|
|
|
|
|
|
by FullstakBlogger
970 days ago
|
|
|
That's not a contradiction, is it? Selective engagement and non-engagement are different things. It's reasonable for some individuals to be generally less sociable than others. That doesn't mean it's OK to explicitly exclude them. Nobody expects the teacher to bring in candy, but it's kind of awful if they only bring it in for the students they like. "Rule of law" is ideal, even for laws you don't agree with. etc. |
|
|
I hated teachers who insisted on treating everyone exactly the same. Ideal would be treating everyone according to their need. Which might mean candy for some, the freedom to set their own workload for others, understanding of chattiness for yet other, etc. Admittedly candy is fairly universal in terms of how it affects people.
> "Rule of law" is ideal, even for laws you don't agree with.
I'd rather have exceptions be able to made where appropriate. I'd see "rule of law" as a least-worst fallback where that can't be achieved.