemphasised as good, for you 'low fat' obession etc) needs to be heavily scrutinised if we want to get anywhere with the obesity issue.

Obesity is not caused by poverty. It's just that in the West, more obese people come from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

In places like India, the poor are generally thin. Why? Our economies are different. Ours is a deskbound service economy geared towards processed fast food. Theirs is based on manual labour and fresh, unprocessed, vegetarian food. It's a good diet if you can afford it, and most can. In India, the poor eat rice and lentils. In Australia and the US, the poor eat McDonalds.

This is the way our respective economies work. Sure, those on the dole in Australia could eat rice and lentils too, but the products competing for your eyeline on Coles and Woolworths shelves are mainly full of sugar.

The biggest winners to come out of Masterchef are Dominos and KFC.

Yes, it's all about values, but more than anything else, values have economic causes.

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 7:58pm:

Quote: To stigmatise is the greatest stigma there is. not really. is it a stigma to stigmatise against a racist? a homophobe? a 'bigot'? a sexist? a reactionary? a 'fascist'? a right wing authoritarian? etc. no. is it a stigma to stigmatise against smokers? no. i even think the taboo against stigmatising the obese is largely exaggerated and fabricated - fat people do get the occasional loser defending them (usually beta males flying air cover for fat chicks they want to get with) but really most of the time they get a lot of sh1t.

yeah, but being a sexist/racist is to stigamtise the opposite sex/race.  Aparrently.

It's overlooked when it's against these 'approved' targets becasue they are the chosen scapegoats of the present ruling class ie pc/multiculti/lefty elites. They're pretty good at overlooking or ignoring things that threaten their ideology.

The point about shame and stigma, as Scruton makes it, is that it is now near-verboten to stigmatise things that valorise social fregmentation. What is hissed down with vehemence are things that are pushing towards social cohesion.

Karnal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 8:50pm:

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 12th, 2012 at 8:04pm: oh, and people saying that obesity is caused by poverty, but that only happens whenever the correlation between obesity and poverty is broached. personally i think the prevailing nutritional dogmas (carbohydrates overemphasised as good, for you 'low fat' obession etc) needs to be heavily scrutinised if we want to get anywhere with the obesity issue. Obesity is not caused by poverty. It's just that in the West, more obese people come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In places like India, the poor are generally thin. Why? Our economies are different. Ours is a deskbound service economy geared towards processed fast food. Theirs is based on manual labour and fresh, unprocessed, vegetarian food. It's a good diet if you can afford it, and most can. In India, the poor eat rice and lentils. In Australia and the US, the poor eat McDonalds. This is the way our respective economies work. Sure, those on the dole in Australia could eat rice and lentils too, but the products competing for your eyeline on Coles and Woolworths shelves are mainly full of sugar. The biggest winners to come out of Masterchef are Dominos and KFC. Yes, it's all about values, but more than anything else, values have economic causes.

there are some good documentary films you should check out - one is called king corn, it's an american film but it has some relevance here too. the other is called fat-head, which is sort of a reverse super size me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Head

Karnal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 8:50pm:

Obesity is not caused by poverty. It's just that in the West, more obese people come from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In places like India, the poor are generally thin. Why? Our economies are different. Ours is a deskbound service economy geared towards processed fast food. Theirs is based on manual labour and fresh, unprocessed, vegetarian food. It's a good diet if you can afford it, and most can. In India, the poor eat rice and lentils. In Australia and the US, the poor eat McDonalds. This is the way our respective economies work. Sure, those on the dole in Australia could eat rice and lentils too, but the products competing for your eyeline on Coles and Woolworths shelves are mainly full of sugar. The biggest winners to come out of Masterchef are Dominos and KFC. Yes, it's all about values, but more than anything else, values have economic causes.

True, but on the other hand, heart disease in India is disproportionately high. Many doctors in India are promoting the use of Olive Oil and mustard oil rather than ghee. The use of coconut milk, which largely contains unsaturated fats is another major factor.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/79/4/582.abstract

The ironic thing is that if you buy mustard oil that's marketed in  the US, there is a health hazard. It says "For external use only".  I only use it outdoors at barbecues, so I'm good. ;D
On the other hand, the US has no such warnings on butter, and that's a crazy state of affairs from a risk perspective.

The same goes for sugar and artificial sweeteners. The risk imposed by the calorific intake of sugars, particularly corn syrup vastly outweighs the very minor cancer risk imposed by phenylalanine.

By the way, I actively discriminate against lard arses (my profuse apologies, I mean beauty challenged.......er fuglies). In most cases, it's caused by a lazy lifestyle or eating crap. The only problem is that a person can still be fat even after 6 months of a balanced diet, so it's probably best not to comment  ;D

Artifical sweeteners?  I wouldn't touch 'em.


Quote:

sugar-free foods play a role in the nation's current obesity epidemic.Twenty years ago, Dr. Russell Blaylock predicted that excess phenylalanine in the brain from using aspartame blocks the normal production of serotonin to the point of weight gain due to an increase craving for carbohydrates and sugar. The result: epidemic weight gain.

They 'trick' the body into needing sweetness.  You might 'save' a few calories by having a tablet in your coffee instead of a teaspoon of sugar, but you'll make that up 10 fold in everything else.  Diet foods are a trap.
It is perhaps a little unfair on fatties who are trying to get in hsape - so many conflicting messages.  Most of the stuff I learnt at uni 10 years ago, as well as what I've found through trial and error, now goes exactly opposite to the 'accepted wisdom' of today.  But, it's a problem of their own making.

... wrote on Jan 13^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Artifical sweeteners?  I wouldn't touch 'em. Quote: sugar-free foods play a role in the nation's current obesity epidemic.Twenty years ago, Dr. Russell Blaylock predicted that excess phenylalanine in the brain from using aspartame blocks the normal production of serotonin to the point of weight gain due to an increase craving for carbohydrates and sugar. The result: epidemic weight gain. They 'trick' the body into needing sweetness.  You might 'save' a few calories by having a tablet in your coffee instead of a teaspoon of sugar, but you'll make that up 10 fold in everything else.  Diet foods are a trap. It is perhaps a little unfair on fatties who are trying to get in hsape - so many conflicting messages.  Most of the stuff I learnt at uni 10 years ago, as well as what I've found through trial and error, now goes exactly opposite to the 'accepted wisdom' of today.  But, it's a problem of their own making.

That may be the case, but now that I've researched it, the reason for the warning is because of those individuals who suffer from PKU and can't metabolise it. It's probably more reasonable to do that, but the risk is still higher with sugar.

Not everyone who takes artificial sweeteners ends up being overweight.  I don't mind a Pepsi Max now and again, but probably more because Pepsi and Coke are stashed full of sugar, and I find it quite a pleasant alternative.  I think there are probably a few vulnerable individuals who might crave sweet foods as a result of drinking it, but my feeling is that they are probably in the minority. Actually I've seen some people have an icecream and then they immediately have another, because they are hooked on the sugar, so I think that sugar dependancy can also be produced by eating sugar, and probably to the same or greater extent.

You're right in saying that the medical consensus on food today is totally different on what it used to be.

The argument that sugar is "natural" wears quite thin. Sucrose is a highly refined chemical extract from plants. Phenylalanine is also a naturally occurring chemical that's found in breast milk.

Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2012 at 9:01pm:

The point about shame and stigma, as Scruton makes it, is that it is now near-verboten to stigmatise things that valorise social fregmentation. What is hissed down with vehemence are things that are pushing towards social cohesion.

I wish I was smart enough to understand your post, old chap, but I'll stick to Rog if I may.

The laws that have arisen to replace stigmas are largely civil laws, intended to protect what Enlightenment thinkers saw as human rights. Only a few years ago in Australian cities, vagrants were routinely collected and locked up each night by the police. You could be institutionalised for life on the whim of a psychiatrist. Subnormals, morons and even the deaf were hid away from public view, and many of them "sanitised" to prevent offspring. Lunatics were not allowed to travel on the King's roads, requiring canal systems to transport them to assylums. Unmarried mothers were sent away to give birth and often had their babies taken away for their own good. Blacks who looked a bit white were forceably removed from their families. Epileptics and homosexuals were locked away in asylums. Even disabled veterans whose wounds were too distasteful for public view were kept out of society, often voluntarily based on their disfigurement, their stigma internalised.

Many of these practices were not technically legal, of course. The police didn't charge the homeless when they put them in jail for the night. Why bother with the paperwork? They knew most of their prisoners by name - many of them veterans - and believed they were doing them a favour.

In all these cases, laws were created - or existing laws were applied - to protect people. And what purpose did such stigmas serve? When the economy and technologies changed, the stigmas went with them. Women's participation in the workforce and the inventon of the pill put an end to the unmarried slut mother stigma. The post-war boom and the resulting civil rights movement empowered blacks. New medications changed the way madness was treated. The rise of social gaze on sex saw gays fight their stigmas (and through performances like drag, parodied the stigmas to do it).

In all these cases, stigmas were a form of social control which could not have functioned without a willing population. Likewise, when institutional and popular will changed, the stigmas were undermined, but this did not come without a great deal of resistance against institutional powers and ideas; the old boys.   

Which is why it makes perfect sense that an old boy like Roger Scruton would argue to bring back internalised forms of social control. In itself, of course, this is no bad thing.

But the past was no rosy utopia of benevolent fraternity. In many cases it was corrupt, callous and so indifferent to cruelty that it had to be kept behind closed doors.

The beauty of stigmas for ideologues is that, like ideology, they are accepted as part of the natural order. This is how honour killings happen: someone spreads a rumour - true or false - and the shame must be addressed. Basically, it's how how caste systems are maintained.

So sure, bring it back, but know exactly what it is you're defending.

A load of gibberish and waffle. Being a silly PB with a Cert II in Social Work, you wash together, unsurprisingly, things people have and do not have control over.

Embarking on single motherhood at 18, or any age for that mater,  is still a bad idea, to be discouraged and regarded as self-indulgent and irresponsible. Homosexuality, like any sexual preference, is not to be flaunted. It is still pretty ridiculous that grown men have an urge to stick thinks, including other blokes, up heir arses. And wanting to get 'married'. How goddam crazy is that? What happened to 'disgreet'? That's the word homos should have approriated, instead of 'gay'.

Sleeping rough, begging, sitting around on the public thoroughfare dirty and disoriented are not valid 'lifestyole choices'.  If you are sick, you should be takn to a pl;ace where they can look after you. If you are a bum, shape up. Being a drug addict, a violent thug, a gambler, a lazy fat slob - in short, being unable to exreciseself-control - are bad things to be stigmatised.

Being an epiletic is not the same as being unable to take resonsibility for your own actions and conduct. Afflictions have no moral dimension. Decisions do.

Either you're playing the usual old boy debating game and are merely arguing the case for the negative (Cert II in Negative Studies), or you really are an unreformed, old school Nazi. You know, the Ernst Rohm type: an obsession with moral hygeine and dirty linen while you enjoy a bit of scatting and S&M on the sly.

Still, I'm going for the former. We teach hyperbole and shock tactics in Advanced Pakistani Rhetoric, so I should know. You are, of course, entitled to your convictions, old boy. But I ask you this: are they really YOUR beliefs?

It would have been good to see some of the leftists or protectors of all things weak and feeble here to justify their "pride."

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

It would have been good to see some of the leftists or protectors of all things weak and feeble here to justify their "pride."

According to them there are no 'weak' or 'feeble' people, only people O-pressed by da (white) man.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 3:21pm:

It would have been good to see some of the leftists or protectors of all things weak and feeble here to justify their "pride."

You mean Christians? But, my dear good fellow, Yadda and I are always here.

LEFTIES RIGHTIES LEFTIES RIGHTIES

... wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 6:01pm:

[quote author=497470781D0 link=1326183475/19#19 date=1326691286]It would have been good to see some of the leftists or protectors of all things weak and feeble here to justify their "pride."

Oh, there's weak and feeble people alright. The sick, old people, babies.

We're all used to getting our arses wiped. We'd better be prepared for it too. Those Pakistani nurses aids can be a bit rough.

Old boys quite enjoy it, I'm told. So we should too.

Being weak and frail is part of the rich tapestry of life. He who was first shall be last, after all.

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Either you're playing the usual old boy debating game and are merely arguing the case for the negative (Cert II in Negative Studies), or you really are an unreformed, old school Nazi. You know, the Ernst Rohm type: an obsession with moral hygeine and dirty linen while you enjoy a bit of scatting and S&M on the sly. Still, I'm going for the former. We teach hyperbole and shock tactics in Advanced Pakistani Rhetoric, so I should know. You are, of course, entitled to your convictions, old boy. But I ask you this: are they really YOUR beliefs?

Typical pissweak PB nonsense. With this kind of crap, PB, you are stuck in the stupid corner where you have painted yourself with the endless, reflex 'yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but' of 'new' school humanities thinking (aka Cert II in Social Work).

Actions have moral dimensions, affliction don't. Calling that nazi is wanting to be stupid - an action, not a mere affliction.

what do you do in a Cert II in social work anyway

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 12:30pm: Either you're playing the usual old boy debating game and are merely arguing the case for the negative (Cert II in Negative Studies), or you really are an unreformed, old school Nazi. You know, the Ernst Rohm type: an obsession with moral hygeine and dirty linen while you enjoy a bit of scatting and S&M on the sly. Still, I'm going for the former. We teach hyperbole and shock tactics in Advanced Pakistani Rhetoric, so I should know. You are, of course, entitled to your convictions, old boy. But I ask you this: are they really YOUR beliefs? Typical pissweak PB nonsense. With this kind of crap, PB, you are stuck in the stupid corner where you have painted yourself with the endless, reflex 'yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but' of 'new' school humanities thinking (aka Cert II in Social Work). Actions have moral dimensions, affliction don't. Calling that nazi is wanting to be stupid - an action, not a mere affliction.

Yes, I noticed you avoided epilepsy, leprosy and madness, the more traditonal stigmas.

I see you are seeking to modernise shame.

You're right though. I am a very "yeah but, no but" kind of guy. Things are not so black and white to me. Lo! How I wish they were!

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 2:38pm:

what do you do in a Cert II in social work anyway

You acquire practical competencies in wiping, and get an intro, via powerpoint, to their socio-philosophical underpinnings. 

3+ year course

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 2:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 17th, 2012 at 2:31pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 12:30pm: Either you're playing the usual old boy debating game and are merely arguing the case for the negative (Cert II in Negative Studies), or you really are an unreformed, old school Nazi. You know, the Ernst Rohm type: an obsession with moral hygeine and dirty linen while you enjoy a bit of scatting and S&M on the sly. Still, I'm going for the former. We teach hyperbole and shock tactics in Advanced Pakistani Rhetoric, so I should know. You are, of course, entitled to your convictions, old boy. But I ask you this: are they really YOUR beliefs? Typical pissweak PB nonsense. With this kind of crap, PB, you are stuck in the stupid corner where you have painted yourself with the endless, reflex 'yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but' of 'new' school humanities thinking (aka Cert II in Social Work). Actions have moral dimensions, affliction don't. Calling that nazi is wanting to be stupid - an action, not a mere affliction. Yes, I noticed you avoided epilepsy, leprosy and madness, the more traditonal stigmas. I see you are seeking to modernise shame. You're right though. I am a very "yeah but, no but" kind of guy. Things are not so black and white to me. Lo! How I wish they were!

I see. Every deviance and criminality and stupidity and irresponsibility and anti-social behaviour is waiting for the correct deconstructive normalisation.

Hey, leprosy used to be stigmatised, madness, epilepsy! look at them now! So nothing should be stigmatised. it's all good, we just don't get it.
There are no shameful acts and tendencies, only nice people whose grievances we haven't accommodated and internalised yet.

Got it.

 

epileptic people suck

people with peanut allergies too, they are losers

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

epileptic people suck

Er... they froth. actually.

What about supposed afflcitions, where the root cause is softness of the cock?  Things like ADD, some allergies, food intolerances etc.  They need to have 'bullshit' called on them, as there isn't anything that can't be overcome - they just say they've got some disease to be "special"....and if some phony pseudo-doctor somewhere gives it a name, we all have to fall over ourselves to show 'sensitivity' to whatever bogus condition they claim to have. 


Quote:

SCHOOLS have banned lunchbox staples such as egg, mayonnaise, Nutella, peanut butter, kiwi fruit and bananas to protect a handful of students with severe food allergies. Children are not allowed to share food and have to wash their hands and face after recess and lunch to prevent cross-contamination. While the number of Australian children suffering from food allergies is on the rise, official guidelines on anaphylaxis in schools do not recommend blanket bans. Many schools forbid all nut products, but some have gone further, to include eggs and egg-based mayonnaise, fish products, fruits and chocolate that may contain traces of nuts.

I realise it's probably more their parents fault.  But it's sad that we've come to the point where weakness and failure are so acceptable, that parents are consciously burdening their children with them. 

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2012 at 2:43pm: Soren wrote on Jan 17th, 2012 at 2:31pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2012 at 12:30pm: Either you're playing the usual old boy debating game and are merely arguing the case for the negative (Cert II in Negative Studies), or you really are an unreformed, old school Nazi. You know, the Ernst Rohm type: an obsession with moral hygeine and dirty linen while you enjoy a bit of scatting and S&M on the sly. Still, I'm going for the former. We teach hyperbole and shock tactics in Advanced Pakistani Rhetoric, so I should know. You are, of course, entitled to your convictions, old boy. But I ask you this: are they really YOUR beliefs? Typical pissweak PB nonsense. With this kind of crap, PB, you are stuck in the stupid corner where you have painted yourself with the endless, reflex 'yeah but, no but, yeah but, no but' of 'new' school humanities thinking (aka Cert II in Social Work). Actions have moral dimensions, affliction don't. Calling that nazi is wanting to be stupid - an action, not a mere affliction. Yes, I noticed you avoided epilepsy, leprosy and madness, the more traditonal stigmas. I see you are seeking to modernise shame. You're right though. I am a very "yeah but, no but" kind of guy. Things are not so black and white to me. Lo! How I wish they were! I see. Every deviance and criminality and stupidity and irresponsibility and anti-social behaviour is waiting for the correct deconstructive normalisation. Hey, leprosy used to be stigmatised, madness, epilepsy! look at them now! So nothing should be stigmatised. it's all good, we just don't get it. There are no shameful acts and tendencies, only nice people whose grievances we haven't accommodated and internalised yet. Got it.

Good. After all, you're a fan of the Enlightenment, no? And from Descartes on, its whole point was to erradicate superstition.

Now us PBs know you can't do this. New ones just pop up in their place. Our great leader, Foucault, made this all too clear, as did our lesser hero and sometimes villain, Freud.

So I'm glad you understand. Some old boys, you see, want the superstitions, stigmas, and idols of the marketplace carefully vetted and selected - presumably by philosopher kings or the superior intellects of the tabloid media.

Perhaps a committee should be formed. Mike Munro and Alan Jones would make marvellous members, not to mention arch old boys, Piers and Gerard Henderson.

Still, the way things are these days you'd need a token PB  to to be all PC and spoil everybody's fun.

Yes, Abu's right. The West has become a moral cess pit, hasn't it?

stop prattling on with pretentious arcane crap

shut up

barnaby joe wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 6:56pm:

stop prattling on with pretentious arcane crap shut up

Your posts are on the up and up, Imperium - words!

Good work. You'll be in the faculty next. Interested in social work?

only if i don't have to wipe 8-)

You've got be joking. We teach others to wipe us. It helps if you're a hideously deformed cripple like most in the faculty. The so-called "able bodied" among us have to bung on a bit of a limp or fake the odd spasm.

Still, thanks to our kind government, I haven't had to cut up food or wipe my arse in years, so there are definately benefits. 

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2012 at 9:30pm:

You've got be joking. We teach others to wipe us. It helps if you're a hideously deformed cripple like most in the faculty. The so-called "able bodied" among us have to bung on a bit of a limp or fake the odd spasm. Still, thanks to our kind government, I haven't had to cut up food or wipe my arse in years, so there are definately benefits.

You and Corpulent Whiney. Progress, innit, especially considering how full of shite you are.

in all fairness corporate whitey is probably a schizophrenic or something. if you've been following his posts from the beginning you would have noticed how he changes the target of his vitriol and rhetoric every few months or so. once he was babbling about the 'celts', then 'whites' then 'communists', now 'nazis'. i probably got that order somewhat wrong.

Great, so we have a schizophrenic fatso and a Paki Bugger holding up the 'progressive side'. Between them they almost cover all PC pieties. We need a black feminist Green and we have all bases covered.

Soren wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

Great, so we have a schizophrenic fatso and a Paki Bugger holding up the 'progressive side'. Between them they almost cover all PC pieties. We need a black feminist Green and we have all bases covered.

Greens_win is a gay coconut.  That's close enough isn't it?

... wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 19th, 2012 at 1:19pm: Great, so we have a schizophrenic fatso and a Paki Bugger holding up the 'progressive side'. Between them they almost cover all PC pieties. We need a black feminist Green and we have all bases covered. Greens_win is a gay coconut.  That's close enough isn't it?

Very good but not quite enough. We need a nutty woman, otherwise 'progressive' nuttery would be another all-male domain and we would be accused of being, as usual, over-privileged and smug...

You can only afford to be smug when you're right, so it's that, and not the smugness that 'progressives' dislike.

Soren wrote on Jan 18^th, 2012 at 8:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 17th, 2012 at 9:30pm: You've got be joking. We teach others to wipe us. It helps if you're a hideously deformed cripple like most in the faculty. The so-called "able bodied" among us have to bung on a bit of a limp or fake the odd spasm. Still, thanks to our kind government, I haven't had to cut up food or wipe my arse in years, so there are definately benefits.  You and Corpulent Whiney. Progress, innit, especially considering how full of shite you are.

Exactly. Which is why we need good people to assist us. Unfortunately, my dear boy, you're more of a smearer.

We need good wipers at the faculty.

Sorry to be a bore and post twice, but I simply must clarify that I have nothing against smearers. Some of my keenest workers are smearers.

Give me a well-deformed leper over a so-called "painter" any day. The best painter I can think of invaded Poland. Very average watercolours, and nothing to write home about. Besides, lepers do marvellous things with their teeth and toes. Wonderful Christmas cards. Just think: a roomful of lepers, a few bottles of metholated spirits, and that's the rent paid for a year, thank you very much.

The best thing about smearers, of course, is their sheer tenacity. It's so hard to find good workers these days. And one who can spit a few sentences onto a page - they're becoming so rare.

So, yes, I do have a great deal of respect for the smearing classes. Wipers might be more prized these days, but as I always say to my wiper students, be prepared to start at the bottom.

The last thing you want to go and do is mix your smearers with your wipers. I tried it once.

Never again.

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 3:58am:

Sorry to be a bore and post twice, but I simply must clarify that I have nothing against smearers. Some of my keenest workers are smearers. Give me a well-deformed leper over a so-called "painter" any day. The best painter I can think of invaded Poland. Very average watercolours, and nothing to write home about. Besides, lepers do marvellous things with their teeth and toes. Wonderful Christmas cards. Just think: a roomful of lepers, a few bottles of metholated spirits, and that's the rent paid for a year, thank you very much. The best thing about smearers, of course, is their sheer tenacity. It's so hard to find good workers these days. And one who can spit a few sentences onto a page - they're becoming so rare. So, yes, I do have a great deal of respect for the smearing classes. Wipers might be more prized these days, but as I always say to my wiper students, be prepared to start at the bottom. The last thing you want to go and do is mix your smearers with your wipers. I tried it once. Never again.

Pathetic, PB, just pathetic.

i thought it was funny come on man

Just the same old pointless drivel.

Soren wrote on Jan 20^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

Just the same old pointless drivel.

Oh, I know, dear.

Soren wrote on Jan 19^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

... wrote on Jan 19th, 2012 at 1:21pm: Soren wrote on Jan 19th, 2012 at 1:19pm: Great, so we have a schizophrenic fatso and a Paki Bugger holding up the 'progressive side'. Between them they almost cover all PC pieties. We need a black feminist Green and we have all bases covered. Greens_win is a gay coconut.  That's close enough isn't it? Very good but not quite enough. We need a nutty woman, otherwise 'progressive' nuttery would be another all-male domain and we would be accused of being, as usual, over-privileged and smug...

Oh bite me.

You are checking my posts, you flatterer.

;)

Oh you poor delusional man.

I was checking the thread because of Karnal, not you. The thread has descended into drivel now, but Karnal's posts at the beginning were sock knocking.

But keep dreaming, honey.

Sure.

You're right, you know. I only sign in so I can search countless threads in hope of spotting that familiar [picture of a] pipe and when I do, oh boy. My heart skips a beat and I get that funny feeling in my tummy...

What do they call that? Oh yes. Nausea.

;)