Korean Job Discussion Forums

[itaewonguy]

[Bulsajo]

This thread needs to be renamed " The horrible reality of Itaewonguy".

[Maserial]

[forgesteel]

>I'm not implying that Itaewonguy should be placed in the company of such nefarious individuals, but nonetheless, the "I've got more money than you!" tactic could certainly be nixed.

Money is proof of money. Nothing more, nothing less.

[forgesteel]

[itaewonguy]

[uberscheisse]

so, regarding the 2000 dead in iraq...

were any of them hagwon owners?

[itaewonguy]

[quote="forgesteel"]

[forgesteel]

[itaewonguy]

[forgesteel]

itaewonguy wrote:

>you want to talk to me about child care???


Actually, I don't. You keep trying to bait me on the subject, and I tersely tell you how you are misinformed, ignorant, etc.

itaewonguy wrote:

>I think you had better shut up before you really put your foot in it!!



I think I can express myself as long as I abide by the rules of the discussion board. Telling people to shut up on a discussion board is a little ridiculous now, isn't it?

Quote:
Congratualations. But this is a thread on 2000 Iraq War related deaths

umm no, the title is named that.. but we are having a different debate! or havent you been following!

Just because you'd rather shift the conversation (I understand: Bush's poll are exploring new lows. Why you'd want to avoid the REAL topic, that of the thread's title?), doesn't mean I want to, or that I am required to follow your whims.

itaewonguy wrote:

>so do you mind answering my questions for once!



I have answered your more reasonable questions. The variety that follows the form of "When did you stop beating your wife" I do not deign to respond to.

itaewonguy wrote:

>becuase your answers are vague at best,


I've been perfectly clear. That you think otherwise isn't much matter to me.

itaewonguy wrote:

>and most of the time dodging the questions becuase you know you have no ethical answers


When you start an Ethics thread, and I happen to be on it, I'll follow your agenda. Until then, the agenda, isn't necessarily your agenda.

itaewonguy wrote:

>umm no, becuase I know what hakwons hire, becuase I place at least 2 teachers a month! and have done so for 4 years so I know what the starting salaries are, also for those with teaching experience and certificates, as do most teachers who have been here over a year!
you earn from 2.0 2.3 with housing 2.1 or 2.2 as this is your first year and you teach CHILDREN!!!
LOGIC!!! common knowledge!!! might be one or two thousand won off..



Fine and dandy. These are all facts I do not dispute, as far as generalizations go. The original context of your questions was NOT financial, at least it was not explicitly financial when you began. I dodged none of your questions.


itaewonguy wrote:

>umm didnt you come to korea for money?



I already admitted at least three times that this was ONE reason. Not the only reason. I know I've used a couple words here and there that were more than one syllable in length, but really now, it shouldn't be that hard to follow the ball here.

itaewonguy wrote:

>havent you been saying your motivation for coming here was for MONEY?



Yes, I admitted two or three times or more, that this was ONE motivation of coming here, not the SOLE motivation. I also mentioned I wanted teaching experience, and that this was harder and harder to come by without a Master's degree in California.

itaewonguy wrote:

>you will get use to my unique writing style



A writing style I must get used to? It's that hard to digest? Aigo!

itaewonguy wrote:

>as have everyone else on this board for the last 3 years.. dont worry NOOB! thats just me
my unique Characteristic expressionism something everyone here loves to hate



So, now you are the lovable iconoclast? Charming.

itaewonguy wrote:

Quote:
Living with other people doesn't present a problem to me

>even when your roommate spreads lies about you and steals? emmm
I do remember you saying that in another thread..



I endure a lot. But my contract is almost over. I am free to renegotiate soon. I see no problem here, so I am not sure what your point is. As usual.

itaewonguy wrote:

>doesnt change the fact you are forced to live there becuase of your circumstances, all coming back to your move to korea..



Who says I am forced to live here? You? On what basis are you making your guestimation? On very damn little. You don't know me from Adam, stop making wild assumptions about my life, please.

itaewonguy wrote:

>no becuase as I have said many times, your motivation and ethics for leaving your family dont merit your actions..



You are the proper judge to weigh such things? Why? You don't know me from Adam.

When you start a thread on Ethics, or Family, I suppose we can properly talk about this issue that is getting you so hot and bothered. Until then, if I want to mind my own business, and I want you to mind your own business, I am fairly certain that you aren't the Master of Ceremonies, and you don't control the agenda.

As I mentioned before, you aren't the Grand Inquisitor, and this isn't the Spanish Inquisition. What is not clear about this simple statement? What part of "mind your own f'ing business" don't you understand?

itaewonguy wrote:

>life is not that hard!! where you have to leave your family.. but this part of the debate is going nowhere..



Start a new thread on the topic, and I'd be glad to ACTUALLY engage you on the topic. Until then, it will appear to you as if I am dodging your nosey queries.

itaewonguy wrote:
>but you cant


I already told you this was a story not about 'CAN'T' but rather of making decisions for myself. I made a decision. Is there anything unclear about this?
Why must ethics come into this situation?

If you insist on making this about Ethics, I can come up with my own reasoned justification for my actions. Briefly, I will draw upon the work of L. Kohlberg. He is famous for making stages of moral development.

From wikipedia:

Quote:

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stage of moral development.

Stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, they think that an action is morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished.
Stage two espouses the what's in it for me position; right behavior being defined by what is in one's own best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs of others, but only to a point where it might further one's own interests, such as "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours." Concern for others is not based on loyalty or intrinsic respect in stage two.

Conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning is typical of adolescents and adults. Persons who reason in a conventional way judge the morality of actions by comparing these actions to social rules and expectations.

The conventional level consists of stages three and four of moral development.

In Stage three, individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval from other people. They try to be a good boy or good girl having learned that there is inherent value in doing so. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships.
For Stage four, it is important to obey the laws and social conventions because of its importance to maintaining a working society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for approval exhibited in stage three, because the individual understands that society needs to transcend individual needs.

Post-Conventional
The post-conventional level consists of stages five and six of moral development.

In Stage five, persons have certain principles to which they may attach more value than laws, such as human rights or social justice. In this reasoning, actions are wrong if they violate these ethical principles. Laws are regarded as social contracts rather than dictums, and must be changed when necessary (provided there is agreement). By this reasoning laws that do not promote general social welfare, should be changed. Democratic governments are ostensibly based on Stage five reasoning.
In Stage six, moral reasoning is based on the use of abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. One way to do this is by imagining oneself in everyone else's shoes, imagining what they would decide if they were doing the same. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who use it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.



I feel my actions were what was financially best for my children (since I can do math, this is not that hard of a judgement to make, and not all that subjective either). Therefore, my actions were ethical. The direct consequences of my actions confirm this, so I need not investigate the matter much further. But let's do so, just in case there are doubters still around.

I can compare my actions to the social mores and rules of my society, in the following way: Society values men who provide financially for their families, and doesn't so much value men who can't provide financially, but who are nonetheless present to offer the children support in other ways. I am a man. I am providing financially for my family. Hence, my actions are moral and ethical.

"Men earn the money. Women do other work." Not my values per se, but society's values. I happen to be following society's values by earning money. Thus, my actions are moral and ethical.

I am working for social justice, by working in the field of education. Thus, my actions are moral and ethical.

itaewonguy wrote:

>leave in california and raise your children becuase ???


See above.

itaewonguy wrote:

>you are contradicting yourself EVERYTIME!!



Quote a clear, unambiguous example of where I have contradicted myself.

itaewonguy wrote:

>thats why we cant see to eye to eye..
your actions in my view dont warrant your views...



My views are your business? Why?

itaewonguy wrote:

>they just dont add up with your justifications, ethics, and moral outlook.



Yes, they do. See above.


itaewonguy wrote:

>ohh PLEASE define your success!



If you are happy, and you have friends in this life, you are successful.

itaewonguy wrote:

>my definition is.. to create something and make it successful,
life, businesses, friendships...



Excellent. The first reasonable, the first creative thing you've said since you originally posted in this thread.

itaewonguy wrote:

>please I really want to hear your definitions.. you better think awhile on yuor family views!!



You think so? Why?

itaewonguy wrote:

>your actions towards being a husband and a father are rather juvenile and unethical!



No, they aren't. See above.

itaewonguy wrote:
>I find it hard to believe

1: you are an adult



On what basis do you question this fact? None? Well, that's a rather daft reason for disbelieving something rather unextraordinary.

itaewonguy wrote:

>2:that you are a real father!



Define 'real father' and then we can get started on dispelling any illusions you might have about my life. Even though it's none of your business.

itaewonguy wrote:

>3: that you are married and understand the meaning of the word!



I am married. But, by all means, share with us your wisdom on the topic. Might want to start a new thread though. This is presumably a thread about 2000 Irag War related deaths.

itaewonguy wrote:

>4: that your ability to use the English language you didnt bother to look up words like LOYALITY, FAMILY, HONOR,



Societal shibboleths. Not interesting topics unless you are speaking with interesting persons.

itaewonguy wrote:

>EMOTIONAL ABANDONMENT! its a word! its a reality!!!



I talk to them twice a week or more on the phone. Additionally, my wife is with them. So, while they may miss they father, they have not been abandoned. Had my wife not been alive when I left, I would've taken them to Korea. Since my wife has a job teaching in California, she stayed. And there, she tends the children. My parents are there to see the children. My wife's family is also there to see them, so the emotional loss they feel is lessened by the fact that they are otherwise in capable, caring hands.

And now that you've finally (I asked you to do so about five posts or more ago) clarified your meaning, I can go ahead and answer you, honestly.

I do feel bad for them, for myself, and not a little guilty. But, since I have a working forebrain, my abstract notion of what is right and wrong gets to make my body go forward, not my reptilian brain.


itaewonguy wrote:
>you're scum!!


Ad hominem adds to your argumentation here? Howso?

Very curious,

[EFLtrainer]

[EFLtrainer]

[itaewonguy]

[quote="EFLtrainer"]

[TheUrbanMyth]