Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/education/13hair.html

once again showing the most important lesson of institutional education: Follow rules that don't make sense or we will ruin your future.

Well, he had to learn it eventually.

Seriously. If the parents' school(s) failed to get them to OBEY then the school board's gotta snag this kid.

I don't think his future will be ruined in pre-kindergarten. However it is a silly rule, I don't understand how people in "power" can actually enforce those over longer periods, you'd expect them to go "Oh my, I've been a giant nazi retard" after a good nights sleep.

It's true, the education system is a joke and the sad thing is, unless the kids band together theres not much thats going to change.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think his future will be ruined in pre-kindergarten.

in theory, no it wouldn't.

however, being labeled as a troublemaker and such self-fufilling prophecies that arise from that, do make it less likely that this child will get a full education.

at the very least, I can't imagine the child coming out of this thinking "schools are a great place for me to be". Maybe the only saving grace is that he has a number of years before he has the option to drop out, and the remaining years might be better.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However it is a silly rule, I don't understand how people in "power" can actually enforce those over longer periods, you'd expect them to go "Oh my, I've been a giant nazi retard" after a good nights sleep.

for sure. It would appear that there is a whole community that is against it however, which is absurd. Do children not have the freedom of expression? and is it the school, rather than the parents, who get to limit that?

unless your the quarter back for your schools football team you gotta play by the rules no matter what

this is retarded.

whether the child had long hair or not no one outside the home has any right to enforce or dictate a person's appearance unless it is a private business and has already stated said rules before the person enrolled.

i highly doubt the school would be allowed to enforce such a rule if the child was native american or of hindi descent. their would a be lawsuit the minute they kicked the child out or told him to cut his hair.

i hate when see dress codes enforced in a public business or schools...

kids being suspended kicked out for having their hair dyed or having piercing or wearing boots ect ect... if schools are going to dictate how my child dresses it better be a private school and not a public school

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
this is retarded.

whether the child had long hair or not no one outside the home has any right to enforce or dictate a person's appearance unless it is a private business and has already stated said rules before the person enrolled.

i highly doubt the school would be allowed to enforce such a rule if the child was native american or of hindi descent. their would a be lawsuit the minute they kicked the child out or told him to cut his hair.

i hate when see dress codes enforced in a public business or schools...

kids being suspended kicked out for having their hair dyed or having piercing or wearing boots ect ect... if schools are going to dictate how my child dresses it better be a private school and not a public school

unfortunatly, a tattoo artist is unlikely to have the money to invest in a long legal battle.

I was brought up in a strict catholic school and then a college were they had the same rule. The hair had to be groomed and short with no allowance for long hair and there were students that were suspended. We had the same for shoes; they could either be black or brown.

They will give you opportunities to abide by the rules, but it was a 3 strike rule. A close childhood friend of mine left because of the hair lenght issue.

The School simply says "These are our rules. If you dont agree, leave."

If someone lives with my under my roof and breaks the rules, like leaving dirty pots around or inundating the bathroom without cleaning up, he's out after I give him plenty opportunities to sort it out.

Originally posted by GCG
I was brought up in a strict catholic school and then a college were they had the same rule. The hair had to be groomed and short with no allowance for long hair and there were students that were suspended. We had the same for shoes; they could either be black or brown.

They will give you opportunities to abide by the rules, but it was a 3 strike rule. A close childhood friend of mine left because of the hair lenght issue.

The School simply says "These are our rules. If you dont agree, leave."

private schools?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
at private elementary schools they let the children do what ever they want and they dont learn anything. i went to 2 of them cause my dad was a dummy he had it in his head what ever is more expensive is better. but the 2 private elementary schools i went to were just day care centers. let us run around the room do nothing. when ever a child does something really bad they dont suspend them or call the parents cause they dont want to lose the money.

i even went to a private highschool for just one semester. i got into a fight one time there and they didnt even suspend the student for putting there hands on me or didnt even call my parents cause they dont want to take a chance on losing a student over money.

yeah i know public schools are a little more strict with stuff now these days but if you think about its better than letting them do what ever. but yeah suspending the kid over long hair is stupid. certain dresses for girls i can understand that if the dress is to short and boys can see her undies that i can understand.

Originally posted by inimalist
private schools?

To be honest I dont remember if it was a church school or a private school, but it was run by jesuits.

Silly thing for either side to get into a fit about.

yes, private schools have the legal precedence to enforce any rule they want that is reasonable.


i went to a public school that was zoned in a high income area, our principle tried so hard to enforce new rules that she was constantly being shut down by parents and lawyers.

from trying to keep the students from leaving school premises, she failed due to fear of lawsuits.

tried to take our cell phones failed private property and could be considered theft under different circumstances depending in method of obtaining our property.

tried to do random wall locker checks failed the 1st time when people called their parents..

hell, they tried to suspend me b/c i ended up getting a tongue pierce and eyebrow pierce. i called my mom while in the ass. principle office the ass. principle ended getting suspended and i was allowed to go back to class with an apology.

both the principle and assistant principle ended up getting fired and i think the school was sued a few times and always lost.

i have to point out that our high school was a jock/preppy school so it had lots of money.

booo the fricken hoo. cut the damn hair.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WD-L5azssSY/SafjUM2lvSI/AAAAAAAABbs/NUabO5thzrA/s400/Don%27t+Give+a+Damn.jpg

Originally posted by One Free Man
booo the fricken hoo. cut the damn hair.


While a hairstyle might seem a trivial thing, allowing schools to suspend children on BS/trivial causes isn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
While a hairstyle might seem a trivial thing, allowing schools to suspend children on BS/trivial causes isn't.

Slippery slope runs both ways, though. If the school isn't allowed to enforce its rules then teaching will be impossible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Slippery slope runs both ways, though. If the school isn't allowed to enforce its rules then teaching will be impossible.

true, but the slippery slope is also a logical fallacy

there is no indication that allowing or disallowing the child to have long hair would produce more draconian pollicies or rule-lessness

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Slippery slope runs both ways, though. If the school isn't allowed to enforce its rules then teaching will be impossible.

Rules that are based on trivialities shouldn't be enforced.

Logically, if having long hair were a distraction to the point were it interfered with the classrooms ability to teach children, then the girls in there would be a greater problem, as I'm certain not every single girl in that school has short(er) hair.

Originally posted by One Free Man
booo the fricken hoo. cut the damn hair.

hair is not a part of "freedom forever", then?

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1995_Braveheart/995BVH_Mel_Gibson_060.jpg

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Originally posted by inimalist
hair is not a part of "freedom forever", then?

That's just like, you know, like one of this things you say. Chicks are totally into being deep and shit.

Originally posted by inimalist
hair is not a part of "freedom forever", then? sure it is, but freedom forever involves going to a school that doesn't have absurd laws and a biased outlook on fashion, history, and science.

In that way, if you are letting your kids learn from someone else, you have already sacrificed your freedom to let your kids live as you see fit.

Every time I see something like this, I always think back. At least it's not as bad as it was after Columbine.

Originally posted by One Free Man
sure it is, but freedom forever involves going to a school that doesn't have absurd laws and a biased outlook on fashion, history, and science.

In that way, if you are letting your kids learn from someone else, you have already sacrificed your freedom to let your kids live as you see fit.

but within a system of laws you are totally in favor of arbitrarily penalizing people for attire?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Every time I see something like this, I always think back. At least it's not as bad as it was after Columbine.

I read a good paper on Columbine a couple of years ago. Apparently, before it, school shootings and violence were on the decline.

Columbine coinsided with the day of heaviest bombing in the Kosovo thing (I don't really know the history of this one). The theory was that "the powers that be" sensationalized it to get the war off of tv (which iirc was started to get Monica Lewinsky off of TV, or maybe im confusing things...)

i hate when judges feel the need to penalize people b/c they showed up in what the person at the time felt was their best clothes....

i mean why the f$%#@ is a judge more concerned that a construction worker came straight to court in jeans and a shirt rather then what he did in violation of the law.. half the time its a minor traffic ticket

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i mean why the f$%#@ is a judge more concerned that a construction working came straight to court in jeans and a shirt rather then what he did in violation of the law.. half the time its a minor traffic ticket

people that become judges likely are happy to have power

Originally posted by inimalist

I read a good paper on Columbine a couple of years ago. Apparently, before it, school shootings and violence were on the decline.

Columbine coinsided with the day of heaviest bombing in the Kosovo thing (I don't really know the history of this one). The theory was that "the powers that be" sensationalized it to get the war off of tv (which iirc was started to get Monica Lewinsky off of TV, or maybe im confusing things...)

Wag the Dog

Living 12 miles from it when it happened was no picnic the last five years of K-12 education.

true... their was this guy in my home town who shot at a judge for abusing his authority.. the judge had it coming 'cause apparently his behavior had bn documented many times but no one did anything about his belligerent attitude and was allowed to continue demeaning and handing out severe punishments and absurd rulings..

i actually saw it as the judge had it coming and deserved it but the stupid bullet proof window deflected the shot....

Originally posted by Robtard
Wag the Dog

indeed

I don't think I'm confusing it for the movie though...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Living 12 miles from it when it happened was no picnic the last five years of K-12 education.

it was bad enough up here, I can only imagine.

So, are metal detectors common to all schools in the US? was this around before the Columbine thing?

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i actually saw it as the judge had it coming and deserved it but the stupid bullet proof window deflected the shot....

weird... do they have bulletproof glass in all American courts?

Girls can walk around with their ass and **** hanging out, but a boy can't have long hair?

I can't believe hair is even an issue anymore. There were kids in my highschool with bull rings and tattoos...

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed


So, are metal detectors common to all schools in the US? was this around before the Columbine thing?

some inner schools have metal detectors not all of them...or not the majority last time i checked. inner schools had metal detectors long before Columbine.

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed
weird... do they have bulletproof glass in all American courts?

no, the judge only had bullet proof window in his office. the guy posted across the street in a parking garage roof. he had a sniper rifle and shot at the judge while he was working on some papers. the bullet proof glass was enough to deflect the bullet and send it to his shoulder rather then his head.

Originally posted by inimalist
people that become judges likely are happy to have power

Well, they're are upholding a 'rule' here, which is what we been talking about but mentioning power, I'll mention an episode where a magistrate abused his power.

He went to a function in the city and parked his mercedes in front of the drive way of the garage of a private house. For the owner it was just some John Doe wanting to eat out so he quickly pointed that out to him that he was obstructing his drive way and that if he didnt move, he would have his car towed away.

So what does this magistrate do? He phones the police and reports that he is being threatened. The police come, take the details of the incredilous man and inform him that the magistrate has a right to park there and warn the man that further action will be taken against him.

Now that is abuse of power.

Originally posted by inimalist
it was bad enough up here, I can only imagine.

So, are metal detectors common to all schools in the US? was this around before the Columbine thing?

We had an armed cop posted at the door to the highschool at all times. Nothing to do with Columbine, though.

what rule? i understand their are certain attire your not allowed to wear since i been in and out of the judges courtroom from my teens to early 20's never convicted i might add...

the rules are pretty basic, no open top shoes/sandles, no shirts with graffity or bands or logo's no chains or excessive clothing jewelery...or ripped clothing, no food, drinks or gum


i mean why should a judge get to choice who to allow and not allow in his court room based on clothing and outward appearance?

i think it is a form of class discrimination not everyone owns or wears suits hell not everyone in america have the same concept of what is appropriate clothing due to having different cultures....

a construction worker should be allowed to come to court wearing what he feels is appropriate clothing a nice pair of jeans boots shoes a belt and tucked in flannel shirt and combed hair.

Originally posted by inimalist
but within a system of laws you are totally in favor of arbitrarily penalizing people for attire?
I am against being searched for stolen property in wal mart because I never took agreement to be searched on the way out when I entered. I never let them.

I am for being searched for stolen property on the way out from costco because I wrote my name on the bottom of the paper forfeiting my invulnerability to illegal search and seizure on the way out.

Same things with schools. You send your kid to the school, you agree to follow the dress code.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Same things with schools. You send your kid to the school, you agree to follow the dress code.

Children are required to attend school, while as we aren't required to go to Wal-Mart.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow

a construction worker should be allowed to come to court wearing what he feels is appropriate clothing a nice pair of jeans boots shoes a belt and tucked in flannel shirt and combed hair. I've worked in the construction business and most construction workers I've met do not match this description. I hate you for stereotyping our culture.

Actually, every construction worker I've known does have a suit, some formal attire, and dresses in "sunday best" for things like court appearances.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Children are required to attend school, while as we aren't required to go to Wal-Mart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschool

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

He has a point. Parents and students alike should be made aware of the rules prior to signing up with the school. Once you sign up, you are agreeing to the rules and subject to disciplinary action in case you fail.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I hate you for stereotyping our culture.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4MgatC36azQ/StcgWJ-6jXI/AAAAAAAAAHA/wApg0who5gc/s320/village-people-construction-worker.jpg

Originally posted by One Free Man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschool

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

Good point. Private school is probably out of the price range of some people but Homeschooling might be viable.

Originally posted by GCG
He has a point. Parents and students alike should be made aware of the rules prior to signing up with the school. Once you sign up, you are agreeing to the rules and subject to disciplinary action in case you fail.

Yet stupid and unjust rules are just that, stupid and unjust.

A girl's longer hair doesn't disrupt the class, but somehow a boy's does? Na, it's just based on BS and what people want to enforce on what they see as "the right way" on others.

just because a school board school districts decides to add rules to the school and students doesn't mean that said rules are actually legal and aren't open to actionable law suits.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good point. Private school is probably out of the price range of some people but Homeschooling might be viable.

Na, he doesn't have a good point. The taxes parents pay is what funds those public schools.

A stupid rule is a stupid rule. IMO, the board should have to prove the kid's long hair causes trouble for the class, since logic dictates it wouldn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet stupid and unjust rules are just that, stupid and unjust.

A girl's longer hair doesn't disrupt the class, but someone a boy's does? Na, it's just based on BS and what people want to enforce on what they see as "the right way" on others.

Or maybe just to gradually educate children that there are rules that need to be followed but on a smaller scale of command.

Just make the rule that all boys must have long hair, and they will all cut it off.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I've worked in the construction business and most construction workers I've met do not match this description. I hate you for stereotyping our culture.

Actually, every construction worker I've known does have a suit, some formal attire, and dresses in "sunday best" for things like court appearances.

yeah, i did construction too in my younger days and i wore some nice as expensive clothing. but, that wasnt my point. my point was that some working class people should be able to show up to court wearing what they may consider appropriate and not be solely on the opinion of a single power hungry judge especially if the person is not actually in violation of posted dress code

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/education/13hair.html

once again showing the most important lesson of institutional education: Follow rules that don't make sense or we will ruin your future.

rule no. 1

everyone needs to think the same, look the same, be the same

Knightfall does not have a good point.

Knightfa11, you do not have a good point.
1. Private schools are expensive.
2. Homeschool puts an undue financial burden on the family. At least one parent would have to not go to work in order to provide instruction. This is not a fair situation to impose on someone that wants the services offered. It is a completely different situation from your krazy kreashionist kookyhead brethren because they want the school not to teach their student something. This family is only asking for the public service mandated by law to be free.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good point. Private school is probably out of the price range of some people but Homeschooling might be viable.

maybe for families who have the financial security to have one parent be home during the day.

also, unless the parent is a very well educated individual, they probably aren't in the best position to be an educator. For as much as I will complain about teachers, most do know their subject, and at highschool level, you do need some specialization. Even then, being educated doesn't mean you can teach well.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just make the rule that all boys must have long hair, and they will all cut it off.
By that logic, no kids would have short hair.

I seriously doubt this preschool kid is doing it as a form of rebellion.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe for families who have the financial security to have one parent be home during the day.

also, unless the parent is a very well educated individual, they probably aren't in the best position to be an educator. For as much as I will complain about teachers, most do know their subject, and at highschool level, you do need some specialization. Even then, being educated doesn't mean you can teach well.

Hey, if they wanted an education for their kids they should have chosen to be poor.

what the hell

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hey, if they wanted an education for their kids they should have chosen to be poor.

infallible logic, Ms. Rand

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Hey, if they wanted an education for their kids they shouldn't have chosen to be poor.

Fixing a tyop.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fixing a tyop.

You broke it, actually.


It is far easier for a lower class family, financially, to send their children to college than a middle class family.

Even if you're middle class, and make less than $60,000, just have a bunch of kids, and you'll get to send them to college for free...on grants.

If more people realized this, the grant money would dry-up/bankrupt the system.

It's just that....lot's of people lack motivation or confidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You broke it, actually.


It is far easier for a lower class family, financially, to send their children to college than a middle class family.

Even if you're middle class, and make less than $60,000, just have a bunch of kids, and you'll get to send them to college for free...on grants.

If more people realized this, the grant money would dry-up/bankrupt the system.

It's just that....lot's of people lack motivation or confidence.
Or, lots of people would prefer not to either live on minimal money or crank out kids. That's also a factor.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Or, lots of people would prefer not to either live on minimal money or crank out kids. That's also a factor.

...cause being a foster parent is waaaay out of the question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...cause being a foster parent is waaaay out of the question.
...
Yes, it really is. Taking in a lot of kids to get discounts on colleges you wouldn't have had to pay for if not for those same kids, is a terrible idea.

Originally posted by King Kandy
...
Yes, it really is. Taking in a lot of kids to get discounts on colleges you wouldn't have had to pay for if not for those same kids, is a terrible idea.

You wouldn't have had to pay for? No, that's against the entire premise.

The premise is a husband and wife makes too much money to send their only child to college, so they have kids, or become foster parents, so their child and now their foster children, can qualify for a grant...and attend college.

Actually, the foster parent thing is a good idea as it benefits far more than the original family of 3.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is far easier for a lower class family, financially, to send their children to college than a middle class family.

I don't know if that is true, but I agree with the senitment. A lot of times the perception of how much post-secondary education costs is a greater deterent than the actual costs.

The problem is, the effects of poverty often impact education long before graduation. Hell, stuff like parental education and their personal motivation for education impact kids as soon as they get into school.

I don't think it is really relevant to the topic anyhow. OFM brough up private school and homeschool as options that parents have as opposed to following arbitrary rules being enforced by their tax dollars. The unfortunate fact being, neither are really viable options for the majority of the public. That and other issues I would take with the attitude of "do what you are told"

Originally posted by dadudemon
You wouldn't have had to pay for? No, that's against the entire premise.

The premise is a husband and wife makes too much money to send their only child to college, so they have kids, or become foster parents, so their child and now their foster children, can qualify for a grant...and attend college.

Actually, the foster parent thing is a good idea as it benefits far more than the original family of 3.
Yeah, except now they have to provide for the foster children which will counteract the whole thing.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Knightfall does not have a good point.

Knightfa11, you do not have a good point.
1. Private schools are expensive.
2. Homeschool puts an undue financial burden on the family. At least one parent would have to not go to work in order to provide instruction. This is not a fair situation to impose on someone that wants the services offered. It is a completely different situation from your krazy kreashionist kookyhead brethren because they want the school not to teach their student something. This family is only asking for the public service mandated by law to be free. those are the choices presented. Homeschool, private school, or follow the rules.

If you want your son to be an anti-conformity free-man who has a different standard of dress, don't send him to conformity center. (see music video pink floyd's "another brick in the wall" for my opinion of public school.)

As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.

Also, pre-kindergarten is not a required public service.

I don't believe the school should worry about long hair, but I find that the parents decided to screw with the school by leaving their kids hair the way they wanted it after the school had expressed displeasure preposterous. Also when the school allowed them to compromise, they rejected it.

If the parents cared about their kid rather than making a fashion statement, they would have accepted the compromise or cut his hair. It's the parents who have made the mistake. The school was just enforcing their rules.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
This. you would haermm

Originally posted by One Free Man
those are the choices presented. Homeschool, private school, or follow the rules.

If you want your son to be an anti-conformity free-man who has a different standard of dress, don't send him to conformity center. (see music video pink floyd's "another brick in the wall" for my opinion of public school.)

As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.

Also, pre-kindergarten is not a required public service.

I don't believe the school should worry about long hair, but I find that the parents decided to screw with the school by leaving their kids hair the way they wanted it after the school had expressed displeasure preposterous. Also when the school allowed them to compromise, they rejected it.

If the parents cared about their kid rather than making a fashion statement, they would have accepted the compromise or cut his hair. It's the parents who have made the mistake. The school was just enforcing their rules.
I personally think we should just kill every guy with long hair. Don't like the rule? Well to bad, if you cared about your kid you would just cut his hair and accept it.

People have no moral obligation to obey stupid, pointless, destructive rules.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I personally think we should just kill every guy with long hair. Don't like the rule? Well to bad, if you cared about your kid you would just cut his hair and accept it.

People have no moral obligation to obey stupid, pointless, destructive rules. I think we should throw every person who doesn't pay 1/3 of their money away every paycheck into jail. Don't like it? sucks.

I think we should force people to buy insurance for their car, regardless if they can cover the cost of an accident out of pocket. Don't like it? Don't drive.

I think we should make freon illegal based on the fact that dupont's patent ran out and they claim that it is bad for the environment so their next formula will be patented. Don't like it? don't put air conditioning solvent in your car.

I think we should make it illegal for you daughter to continually show her midriff in school. Don't like it? she gets suspended.

I think we should make it illegal to have streetglo lights in california. Don't like it? pay outrageous fines.


There's plenty of laws that have no reason for existing.

I think you should have to renew your drivers license every 5 years regardless of driving record.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I think we should throw every person who doesn't pay 1/3 of their money away every paycheck into jail. Don't like it? sucks.

I think we should force people to buy insurance for their car, regardless if they can cover the cost of an accident out of pocket. Don't like it? Don't drive.

I think we should make freon illegal based on the fact that dupont's patent ran out and they claim that it is bad for the environment so their next formula will be patented. Don't like it? don't put air conditioning solvent in your car.

I think we should make it illegal for you daughter to continually show her midriff in school. Don't like it? she gets suspended.

I think we should make it illegal to have streetglo lights in california. Don't like it? pay outrageous fines.


There's plenty of laws that have no reason for existing.
I agree. That's why we should never attempt to change any law, ever. If you're under the foot of tyranny, I suppose you think the best way to fix that is just to lay back and think about something else? I guess that works for you, but it solves nothing.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree. That's why we should never attempt to change any law, ever. If you're under the foot of tyranny, I suppose you think the best way to fix that is just to lay back and think about something else? I guess that works for you, but it solves nothing. Originally posted by One Free Man

As I have said, the current system is broken in every single way and needs to be torn down forcibly and rebuilt diligently by its citizens. Choice is but an illusion of control.

Originally posted by One Free Man
you would haermm

Deffo.

Originally posted by Robtard
A girl's longer hair doesn't disrupt the class, but somehow a boy's does?

Sorry, Robtard, but the answer to that is- yes it does (or at least, yes it can). Long hair on a girl does not cause the distraction that long hair on a boy does, because it is less usual on a boy. The thinking behind the rule is to prevent the distracton caused by people continually mocking or discussing unusual appearance. Agree or disagree, there is a logic there- kids DEFINITELY do such things- and there are many times that classes have been disrupted in this way. Hence, a school has a right to make rules to try to prevent such disruption. If any of you think this rule makes no sense because it does not apply to girls as well as boys, you are simply wrong. Long experience speaks to the contrary.

I am with the "they knew the rules; stick to them" crowd here. You can petition to have rules changed but it is not appropriate to simply break them, and if you think a rule about hair length is worth getting into such a tizz about then you are simply a fool. I actually have a general contempt for those convinced that this is some sort of moral 'fight the nazi power' issue.

Nice way of putting it, Ushgarak: "You are simply wrong" is such a valid argument.

That's how it is. As I say, long experience speaks to it. Very easy for people to just say "oh, that is clearly illogical because it does not apply to girls" but that just demonstrates ignorance. As I also clearly stated the reasoning behind the rule there, your complaint makes no sense either so please think before posting next time.

The problem is here that a forum like this place represents a demographic where so many of you have no appreciation of the problems behind trying to organise general education and the rules this requires; it is easy for you to stereotype the school as having facist, illogical rules that you can feel a moral superiority by mocking. This might make you feel like a better person but it has no connection to practical issues.

There IS a debate that can be had about the validity of hair length rules. If I had a say in policy, I'd argue for such rules to be relaxed. But I can see the reasoning behind their existence. I can appreciate the position, and I can see the foolishness of the lie that just goes "This is an idiotic and wrong law."

And it is a long, LONG way from being such an absurd law that you have a moral get out in not following it. It's the rule; stick to it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak


I am with the "they knew the rules; stick to them" crowd here. There is no crowd on this side, just One Free Man. You side with him?
I couldn't resist

In response to Ushgarak, the following applies:

Think before posting? Lawl.

I know of many people whom are older than you that can disagree with what you said and also claim it's because of 'long experience'; it's just an easy argument to make without making further reasoning as to why you feel.

I think you are wrong, so it's as simple as that. Your reasoning stems most likely from the way you were brought up and what you perceive as 'normal', ie. girls should have long hair and boys should have short hair. What if you were raised into thinking the reverse? Then you'd be arguing a completely different rhetoric to me. 'It just is' simply isn't good enough -- not for me, and I'm sure it's not good enough for many people.

I'm too lazy among other things to post a genuine response in retaliation, so I take it you'll forgive me. I'll post a long-*** response tomorrow if I feel up to it, if not I'm hoping someone will post in my stead. **** it.

Well, thanks for the mature post full of good points. Really put me in my place, that has. Especially your "I know of many people who are older than you" bit. That was really classy. Also your attempt to argue that relative experience on my part has anything to do with it, when this is obviously a cultural norm. Like I say, if you don't think that boys having long hair in school are more likely to draw attention than girls, then you are such so wrong it's not even worth arguing with you, and I couldn't give a damn whether you think that is good enough for you or not- you may as well be arguing that the moon is made of cheese.

(And to re-iterate- that's not to say I even think the law is a good idea. But there is a reasoning behind it, and in a debate like this there must be a certain level of maturity in recognising all the issues involved.)

Sorry, but you clearly have absolutely no idea at all about the logic behind a dress code, and your attack on this is a knee-jerk reaction of ignorance based upon a false sense of moral superiority. Many people on a forum such as this will think in such a way, but that does not ennoble the practice.

As for thinking before posting, I am serious. Your last post was basically a lie, implying I had not given any support to my argument when in fact I had. If you keep posting like that it eventually becomes trolling or flaming... so don't post like that.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Deffo. what's that mean?

Definitely.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
It means definitely. Oh, well you are a good sport then, arencha?

I still think this is a silly rule. I am not sure whether this is a public or private institution, but if it is public I would definitely hope that they would do anything to hinder such sexist stereotype as do exist in society. Especially pre-kindergarten, which obviously is much more about developing a good social backing and an open mind than learning hard facts about any subject, should not try to enforce the underlying sexism of such a rule in the first place, and I find it somewhat right that the parents refuse to abide by this rule as it should be discussed and best abolished. I would hope though that the stubborness on either side does not affect the kid in future years. It would be rather tragic if his life was negatively impacted by something that happened to him when he was 4, no matter which side you are on.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, except now they have to provide for the foster children which will counteract the whole thing.

No, I was right in what I said from the very beginning.

Foster parents get paid by the state to provide their care. It's not much, but it is a little something to help. On top of that, there are tax breaks for the dependents.

And, the premise for a middle-class family assumes that they could afford a little bit extra, but not enough to send their child off to college.

A poor person would not have that little extra, would have less luxuries, and have meager dwellings.

In other words, you should learn to trust me. evillaugh

On Ushgarak's comments:

Doesn't the distraction lie with the judgmental teachers/school staff, and not the children, themselves? And, how does this teach our children to cope with the real world where variations from what children assume is the "norm" occur in every place, all over the world?

Isn't it illogical, from a teaching perspective, to foster the idea of homogeneity instead diversity? That does nothing to prepare the nascent social minds of the children for the real world where they WILL have to work with a man that dresses and looks like a woman, a woman that walks acts and talks like a man, etc. As a teacher, you do know that young children (assuming their parents haven't gotten to them too severely with bigotry) are much more accepting than adults? Children are mostly socially innocent. There's been plenty of studies done on the sociological interaction and development of children. The idea that it is distracting for the children is borderline silly and somewhat ignorant.

This type of conformance to some arbitrary and even religiously originating idea of gender appearance is one of social detriment. At that young and formidable age, they SHOULD be exposed to and taught as much about differences in both appearance and general culture. That would better prepare them to function in society, as they get older and gain more social responsibility.

The parents and the child are not the problem, the board of eduction, teachers, and school staff are the problem. When did we lose sight of actually 'teaching" and focused too much on illogical and actually socially detrimental sets of rules? Why fly in the face of and reject the idea teaching our children (in this particular facet, of course)?

Now that I said that, I may have opened a can of worms: where do you draw that line? Obviously, not sex or sexual acts, violence, etc. etc. You can be who are you are and where you come from, in a public school, as long as it doesn't physically harm others. (There are other lines such as mental harm, i.e. jumping out of corners and scaring the other children.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I still think this is a silly rule. I am not sure whether this is a public or private institution, but if it is public I would definitely hope that they would do anything to hinder such sexist stereotype as do exist in society. three words. It is texas.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Sorry, Robtard, but the answer to that is- yes it does (or at least, yes it can). Long hair on a girl does not cause the distraction that long hair on a boy does, because it is less usual on a boy. The thinking behind the rule is to prevent the distracton caused by people continually mocking or discussing unusual appearance. Agree or disagree, there is a logic there- kids DEFINITELY do such things- and there are many times that classes have been disrupted in this way. Hence, a school has a right to make rules to try to prevent such disruption. If any of you think this rule makes no sense because it does not apply to girls as well as boys, you are simply wrong. Long experience speaks to the contrary.

I am with the "they knew the rules; stick to them" crowd here. You can petition to have rules changed but it is not appropriate to simply break them, and if you think a rule about hair length is worth getting into such a tizz about then you are simply a fool. I actually have a general contempt for those convinced that this is some sort of moral 'fight the nazi power' issue.

Originally posted by inimalist
once again showing the most important lesson of institutional education: Follow rules that don't make sense or we will ruin your future.

omg i lol'd.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, thanks for the mature post full of good points. Really put me in my place, that has. Especially your "I know of many people who are older than you" bit. That was really classy. Also your attempt to argue that relative experience on my part has anything to do with it, when this is obviously a cultural norm. Like I say, if you don't think that boys having long hair in school are more likely to draw attention than girls, then you are such so wrong it's not even worth arguing with you, and I couldn't give a damn whether you think that is good enough for you or not- you may as well be arguing that the moon is made of cheese.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Please acknowledge my points rather than you're own brand of mocking. I wasn't trying to put you 'in your place' or any other such things. If you're going to bring something up (ie. your experience), you're using it in an argument and it's fair game to dissect it and ultimately discard it.



OK, so you think the law is a silly idea, then? Recognizing the issues involved is one thing, but understanding them is a completely different matter. It's understandable as to why the rules are in place, but let's face it: These rules are so stale that it's questionable if we should even keep them. In this day and age diversity is a growing factor at an astronomical rate -- are we really going to hinder someone just because of a silly rule that causes more problems? Public school staff (not the very best of possible staff) can be very rude and downright beligerent about rule-enforcing -- that's probably the worst case scenario and it's not rare for it to happen. I'd even hazard to say that it's the staff who will cause the most problems and not other children.



I mean if we're going to go back to how things should be, then we'd realize that hair is meant to grow (in most cases), in that sense it's 'right' to keep long hair. It's basically the same silly argument that the staff and several posters on here are making -- silly rules are just hindering education. I can clearly see why dress codes are enforced, but let's face it -- most of these staff probably don't even question as to why there's a dress code, they just enforce it because they have to and because they like being dicks.

Several posters on here already stated why the actual rule is more disruptive rather than conducive to a learning environment. Whether one chooses to follow the rules simply because they're rules and they should be followed is pretty retarded to say the least. "WELL, WE HAVE RULES SO WE SHUD FOLLOW DEM". The rhetoric is actually very similar to what (dare I say it) an extreme racist would say. They would argue that it's wrong to be a different color and that rules should be enforced to keep our schools clean and white; different = bad.

I can appreciate how our society is generally going against these practices which will foster diversity, but it's unfortunate that some will disagree just because of how they think things should be (have been, and should be left untouched by the occasional anomaly).

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Please acknowledge my points rather than you're own brand of mocking.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Please acknowledge my points rather than YOURyou're own brand of mocking. I wasn't trying to put you 'in your place' or any other such things. GAHHHH MY EYES WERE BLEEDING. Ahhhhhh, sweet relief.

Every school has a dress code. These made the news because they actually enforced it. The parents had multiple chances to cut the hair, compromise, and/or change schools.

Originally posted by One Free Man
GAHHHH MY EYES WERE BLEEDING. Ahhhhhh, sweet relief.

wut?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
wut?
By pointing out a typographical error (the contraction "you're" for the possessive pronoun "your" he has defeated your argument.

wat?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
By pointing out a typographical error (the contraction "you're" for the possessive pronoun "your" he has defeated your argument. I call that the "RN" tactic because I attribute it to your success as a genius.

the purpose of schools is brainwashing and assimilation + giving you the necessary skills to be a tool of the power centres. THOUGHT or KNOWLEDGE was never the point of the educational system.

i was EXPELLED for having hair to my chin in o levels.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I call that the "RN" tactic because I attribute it to your success as a genius.

Silliness. If every argument could be torn down simply because of a grammatical issue, then more than half of the posters here would be without arguments.

Ushgarak himself made a typo in his initial post, but that didn't discredit his arguments or his posts.

Silly, silly games. The only reasons I pointed out an error in one of your posts was because you were insulting me (ad hominem) and I couldn't figure out what is was you were trying to convey -- the whole sentence seemed lopsided. The post I made with the typo was pretty impromptu, at that. I made it right after I woke up with a major hangover while getting dressed for work.

To stay on the actual subject of the thread: Silly rules are silly. I think silly is my word of the day!!! =D

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the purpose of schools is brainwashing and assimilation + giving you the necessary skills to be a tool of the power centres. THOUGHT or KNOWLEDGE was never the point of the educational system.

i was EXPELLED for having hair to my chin in o levels.

You should have tried for higher level classes or mabye just moved out of Pakistan.

Originally posted by One Free Man
I call that the "RN" tactic because I attribute it to your success as a genius.
hay i m AN GENIOUS that wud pwn joo hard ifn u evah wanted to tango again.

Seriously bro. Remember how you just left in disgrace after I embarassed you over and over again? No one likes you your a joke.

Sorry, I don't know what came over me. But really. come on.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
hay i m AN GENIOUS that wud pwn joo hard ifn u evah wanted to tango again.

Seriously bro. Remember how you just left in disgrace after I embarassed you over and over again? No one likes you your a joke.

Sorry, I don't know what came over me. But really. come on. lol wtf stop hanging around darth sexy. His continuous innacuracies and overstatements are starting to affect you!!!!

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
By pointing out a typographical error (the contraction "you're" for the possessive pronoun "your" he has defeated your argument.

I hat whn the happen.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I hat whn the happen.

I no wat u meen. Onli stewpid peepul mak tipos.

o, u too, lul. Ha-sum

That kid's parents annoy me.

Originally posted by One Free Man
lol wtf stop hanging around darth sexy. His continuous innacuracies and overstatements are starting to affect you!!!!

Who are you even referring to?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Who are you even referring to?
DS is a character on the SWVF. We both post there, and OFM's earlier comment about grammar naziing being the "RN tactic" was a jab at me. (Had I not pointed out the failure of his insult about your/you're this would not have come up.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS is a character on the SWVF. We both post there, and OFM's earlier comment about grammar naziing being the "RN tactic" was a jab at me. (Had I not pointed out the failure of his insult about your/you're this would not have come up.) http://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/9206/original/doing_it_wrong_2.jpg

The thing about inside jokes is that you don't explain them.

DS is the opposite of an inside joke. He is a trauma perpetrated upon our little group by a cruel and unfeeling universe indifferent to the integrity of one's faith in mankind.

The trick is to warn people about it before they too are allowed to feed the troll. Also: boobies.

The other guy:
If you ever have the misfortune of talking to a poster (currently) called "Dr.McBeefington" you will activate your fast twitch muscles in such a way as to navigate away from the webpage you are on IMMEDIATELY.


i dont kno bout teh nazi thing i guess i just h8 that i cant erase bein a dumass in the past in the present now.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS is the opposite of an inside joke. He is a trauma perpetrated upon our little group by a cruel and unfeeling universe indifferent to the integrity of one's faith in mankind. Hey now, don't be getting any false faith in mankind. We're primates trying to survive and get self fulfillment. That's it.

Yep. Some people have a gut feeling they get on their first encounter. I never liked him from the start even when I was a noob.

The first argument we had was really long and repetitive and devolved into him saying (not very creatively) "NO U" more and more belligerently. Then I disproved his religious beliefs (silly positive claims) and now he's on ignore. Some people still quote him though !

Why do schools do the some of the most stupidest ass shit I have ever seen?

Long hair is gross.

This topic always catches my eye on the front page because the headline looks like "Boy suspended from long hair" which is a far more interesting sounding story.

Originally posted by Sabu935
ass shit


Hmmm.


Indeed.

Anal buttsex with ass shit.

wtf

Originally posted by Sabu935
Why do schools do the some of the most stupidest ass shit I have ever seen?

We got this from Prussia, a place full of happy and peacefull people who tought that the states role is yo give purpose to peoples lives..