Nice, chapter, for the sound of thing there might have been a lot more going on that FW's mother isn't telling the reader, or to the her son because. I do love the idea of FW being afraid of becoming a stallion or a gelding for that matter. I wonder if it was coincided a rape as to make sure that the mother wouldn't get any legal problems on her end and he wanted to protect her from the crown by staying quiet during through the whole trial even for his own defense. I suspect that it wasn't entirely unintentional to have feather weight birth, still I wonder why she seems so blasé about the subject with her son, maybe she tricked him into doing the act with her with hear hormone filled piss. My guess was that it was a night of passion where they had both succumbed to each other hormones lust sense were here the the word heat emission in the backdrop, wonder if that is also part of the reason why they see stallions being supposedly dangerous. I how Feather gets the chance to see his father, not so much about the the love, but more of how his stay at the institution has been for him.
I wonder if part of the institutionalized gelding is also a way to keep control of the population, mare especially as to make sure that they are worthy to the states eyes by being law abiding citizens and could also me part of a mass breading selection selection created by the crown.
"It means gelded," explained Mom. "It's... more general. Castration just means removal of the testicles. Gelding implies a more... intentional process, I suppose. More civilized."
Not as clumsy or random as a castration. An intentional process for more civilized age.
9165789 I don't think thats laziness. Uncomfortableness maybe....possibly a fear of the answer you will get. Maybe a few other emotions, but never laziness.
For example, I can't finish Spec Ops: The Line. I have tried 3 times, and each time I stop playing due to self disgust. I can't bring myself to continue to do the actions the game requires to finish. And that is the intent of the writers, they have flat out said, the only way to win that game is not to play it.
But I wouldn't call it laziness, and I would never accuse you or any other writer of being lazy for feeling uncomfortable with writing such a story, or being unable to bring yourself to do so.
I notice they have been trained to draw a hard distinction between a stallion who has been castrated and a stallion who hasn't. As if simply having their testicles removed makes them something other than a stallion. Why is that distinction made in their society? or will that come up later?
The sad fact of the matter is that the person that emerges from a brain is very much at the mercy of the neurochemicals that go into that brain, testosterone included. Meat betrays us with distressing frequency.
That said, it's interesting to see how Featherweight's mother seems to resent the party line, at least a little. It makes me wonder if there's more to the story with his father than she's saying. Whatever the case, looking forward to more.
Featherweights mother says that she was raped by his father and thats how he came to be. The father admits he has done so but pleads not guilty. He is not castrated until after the trial on Celestia's orders. Now we bring a meta fact in from the description of the story and we see that there is a resistance and Featherweight asks himself if it is the right thing.
I think Featherweights father did indeed rape her when she was "in season" in the hopes of impregnating her. We do not know how he was captured, if he resisted or such but at the trial I think his idea was that because males are not allowed to have control over their reproduction then why should females? "Both sexes are equal right?". Why Celestia wanted to wait until after the trial was to use the castration as leverage because he is part of the resistance! So in exchange for keeping his balls he would rat-out the resistance or something like that. He didn't.
Now that last part is a bit weak and it might just be a red herring (he he). I also think that if I can theorize it then thats probably not how it is. As Trick Question does not "do" simple.
Or is it that the rest of us are lazy and won’t tackle the hard stuff, the uncomfortable stuff?
I'd say more like most writers can't pull it off. Colourful cartoon equines are not the greatest medium for depicting hard, real life stuff, especially when most people read fanfics precisely to escape from the real life stuff.
9167195 I believe he didn't rape her, actually, but having a relationship with a "regular" stallion defeats the premise of this Equestria's ideology. Someone found out, and rather than having her live with the stigma of having been in a relationship with a non-gelding, they both claimed he had raped her. That's also why she was so angry at Sunrise calling Featherweight a rape baby; he's not, but it's a lie they had to live with to avoid ruining her and her son's lives.
In this case, it's possible Celestia held out the castration as a tool to make him throw his wife under the bus to save himself.
9167272 Very true. For example, due to the nature of the princesses being Equestria's rulers, we're faced with the idea of Celestia, aka Equestria's OG ray of sunshine, systematically mutilating the genitals of every single colt for political purposes. That's... a hard pill to swallow.
That's not the case discussed here. You have a state that performs surgery to make a percentage of their population unable to do something. If you then require them to do the thing you set out to make them incapable of, you are required to undo your own efforts from before.
Are they unable, or normally unwilling? Because I think that’s an important distinction. Like, if you chop off my arms, I’m unable to choke someone to death. Even with my arms, I’m still unwilling to do it. If I still have my arms, I could potentially be enticed to do so, if I haven’t got them it would never be physically possible for me to do it.
I don’t have very much IRL equine experience, but I’m willing to bet that geldings are capable of biting and kicking, just like mares and stallions; they’re just far less likely to do so, and probably only if they’re threatened rather than to establish dominance.
And by the way, what you noted? That's basically what happens with every army in the real world. Many modern societies have a ban on physical violence in place. Their soldiers do need to be able to inflict physical violence, however, and they're trained to be able to on command, in spite of it being banned otherwise.
Oh yes, no question, that’s a major part of basic training. But--if we go back 100 years in the US, most people weren’t murders before they joined the military . . . or 200 years, etc. I think that many of them might have been more inclined towards the idea of the world being ‘kill or be killed’ and perhaps had different ideas of God and Country than modern man might.
This Equestria is a special case in that it aims to not have stallions become violent under any circumstances, whether they be rapist or acting in self-defense. They're deprived of any choice in the matter, or so is the idea. They're literally neutered. This is more like brainwashing people into being, say, hydrophobic—you should not then expect them to make good sailors.
Although if there is very little violence, do you need to know how to act in self-defense? Once again, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few? If Featherweight winds up getting eaten by a manticore because he isn’t able to defend himself due to his lack of balls (heh) would that outweigh the thousand ponies that weren’t murdered by angry, testosterone-fueled intact stallions? Does the freedom to outweigh the freedom from, or not? That’s always the conundrum.
9167924 And now you're closing in on the themes discussed in the story. The idea is to prevent stallion violence, but is it actually working? And are the statistics about violence in general even true, seeing as how Featherweight's mother put another mare in the hospital? Those are questions I don't have the answers to... yet.
This Equestria is a special case in that it aims to not have stallions become violent under any circumstances, whether they be rapist or acting in self-defence.
This statement isn't supported by the story. Almost all soldiers are geldings and geldings are also athletes. Being gelded makes them "a little weaker" according to the text. It doesn't make them non-violent, but supposedly it makes them non-murderous, probably by reducing anger and raw aggression.
9167821 I have no idea why it is illegal to burn tires were you are from so I can not say if it is a dumb law or if they have throughly thought it through and have good arguments for it. In philosophy nothing is "obvious". Everything needs to be questioned and argued for I think. Now, I too came to the conclusion that murder is something that we should not allow and people that comes to the conclusion that you do not have the right to your body needs to argue why.
I am not sure what you are trying to say with "And that does potentially come with the downside of me burning tires in my backyard (the goal, getting rid of tires; the method, fire)." I want principles.
9167768 You will need better arguments to convince me. Remember that he denied that he raped her but admitted to... Well, we do not know how it happened so there is that but it was legally considered rape what he did. He just didn't.
9167937 In comparison to "constant good" or "smaller good" or what ever it is called when it is not the "greater good" .
9168027 9167924 (we are on a new page so now you should be notified).
I have no idea why it is illegal to burn tires were you are from so I can not say if it is a dumb law or if they have throughly thought it through and have good arguments for it.
I assume because it’s horrible and smelly and not very environmentally friendly, either.
I am not sure what you are trying to say with "And that does potentially come with the downside of me burning tires in my backyard (the goal, getting rid of tires; the method, fire)." I want principles.
Just as an obvious example of laws infringing on my freedoms. Since my tire-fire infringes on my neighbor’s enjoyment of their property.
9168652 I can not be sure on evidence that small of course, but it seems you really mean "status quo" here. And government in this story does preserve status quo pretty nicely at least up until this point.
9169740 No I do not. I meant that it is better to follow "good" rules then to do whatever it takes for "the greater good". Just as a example: Lets say we reason that lies are bad, you should not lie. That is the kind of thinking I think is better.
9169526 Well it is like you said before when you linked that chapter. There are positive and negative rights. So if you have the right to clean air then so must your fellow person (person in this case are those that qualifies for moral consideration). Also "freedom to" is a bit of a oxymoron I think. "Free" means a lack of restrictions and since it holds universal to all persons you cannot "impose" your freedom over someone else. Like: "I am free so you should give me that". I will admit however that one has to be very careful with how one words it. For example "you have a right from homelessness" or "you have a right to housing/shelter". It is still a positive right that is described (right to) but the wording can be confusing.
9171197 I did not want to specify what I consider "good" as that would take quite a long time but in short: I follow Contractarianism and I base my social contracts on a slightly modified form of Kantianism. The reason why is that logic and reason is how we figure out how everything works and it is also used in philosophy which the subject of ethics is a part of. So by reasoning everything from what is truth, what is living, what is the reason to be alive and so on I came to the conclusion that following principles is the most useful way (for me) to base morality on. Now, I also think that there is no such thing as a absolute moral good that exists independent of us or even to all of us. If someone gain pleasure and joy from harming others, you get to live comfortably doing that and death is a desirable thing then it can be hard to argue that it is wrong. Morality should be based on needs I think but you still have to reason everything and be consistent in that reasoning.
Well, returning to original question, making claims about things only you know about is a teeny-tiny bit not very good on "communicating meaningful information to others" metrics.
I follow Contractarianism
How the behaviour of someone not following it may look like (so you could say he/she not following it)?
logic and reason is how we figure out how everything works
It is not. We do it by testing our stuff against Nature.
Well, returning to original question, making claims about things only you know about is a teeny-tiny bit not very good on "communicating meaningful information to others" metrics.
You wanted to know what I was comparing "for the greater good" to so thats what I answered. Then you wanted to know what I considered "good". Those were two different questions.
How the behaviour of someone not following it may look like (so you could say he/she not following it)?
One thing I would do is ask if morality is something we made up or if it exists independent of us. You can watch the video I linked before for more information on what it is.
It is not. We do it by testing our stuff against Nature.
Yeah, that is using logic and reason. The scientific method.
One thing I would do is ask if morality is something we made up or if it exists independent of us.
I.e. two guys behaving identically under any circumstances except for answering that question differently have different moralities?
Yeah, that is using logic and reason. The scientific method.
Evolution, for example, is incapable of logic and reason, but slowly and steadily came to wield nanomachines, robotics and AI often still beyond current human technology. On the other hand, philosophers before science for all their logic and reasoning made pretty meagre progress (well, scientific method in a nutshell is that you should disregard armchair reasoning no mater how cool it sounds, go check ideas as soon as possible and disregard ones that failed checks without hesitation)
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and that includes truth. So I do not know what you are trying to prove as science is a part of philosophy.
9174309 The problem is that for any observed human interaction you may say "well, obviously it's a result of a contract between them". Slavery and fights to death in the arena for entertainment? Repeat guy's reasoning about traffic tickets. Two guys fighting over piece of bread? Well, obviously they decided to resolve their disagreement on the issue of bread ownership by trial of combat like civilized people. What's happening it this story? At the current point there's plenty arguments provided.
Of course that's general framework for normative ethical system, not complete normative ethical system, so we couldn't expect it to constraint our reality expectations very much, but there should be at least something.
"For example, Popper observed that Freud was able to make just about any data point work in service of his theory" Wikipedia article on subject also has "The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own." as it's 5-th sentence.
as science is a part of philosophy
Well, it's kiiiinda true, but it sticks out. Science's approach to bullshit is "hmm, we'd better prune it away", philosopy's "yay! more themes for extremely sophisticated discussions!" (as for non-bullshit too). It's not like there are no guys with good ideas there, it's just sick as a field: those good ideas are not getting promoted to universality.
Hey, now, it is one thing to depict all testicle-havers as being rapists and murderers, that's fair enough. But repeating harmful stereotypes about drifters, transients and the other unhomed being criminal in nature is just unacceptable. Transients are far more likely to be the victims of crime, harassment and unjust imprisonment than they are to commit a crime.
This is one of those fascinating stories where it's like the whole world has tilted over and gone insane. I really agree with Data on this one.
Also there are a lot of great thought provoking comments being produced.
Interestingly Featherweight and Rumble is remarkably similar to an incident I had at school except instead of teasing and names someone pushed me and broke the support in my art folder, creasing all of my work that I was pretty proud of.
The resulting throwdown is likely to be the most violent moment in my life. I could have killed him twice over if things had been slightly different and left him permanently disfigured on his chin.
He got suspended for a week, I got an hours' detention and got told to go home when I showed up (although they'd foolishly told me I was to revamp the year noticeboard for it and since I'd planned and prepped I did it anyway, which led to an amusing moment when another teacher came by and berated my head of year for keeping me back when I didn't deserve it). It's probably worth noting I was the 5th-7th highest achieving member of a 250 strong yeargroup, was never in trouble and on good terms with every teacher.
If you pick and choose your data carefully, ANY conclusion may be drawn.
Trust no one site or source. Always double check your data.
Nice, chapter, for the sound of thing there might have been a lot more going on that FW's mother isn't telling the reader, or to the her son because.
I do love the idea of FW being afraid of becoming a stallion or a gelding for that matter.
I wonder if it was coincided a rape as to make sure that the mother wouldn't get any legal problems on her end and he wanted to protect her from the crown by staying quiet during through the whole trial even for his own defense. I suspect that it wasn't entirely unintentional to have feather weight birth, still I wonder why she seems so blasé about the subject with her son, maybe she tricked him into doing the act with her with hear hormone filled piss. My guess was that it was a night of passion where they had both succumbed to each other hormones lust sense were here the the word heat emission in the backdrop, wonder if that is also part of the reason why they see stallions being supposedly dangerous. I how Feather gets the chance to see his father, not so much about the the love, but more of how his stay at the institution has been for him.
I wonder if part of the institutionalized gelding is also a way to keep control of the population, mare especially as to make sure that they are worthy to the states eyes by being law abiding citizens and could also me part of a mass breading selection selection created by the crown.
9165636
https://www.horace.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/How-to-Lie-With-Statistics-1954-Huff.pdf
Your father's balls...
Not as clumsy or random as a castration. An intentional process for more civilized age.
9165789
I don't think thats laziness. Uncomfortableness maybe....possibly a fear of the answer you will get. Maybe a few other emotions, but never laziness.
For example, I can't finish Spec Ops: The Line. I have tried 3 times, and each time I stop playing due to self disgust. I can't bring myself to continue to do the actions the game requires to finish. And that is the intent of the writers, they have flat out said, the only way to win that game is not to play it.
But I wouldn't call it laziness, and I would never accuse you or any other writer of being lazy for feeling uncomfortable with writing such a story, or being unable to bring yourself to do so.
I notice they have been trained to draw a hard distinction between a stallion who has been castrated and a stallion who hasn't. As if simply having their testicles removed makes them something other than a stallion. Why is that distinction made in their society? or will that come up later?
I have bad news for Featherweight. He might be doomed. Or just a little.
At first I was angry about what she said. Would she be happy about having her child castrated? But then she says:
Now I am not angry anymore .
The sad fact of the matter is that the person that emerges from a brain is very much at the mercy of the neurochemicals that go into that brain, testosterone included. Meat betrays us with distressing frequency.
That said, it's interesting to see how Featherweight's mother seems to resent the party line, at least a little. It makes me wonder if there's more to the story with his father than she's saying. Whatever the case, looking forward to more.
I have a theory.
Featherweights mother says that she was raped by his father and thats how he came to be. The father admits he has done so but pleads not guilty. He is not castrated until after the trial on Celestia's orders. Now we bring a meta fact in from the description of the story and we see that there is a resistance and Featherweight asks himself if it is the right thing.
I think Featherweights father did indeed rape her when she was "in season" in the hopes of impregnating her. We do not know how he was captured, if he resisted or such but at the trial I think his idea was that because males are not allowed to have control over their reproduction then why should females? "Both sexes are equal right?". Why Celestia wanted to wait until after the trial was to use the castration as leverage because he is part of the resistance! So in exchange for keeping his balls he would rat-out the resistance or something like that. He didn't.
Now that last part is a bit weak and it might just be a red herring (he he). I also think that if I can theorize it then thats probably not how it is. As Trick Question does not "do" simple.
9165789
I'd say more like most writers can't pull it off. Colourful cartoon equines are not the greatest medium for depicting hard, real life stuff, especially when most people read fanfics precisely to escape from the real life stuff.
9167195
I believe he didn't rape her, actually, but having a relationship with a "regular" stallion defeats the premise of this Equestria's ideology. Someone found out, and rather than having her live with the stigma of having been in a relationship with a non-gelding, they both claimed he had raped her. That's also why she was so angry at Sunrise calling Featherweight a rape baby; he's not, but it's a lie they had to live with to avoid ruining her and her son's lives.
In this case, it's possible Celestia held out the castration as a tool to make him throw his wife under the bus to save himself.
9167272
Very true. For example, due to the nature of the princesses being Equestria's rulers, we're faced with the idea of Celestia, aka Equestria's OG ray of sunshine, systematically mutilating the genitals of every single colt for political purposes. That's... a hard pill to swallow.
9167888
Are they unable, or normally unwilling? Because I think that’s an important distinction. Like, if you chop off my arms, I’m unable to choke someone to death. Even with my arms, I’m still unwilling to do it. If I still have my arms, I could potentially be enticed to do so, if I haven’t got them it would never be physically possible for me to do it.
I don’t have very much IRL equine experience, but I’m willing to bet that geldings are capable of biting and kicking, just like mares and stallions; they’re just far less likely to do so, and probably only if they’re threatened rather than to establish dominance.
Oh yes, no question, that’s a major part of basic training. But--if we go back 100 years in the US, most people weren’t murders before they joined the military . . . or 200 years, etc. I think that many of them might have been more inclined towards the idea of the world being ‘kill or be killed’ and perhaps had different ideas of God and Country than modern man might.
Although if there is very little violence, do you need to know how to act in self-defense? Once again, does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few? If Featherweight winds up getting eaten by a manticore because he isn’t able to defend himself due to his lack of balls (heh) would that outweigh the thousand ponies that weren’t murdered by angry, testosterone-fueled intact stallions? Does the freedom to outweigh the freedom from, or not? That’s always the conundrum.
9166921
Dangerous in comparison to what?
9167924
And now you're closing in on the themes discussed in the story. The idea is to prevent stallion violence, but is it actually working? And are the statistics about violence in general even true, seeing as how Featherweight's mother put another mare in the hospital? Those are questions I don't have the answers to... yet.
9167888
This statement isn't supported by the story. Almost all soldiers are geldings and geldings are also athletes. Being gelded makes them "a little weaker" according to the text. It doesn't make them non-violent, but supposedly it makes them non-murderous, probably by reducing anger and raw aggression.
9167821
I have no idea why it is illegal to burn tires were you are from so I can not say if it is a dumb law or if they have throughly thought it through and have good arguments for it. In philosophy nothing is "obvious". Everything needs to be questioned and argued for I think. Now, I too came to the conclusion that murder is something that we should not allow and people that comes to the conclusion that you do not have the right to your body needs to argue why.
I am not sure what you are trying to say with "And that does potentially come with the downside of me burning tires in my backyard (the goal, getting rid of tires; the method, fire)." I want principles.
9167768
You will need better arguments to convince me. Remember that he denied that he raped her but admitted to... Well, we do not know how it happened so there is that but it was legally considered rape what he did. He just didn't.
9167937
In comparison to "constant good" or "smaller good" or what ever it is called when it is not the "greater good" .
9168027
9167924
(we are on a new page so now you should be notified).
9168027
Nor I . . . we’ll have to see where Trick takes this.
9168652
I assume because it’s horrible and smelly and not very environmentally friendly, either.
Just as an obvious example of laws infringing on my freedoms. Since my tire-fire infringes on my neighbor’s enjoyment of their property.
9169538
Now I’ve got to look at and see what’s there.
And I suppose maybe add a thing or two to my RiL.
9168652
I can not be sure on evidence that small of course, but it seems you really mean "status quo" here. And government in this story does preserve status quo pretty nicely at least up until this point.
9169740
No I do not. I meant that it is better to follow "good" rules then to do whatever it takes for "the greater good". Just as a example: Lets say we reason that lies are bad, you should not lie. That is the kind of thinking I think is better.
9169526
Well it is like you said before when you linked that chapter. There are positive and negative rights. So if you have the right to clean air then so must your fellow person (person in this case are those that qualifies for moral consideration). Also "freedom to" is a bit of a oxymoron I think. "Free" means a lack of restrictions and since it holds universal to all persons you cannot "impose" your freedom over someone else. Like: "I am free so you should give me that". I will admit however that one has to be very careful with how one words it. For example "you have a right from homelessness" or "you have a right to housing/shelter". It is still a positive right that is described (right to) but the wording can be confusing.
9170350
I meant that it is better to follow #label_5708F5D rules then to do whatever it takes for #label_9FA43C11.
How do you assign your labels to real-world stuff?
9171197
I did not want to specify what I consider "good" as that would take quite a long time but in short: I follow Contractarianism and I base my social contracts on a slightly modified form of Kantianism. The reason why is that logic and reason is how we figure out how everything works and it is also used in philosophy which the subject of ethics is a part of. So by reasoning everything from what is truth, what is living, what is the reason to be alive and so on I came to the conclusion that following principles is the most useful way (for me) to base morality on. Now, I also think that there is no such thing as a absolute moral good that exists independent of us or even to all of us. If someone gain pleasure and joy from harming others, you get to live comfortably doing that and death is a desirable thing then it can be hard to argue that it is wrong. Morality should be based on needs I think but you still have to reason everything and be consistent in that reasoning.
9169555
Now only two of the three are present.
Also Liked is a fickle bitch.
9172271
Well, returning to original question, making claims about things only you know about is a teeny-tiny bit not very good on "communicating meaningful information to others" metrics.
How the behaviour of someone not following it may look like (so you could say he/she not following it)?
It is not. We do it by testing our stuff against Nature.
9173294
You wanted to know what I was comparing "for the greater good" to so thats what I answered. Then you wanted to know what I considered "good". Those were two different questions.
One thing I would do is ask if morality is something we made up or if it exists independent of us. You can watch the video I linked before for more information on what it is.
Yeah, that is using logic and reason. The scientific method.
9173372
I.e. two guys behaving identically under any circumstances except for answering that question differently have different moralities?
Evolution, for example, is incapable of logic and reason, but slowly and steadily came to wield nanomachines, robotics and AI often still beyond current human technology. On the other hand, philosophers before science for all their logic and reasoning made pretty meagre progress (well, scientific method in a nutshell is that you should disregard armchair reasoning no mater how cool it sounds, go check ideas as soon as possible and disregard ones that failed checks without hesitation)
9173465
Watch the video.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge and that includes truth. So I do not know what you are trying to prove as science is a part of philosophy.
9174309
The problem is that for any observed human interaction you may say "well, obviously it's a result of a contract between them". Slavery and fights to death in the arena for entertainment? Repeat guy's reasoning about traffic tickets. Two guys fighting over piece of bread? Well, obviously they decided to resolve their disagreement on the issue of bread ownership by trial of combat like civilized people. What's happening it this story? At the current point there's plenty arguments provided.
Of course that's general framework for normative ethical system, not complete normative ethical system, so we couldn't expect it to constraint our reality expectations very much, but there should be at least something.
"For example, Popper observed that Freud was able to make just about any data point work in service of his theory"
Wikipedia article on subject also has "The rules of logic have no ability to distinguish truth on their own." as it's 5-th sentence.
Well, it's kiiiinda true, but it sticks out. Science's approach to bullshit is "hmm, we'd better prune it away", philosopy's "yay! more themes for extremely sophisticated discussions!" (as for non-bullshit too). It's not like there are no guys with good ideas there, it's just sick as a field: those good ideas are not getting promoted to universality.
9174664
Se the next chapter for my answer.
Hey, now, it is one thing to depict all testicle-havers as being rapists and murderers, that's fair enough. But repeating harmful stereotypes about drifters, transients and the other unhomed being criminal in nature is just unacceptable.
Transients are far more likely to be the victims of crime, harassment and unjust imprisonment than they are to commit a crime.
This isn't one of those 'all sex is rape' type things is it? 'cuz she's treating it like it was an actual rape.
9178905
W-wait... are you serious?
What the actual... what!?
This is one of those fascinating stories where it's like the whole world has tilted over and gone insane.
I really agree with Data on this one.
Also there are a lot of great thought provoking comments being produced.
Interestingly Featherweight and Rumble is remarkably similar to an incident I had at school except instead of teasing and names someone pushed me and broke the support in my art folder, creasing all of my work that I was pretty proud of.
The resulting throwdown is likely to be the most violent moment in my life. I could have killed him twice over if things had been slightly different and left him permanently disfigured on his chin.
He got suspended for a week, I got an hours' detention and got told to go home when I showed up (although they'd foolishly told me I was to revamp the year noticeboard for it and since I'd planned and prepped I did it anyway, which led to an amusing moment when another teacher came by and berated my head of year for keeping me back when I didn't deserve it). It's probably worth noting I was the 5th-7th highest achieving member of a 250 strong yeargroup, was never in trouble and on good terms with every teacher.