Greystones school - gender neutral uniforms to be introduced.

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

Please answer the question asked. I'm not invoking conspiracy theories, but it is indeed a look into a particular mindset.

Is there anything, outside of direct harm, that is NOT acceptable to you? What about nakedness?

Did you not read the school policy on uniforms? A child can attend that school wearing a uniform, simple as that.

Why you keeping going on about nakedness regarding children? That is disturbed.

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

Did you not read the school policy on uniforms? A child can attend that school wearing a uniform, simple as that.

Why you keeping going on about nakedness regarding children? That is disturbed.

So your saying that if a student policy were introduced that allowed them to be naked if they chose... That's disturbed?

But it's not harming anyone, so why not?

_blaaz

beejee wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious about the extension of this mindset, no ill will intended.

For the posters quoted, and anyone else, what is NOT okay to ye? Do you have limits on anything?

The reason I ask is that pretty much anything can be brushed off with "why not?!"

Some examples (feel free to add your own)... If a student wanted to walk on all fours for the school day, and assuming it didn't interfere with their posture, would you have any objections? It's not harming anyone.

If students wanted to be naked, would that be okay? The only problem would be social prudes, it doesn't actually harm anyone. Too cold... see-through clothes then. Would you think that's fine? It's not harming anyone.

Where do you draw lines on what's acceptable? Or do you have any boundaries at all?

Tbh mate so long as it dont affect me or anyone only the person doing it let them at it



Lifez too short to care about what anyone else deos/wears to themselves......why should i care??

beejee

_blaaz wrote: »

Tbh mate so long as it dont affect me or anyone only the person doing it let them at it



Lifez too short to care about what anyone else deos/wears to themselves......why should i care??

I appreciate the honesty.

The point is two-fold. First, if you essentially have no standards, then you're probably the last person that should have a input on standards.

Second, the "why not?" answer is far more interesting when that persons personal limits are reached. What's the difference?

Interesting.

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

So your saying that if a student policy were introduced that allowed them to be naked if they chose... That's disturbed?

But it's not harming anyone, so why not?

Keep on distracting or dreaming whatever you're doing. there was no other fantasy policy of yours.

The school policy was about clothes not nakedness on kids, as said your view on kids being naked is disturbed.

_blaaz

beejee wrote: »

I appreciate the honesty.

The point is two-fold. First, if you essentially have no standards, then you're probably the last person that should have a input on standards.

Second, the "why not?" answer is far more interesting when that persons personal limits are reached. What's the difference?

Interesting.

I do have standreds for myself....dont particularly care about anyone else mind??(why should i care when it wont affect me?)


Live and let live brother



Your second paragraph is not very clear to what your trying to say

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

Keep on distracting or dreaming whatever you're doing. there was no other fantasy policy of yours.

The school policy was about clothes not nakedness on kids, as said your view on kids being naked is disturbed.

Oh so you don't want answer a super simplistic question. Curious.

Is it because it backs you into an escapable corner? Probably.

You can prove me wrong by answering the question Ive asked you three times now.

beejee

_blaaz wrote: »

I do have standreds for myself....dont particularly care about anyone else mind??(why should i care when it wont affect me?)


Live and let live brother



Your second paragraph is not very clear to what your trying to say

Fair enough. As to what my second point is, look at the other poster ducking and weaving. That's the interesting part

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

Oh so you don't want answer a super simplistic question. Curious.

Is it because it backs you into an escapable corner? Probably.

You can prove me wrong by answering the question Ive asked you three times now.

What question, there is no policy or suggestion of your theory at any school of sending to kids to schools naked. You thinking of that kids nakedness is disturbed, just stop about thinking of kids as naked ok? You'll rightly get locked up for that stuff.

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

What question, there is no policy or suggestion of your theory at any school of sending to kids to schools naked. You thinking of that kids nakedness is disturbed, just stop about thinking of kids as naked ok? You'll rightly get locked up for that stuff.

For the 4th time, what's wrong with a hypothetical policy that allows students to be naked if they choose. It's not harming anyone.

What's your objection?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

beejee wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious about the extension of this mindset, no ill will intended.

For the posters quoted, and anyone else, what is NOT okay to ye? Do you have limits on anything?

The reason I ask is that pretty much anything can be brushed off with "why not?!"

Some examples (feel free to add your own)... If a student wanted to walk on all fours for the school day, and assuming it didn't interfere with their posture, would you have any objections? It's not harming anyone.

If students wanted to be naked, would that be okay? The only problem would be social prudes, it doesn't actually harm anyone. Too cold... see-through clothes then. Would you think that's fine? It's not harming anyone.

Where do you draw lines on what's acceptable? Or do you have any boundaries at all?

beejee wrote: »

Please answer the question asked. I'm not invoking conspiracy theories, but it is indeed a look into a particular mindset.

Is there anything, outside of direct harm, that is NOT acceptable to you? What about nakedness?

So you learnt nothing about the slippery slope fallacy from last night, then?

"Because they might want to go to school naked" is really not a good enough reason to want to block the idea.

The mindset is simple: allow the child to attend school in the clothing they find most comfortable within the confines of the uniform.

Zillah

beejee wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious about the extension of this mindset, no ill will intended.

For the posters quoted, and anyone else, what is NOT okay to ye? Do you have limits on anything?

The reason I ask is that pretty much anything can be brushed off with "why not?!"

Some examples (feel free to add your own)... If a student wanted to walk on all fours for the school day, and assuming it didn't interfere with their posture, would you have any objections? It's not harming anyone.

If students wanted to be naked, would that be okay? The only problem would be social prudes, it doesn't actually harm anyone. Too cold... see-through clothes then. Would you think that's fine? It's not harming anyone.

Where do you draw lines on what's acceptable? Or do you have any boundaries at all?

Like, I can give you answers on all of these hypotheticals and more if you really want, but the answers aren't important - the important thing is that I can give you my reasons for each of my answers.

You object to a boy wearing make-up - what is your reason for objecting to that?

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

For the 4th time, what's wrong with a hypothetical policy that allows students to be naked if they choose. It's not harming anyone.

What's your objection?

You don't seem to understand, the school does not have a naked policy despite your wish to gawk at naked kids.

This new rule simply involves clothing despite your devious wishes

beejee

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you learnt nothing about the slippery slope fallacy from last night, then?

"Because they might want to go to school naked" is really not a good enough reason to want to block the idea.

Are you going to reply without actually answering too?

It's a simple hypothetical question that challenges the core of "why not" answers. It's pretty simple to understand

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

You don't seem to understand, the school does not have a naked policy despite your wish to gawk at naked kids.

This new rule simply involves clothing despite your devious wishes

Wow. 4 times in a row.

Here's the point: you thinking that "why not" is an acceptable answer (to anything) is ludicrously insufficient when you can't even answer it yourself.

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

Are you going to reply without actually answering too?

It's a simple hypothetical question that challenges the core of "why not" answers. It's pretty simple to understand

There is no hypothetical question here, there will never be naked kids attending school despite your wish.

The school policy is regarding uniform, not nakedness of kids for pervs.

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

There is no hypothetical question here, there will never be naked kids attending school despite your wish.

The school policy is regarding uniform, not nakedness of kids for pervs.

If I present a hypothetical, it exists.

You (hilariously!) trying to portray it as me wanting to see children naked is about as dishonest and dirty as it comes.

Do some soul-searching to overcome the intellectual dishonesty with yourself.

And thanks for proving my point

Zillah

beejee wrote: »

Wow. 4 times in a row.

Here's the point: you thinking that "why not" is an acceptable answer (to anything) is ludicrously insufficient when you can't even answer it yourself.

Christ almighty.

No, children running around naked in school is not a good idea because
1 - Our climate is too cold.
2 - Everyone has a right to not see other people naked unless they choose to. It's a widely accepted moral principle that nakedness should be by mutual consent.
3 - Children not wearing clothes are probably more likely to receive unwanted attention from adults who mean them harm.
4 - Photography would have to be forbidden around the children in any circumstances because it would probably amount to creating indecent images.
5 - Basic hygiene. Do we hire a member of staff to go around sterlising everything they sit on?

For these and probably many other basic moral and practical reasons children shouldn't be allowed to go to school naked.

We say "why not?" when you want to ban something because the fundamental principle of a free society is that everything is allowed unless there are good reasons to forbid it - this seems to be the fundamental principle you are missing.

If I want to ban something, like throwing petrol bombs or stealing or parking on a motorway I can tell you my reasons why. What are your reasons for banning a boy from wearing make-up?

branie2

If there's bullying, the teachers will deal with it

klaaaz

beejee wrote: »

If I present a hypothetical, it exists.

You (hilariously!) trying to portray it as me wanting to see children naked is about as dishonest and dirty as it comes.

Do some soul-searching to overcome the intellectual dishonesty with yourself.

And thanks for proving my point

You mentioned nakedness of kids first, you brought up that moral defectiveness in you. Maybe you should see help with your visions of naked kids??

beejee

Zillah wrote: »

Christ almighty.

No, children running around naked in school is not a good idea because
1 - Our climate is too cold.
2 - Everyone has a right to not see other people naked unless they choose to. It's a widely accepted moral principle that nakedness should be by mutual consent.
3 - Children not wearing clothes are probably more likely to receive unwanted attention from adults who mean them harm.
4 - Photography would have to be forbidden around the children in any circumstances because it would probably amount to creating indecent images.
5 - Basic hygiene. Do we hire a member of staff to go around sterlising everything they sit on?

For these and probably many other basic moral and practical reasons children shouldn't be allowed to go to school naked.

We say "why not?" when you want to ban something because the fundamental principle of a free society is that everything is allowed unless there are good reasons to forbid it - this seems to be the fundamental principle you are missing.

If I want to ban something, like throwing petrol bombs or stealing or parking on a motorway I can tell you my reasons why. What are your reasons for banning a boy from wearing make-up?

So you are invoking "morality", basically, as your defence. Hmmmm!!

All the other stuff is easily solved, not a barrier.

Interesting, don't you think? That one side claims a "why not?" approach, but when it comes down to it, it's a pretty bloody stupid answer.

It's real clear. Just look at the other posters non-answers when challenged on "why not". He can't do it.

And that's fine. But if it comes to either side of argument relying on either "why not"/morality... There's no good point to be made at all. Neither are sufficient, and" why not" is particularly dumb

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

beejee wrote: »

Are you going to reply without actually answering too?

It's a simple hypothetical question that challenges the core of "why not" answers. It's pretty simple to understand

Not sure what the question was, but as long as the child attends school in accordance with an agreed-upon dresscode between school, parents and students, then I have no problem.

If that doesn't answer the question, then sorry - I can't find it - please re-state it.

Just to clarify, can you confirm that you're not suggesting that students attending school naked could fall within an agreed-upon dresscode?

klaaaz

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ahhh here that's just nasty and dangerous.

Yes Sweetemotion, that was Beejee's initial desire 5 sentences down. Talking about Primary school kids.

Zillah

beejee wrote: »

So you are invoking "morality", basically, as your defence. Hmmmm!!

All the other stuff is easily solved, not a barrier.

Interesting, don't you think? That one side claims a "why not?" approach, but when it comes down to it, it's a pretty bloody stupid answer.

It's real clear. Just look at the other posters non-answers when challenged on "why not". He can't do it.

And that's fine. But if it comes to either side of argument relying on either "why not"/morality... There's no good point to be made at all. Neither are sufficient, and" why not" is particularly dumb

"Why not?" is inherently a question of morality. Why not murder people? Because others have the right to live. Why not burn down a competing business? Because others have the right to own their property without your interference. Why not eat a banana? Well, I have no objection there. See how that works?

I've gone to considerable effort to answer your hypothetical that has little to do with the topic at hand - perhaps you could answer the question you've been asked repeatedly: Why should we ban boys from wearing make-up? Whose rights does it infringe? What harm does it inflict?

If you cannot provide justification for banning something then you've no basis for banning it - doesn't that stand to reason?

Sweetemotion

klaaaz wrote: »

Yes Sweetemotion, that was Beejee's initial desire 5 sentences down. Talking about Primary school kids.

It wasn't their desire, they just asked a question and you're twisting it. People who do that can destroy a persons life.

Again, that was just nasty and dangerous.

SirGerryAdams

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

This is a reach, clothes are just pieces of fabric, they are not inherently male or female. So what if most don’t want to wear them, let those who do go ahead.

So you wouldn't think anything if a man went around wearing a miniskirt and high heels?

SirGerryAdams

And if there's no such thing as womens clothing why do they have men modelling mens clothing and women modelling womens clothing?

How come you don't see male models wearing fancy dresses with heels or women wearing bootcut jeans with Doc Martins??

klaaaz

Sweetemotion wrote: »

It wasn't their desire, they just asked a question and you're twisting it. People who do that can destroy a persons life.

Again, that was just nasty and dangerous.

Nope Sweetemotion, that poster beejee mentioned naked kids first and kept pursuing the idea of naked kids. They need to be called out on that perversion.

Sweetemotion

klaaaz wrote: »

Nope Sweetemotion, that poster beejee mentioned naked kids first and kept pursuing the idea of naked kids. They need to be called out on that perversion.

Maybe in your own head but I bet my house no one else thought that from his question.

Brian?

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

So you wouldn't think anything if a man went around wearing a miniskirt and high heels?

I’d keep my opinions to myself. Because it’s none of my business what other people wear.

Personally I’d only wear a mini skirt if I’d shaved my legs.