The answers to these two questions seem to contradict each other, and who can tell me what the hell

The regulations are very clear!

The middle school principal has no right to dissuade students!

Because of the relationship between nine years of compulsory education!

Without contradictions, what is contradictions? What is the relationship between spear and shield? If you are really interested in it, you can study this subject when you are successful.

Because of the relationship between nine years of compulsory education!

No one has absolutely any right to dissuade junior high school students!

The one you have above may be for high school students ...

But it is not a contradiction, or a contradiction.

Each school has its own rules, and students are expected to follow the rules set by the school. The school also indicated that mistakes were punished in accordance with the regulations on the punishment of secondary school students.

If the violation of discipline is serious, then the school has the right to suspend the student from school and go home for ideological education.

However, it is not possible to expel a student.

In fact, the principal can't.

But there are also many examples of the principal being persuaded to quit in the show life.

I have never seen such a punishment regulation, and the principal of the junior high school definitely has no right to persuade students to withdraw from school.

To put it simply, the socialization of production means that production activities increasingly require a social division of labor and require people to cooperate with each other to complete it. In order to be able to continue normal and effective production activities and provide more and more reasonable products, it is necessary to rationally optimize the allocation of resources, which can only be ensured by the sharing of production materials and production information. The private ownership of the means of production means that the management and disposal of the means of production are owned by the individual, which hinders the sharing of resources and thus affects the production efficiency.

In a word, it is the contradiction between the profit-seeking pursuit of producers and the diversified needs of demanders.

Later, however, capitalist society also did economic planning at the state level, so this contradiction was generally alleviated. This contradiction can be avoided because the production plan is carried out entirely under the production plan, and the products are also distributed according to demand, that is, the production plan and the consumption plan are carried out simultaneously. To tell the truth, socialism with Chinese characteristics will also produce this kind of contradiction at the present stage, specifically, it is a nest of production activities, resulting in a waste of production.

On the one hand, the means of production of individuals become socialized means of production that are used by many people; On the other hand, the means of production and products are privately owned by the capitalists. The development of the productive forces requires the continuous expansion of the socialization of the means of production and products; However, the inevitability of the capital attributes of the means of production and the means of subsistence lies like a ghost between these means and the workers, hindering the combination of the levers of production and the levers of man, not allowing the means of production to function normally, and not allowing the workers to work and live in accordance with their human nature. Either the big river is blocked or the dam collapses, and this is the inherent contradiction of the capitalist mode of production and the root of all the contradictions of capitalism.

Socialism does not have such contradictions.

Socialization of production: Production has reached a very high level of the entire social scope.

Private ownership of the means of production: The means of production are still in private hands and are in the possession of a small number of people.

Contradiction: Production is already social, but the means of production are still in the hands of a few, and production cannot be carried out normally.

Capitalism is the private appropriation of the means of production, which cannot be adapted to the socialization of production; The socialist means of production are common to the whole society and can adapt to the socialization of production. Therefore, capitalism must perish, and social socialism will inevitably triumph. (Simply think: how can a private person fight society).

No. We are a socialist country.

I personally understand!

The socialization of production should be the most ideal ideal society for people. Everything is public ownership, and it belongs to everyone.

But you definitely need raw materials to produce things, but this means of production is private ownership, so it is contradictory to this socialization.

You don't have this contradiction.

The land belongs to the state, but the contracting units are different.

The use of socialized means of production.

One. Live in the present! In the future, in the future, if there is no you in it, why should you think about it, it will seem empty and empty.

Two. No one knows what the song will look like after death, and those who know it are no longer able to give any information to the living.

Therefore, the sublimation after death is just a kind of comfort and sustenance that people give themselves a life of aging and fear of death.

Three. There are not too many constraints in real life, law and social morality only give people a contour of the boundaries of behavior, whether the certainty of transgression is up to the judiciary and lawyers to reveal or secretly show you.

Four. It feels like society has too much of a problem with you because the nature of your work is not socially acceptable. And often produced in cases that are contrary to the interests of the majority.

Five. You believe that there is a punishment after death because you have a conscience and you know right and wrong, but you are numb now, but you don't know how to change or don't want to change.

Six. You are now asking casually on the Internet, and you don't intend to get an exact answer, you know that it may be a waste of time, but you still have to ask, because you can't bear it now, and you want to find a stranger to talk to and decompress.

Seventh, in fact, you know how to get rid of it, how to unload all the burdens in your heart, but you are reluctant to pay for it now, let alone everything you have paid for before.

Eighth, you are not completely determined to change your current situation, you have too many obstacles, because even if you do go to a psychiatrist, you can't guarantee that you will not tell your whole story.

Nine. If, just if, all you give is for one person, or your parents or your brother or your wife, then you continue now, it is also worth understanding that if you give only for yourself, then you should be damned! Die!

Die! Die! Die!

When you encounter something special, just live a good time in the yang world, don't worry about what happens after death

Is there anything you don't know after death, do you have solid evidence?? It's important to live well now.

Maybe the emotional foundation between everyone is not very deep, and there may be one party who has not paid! You don't know very well.

You can verify it: one pen ** 9 yuan, another pen 27 yuan, 9 + 27 = 36 (yuan), so your answer is completely correct and not contradictory.

Not contradictory correct The answer is indeed 9 27

The hidden danger is that Party A may lose ownership of the plot. Party A signs a contract with Party B for plot A, and Party A signs an exchange contract for plot A-B with Party C, so it should sign a contract change agreement or re-sign the contract with Party B at the same time. Although Party B and Party C are partners, they are certainly not the same entity.

The contradiction is that Party C exchanges B for A and has the right to A; Party B also gets A from Party A, and is unwilling to develop B, and the contract stipulates that he has the right to use A; Party C will not get A and will not sell B. For Party A, A and B are not their own at this time.