Greystones school - gender neutral uniforms to be introduced.

briangriffin

klaaaz wrote: »

They're offended and upset, such a delicate bunch triggered by an item of clothing. They don't care about boy's rights to wear what uniform they like in school and when boys have rights it hurts the social conservatives!

That is the problem isn't it though when someone disagrees with social justice warriors like yourselves they are conservatives who don't care about children's rights, children have a right to be children.

MrFresh

briangriffin wrote: »

That is the problem isn't it though when someone disagrees with social justice warriors like yourselves they are conservatives who don't care about children's rights, children have a right to be children.

Dam right they do. And if a kid wants to put a skirt on because he likes the look off it then why push adult norms onto him?

briangriffin

MrFresh wrote: »

Dam right they do. And if a kid wants to put a skirt on because he likes the look off it then why push adult norms onto him?

Why push adult norms on him are you that deluded!! or is that an actually serious question?

Sunny Disposition

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

It's a boy wearing a womans item of clothing.

Anyways, as I have said, there was no need to create this rule that boys can wear skirts because it's already in the rules that girls can wear skirts. Boys can just say they identify as a girl and wear a skirt.

There is not going to be any straight boy, who feels like a boy that will wear a womans item of clothing.

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.

is_that_so

MrFresh wrote: »

Dam right they do. And if a kid wants to put a skirt on because he likes the look off it then why push adult norms onto him?

Part of what adults have to do with kids is guide them logically through their myriad brilliant ideas just so they have actually thought about them.

Zillah

It must be very scary and frustrating to be conservative. You set up these monolithic ideas in your mind about the way the world is, even though they're just your own arbitrary preferences, and you spend the rest of your life panicking that neither other people nor reality are willing to conform to your ideas. It must be exhausting to be so alarmed all the time.

A school, at the request of the students, decides to allow students to wear whatever they find comfortable, and some people act like it's some anarchist commune seceding from the republic. Who, really, is the snowflake in this scenario?

And to all the people in their late twenties/thirties+ who are supposedly afraid of the poor lads getting bullied: I strongly suspect you're just cranky (relatively) old men completely out of touch with a new generation who have little or none of your absurd preoccupation with strict definitions and segregation of gender. I think you're probably the only bullies in the room.

is_that_so

Zillah wrote: »

It must be very scary and frustrating to be conservative. You set up these monolithic ideas in your mind about the way the world is, even though they're just your own arbitrary preferences, and you spend the rest of your life panicking that neither other people nor reality are willing to conform to your ideas. It must be exhausting to be so alarmed all the time.

A school, at the request of the students, decides to allow students to wear whatever they find comfortable, and some people act like it's some anarchist commune seceding from the republic. Who, really, is the snowflake in this scenario?

And to all the people in their late twenties/thirties+ who are supposedly afraid of the poor lads getting bullied: I strongly suspect you're just cranky (relatively) old men completely out of touch with a new generation who have little or none of your absurd preoccupation with strict definitions and segregation of gender. I think you're probably the only bullies in the room.

Ah a name calling post pretending to offer reason. All terribly lazy stuff and full of some very juvenile, undergraduate cliches. The highlighted bit is really what you should have written and it's more a reversal of a current very strict dress code.

beejee

Zillah wrote: »

It must be very scary and frustrating to be conservative. You set up these monolithic ideas in your mind about the way the world is, even though they're just your own arbitrary preferences, and you spend the rest of your life panicking that neither other people nor reality are willing to conform to your ideas. It must be exhausting to be so alarmed all the time.

It must be very scary and frustrating to be XXXXX. You set up these monolithic ideas in your mind about the way the world should be, even though they're just your own arbitrary preferences, and you spend the rest of your life panicking that neither other people nor reality are willing to conform to your ideas. It must be exhausting to be so alarmed all the time.

I'd assume the above applies to anyone who finds themselves in a minute percentage of people. That must be seriously worrying, knowing how disposable you may be at any given moment.

Its so easy to turn these startling observations completely around, isn't it? :P

klaaaz

briangriffin wrote: »

That is the problem isn't it though when someone disagrees with social justice warriors like yourselves they are conservatives who don't care about children's rights, children have a right to be children.

Nothing to do with your American imported sh1te. You and others oppose boys having a right to choose a school uniform, that's rather sexist against boys having the right to choose and yet you have no issue with girls wearing trousers!. Boys have rights, cherish them!

donkeykong5

Not that long ago that boys were demanding the cool up to date runners for school. Now is it gonna be the latest in girls skirts!

briangriffin

klaaaz wrote: »

Nothing to do with your American imported sh1te. You and others oppose boys having a right to choose a school uniform, that's rather sexist against boys having the right to choose and yet you have no issue with girls wearing trousers!. Boys have rights, cherish them!

I see.... thank you for that... you go girl...

MrFresh

briangriffin wrote: »

Why push adult norms on him are you that deluded!! or is that an actually serious question?

Do you not have an answer?

is_that_so wrote: »

Part of what adults have to do with kids is guide them logically through their myriad brilliant ideas just so they have actually thought about them.

What's illogical about wearing a particular piece of clothing for fashion?

Zillah

beejee wrote: »

Its so easy to turn these startling observations completely around, isn't it? :P

If your mindset is no more sophisticated than "I am rubber you are glue", then sure.

Del.Monte

Why stop at skirts, what about allowing boys to wear make-up and nylons etc. to school? Sure if that's what they want they should be allowed to do it.

freshpopcorn

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Not that long ago that boys were demanding the cool up to date runners for school. Now is it gonna be the latest in girls skirts!

When I was at school there was one lad. It was mainly laziness on his behalf and things mightn't mightn't have being great at home at times but he used not wear socks all the time and people used laugh at it.
If he went to school a decade later he'd have being cool!

_blaaz

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why stop at skirts, what about allowing boys to wear make-up and nylons etc. to school? Sure if that's what they want they should be allowed to do it.

Tbh whatz the harm like??


Let them at it,deosnt affect me either way..what school kids wear

Zillah

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why stop at skirts, what about allowing boys to wear make-up and nylons etc. to school? Sure if that's what they want they should be allowed to do it.

Yes. Can you think of any reason to forbid them?

beejee

_blaaz wrote: »

Tbh whatz the harm like??


Let them at it,deosnt affect me either way..what school kids wear

Zillah wrote: »

Yes. Can you think of any reason to forbid them?

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?

klaaaz

briangriffin wrote: »

I see.... thank you for that... you go girl...

Ta Brian

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?

There is no extension or conspiracy theory and there is a limit to attending school, those school rules!.
It's simply allowing a boy to wear a skirt or a girl to wear trousers to school within the bounds of the school uniform., what is your problem with that?

beejee

klaaaz wrote: »

Ta Brian



There is no extension or conspiracy theory and there is a limit to attending school, those school rules!.
It's simply allowing a boy to wear a skirt or a girl to wear trousers to school within the bounds of the school uniform., what is your problem with that?

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?

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.