Long Hair not permitted on boys?
- Thread starter TenPenny
- Start date
Not to be too nit picky, but there were no Christians then. He was a Jewish hero. Same with Moses, although more than likely neither existed.
Well, we're getting far off track here. It might make a good thread to break off from TenPenny's thread. I see you still won't answer the question about the boy's hair causing disorder.
Perhaps you'll answer me this one question instead. Do you consider graffiti to be a crime?
No it is not and I never said that at all. Quit trying to change my words around. I said there is nothing wrong with the boy having his hair a little long. How familiar are you with 4 year olds? At that age, he's not old enough for his hair to have grown very long. Long hair on men seems to be somewhat back in style, partly I think due to the economy. Haircuts cost money and even though (and here's discrimination) it's much cheaper for a man to get a haircut then it is for a woman, it still costs money that some people just don't have or can better use on something important.
What I did say was that the school has rules and the parents must have known those rules going in. I don't believe it's right to start teaching a four year old that it's okay to go against the rules at school. He'll have trouble all his life.
430. (1) Every one commits mischief who wilfully
(a) destroys or damages property;
(b) renders property dangerous, useless, inoperative or ineffective;
(c) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property; or
(d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.
It is an indicable offense punishable by up to five years imprisonment. A citizen can make a lawful arrest of somone caught committing such an offense.
Well, thank you Walter for showing why the graffiti study in Science fails, and in turn showing one of the inherent weaknesses of the theory. The broken window theory claims that civilians recognize disorder as a problem separate from crime. If there is no distinction between disorder and crime, then the policing efforts of broken window policies aren't going to be effective at reducing other crime, they're only going to place more effort on stopping petty crime when the real effort should be made at reducing major crimes.
As I've said a few times now, these are correlations. Finding correlations in sporadic jurisdictions does not mean there is an actual relationship, and if the central tenet that citizens recognize disorder as a problem distinct from criminality is not met, then the theory has no predictive value, and thus it's value as a policing method is suspect.
For further reading, see:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63094/1/cerda_misdemeanour%20policing_2009%20%282%29.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/docs/Order_Disorder.pdf
As I've said a few times now, these are correlations. Finding correlations in sporadic jurisdictions does not mean there is an actual relationship, and if the central tenet that citizens recognize disorder as a problem distinct from criminality is not met, then the theory has no predictive value, and thus it's value as a policing method is suspect.
For further reading, see:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/63094/1/cerda_misdemeanour%20policing_2009%20%282%29.pdf
http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/docs/Order_Disorder.pdf
So, what you are saying is that, if the school has rules discriminating on the basis of gender, you must follow them.
Sometimes teaching a child to disobey the rules is just as bad as teaching a child to blindly obey arbitrary ones.
That's certainly true.
The most important lesson is to teach the children to think and to reason. What is the reason for the rule, does it make sense?
In my opinion, this rule does not make sense, and should be completely disregarded, as it is, quite likely illegal anyway. Just because the school makes a rule, does not mean it has the legal right to do so.
The most important lesson is to teach the children to think and to reason. What is the reason for the rule, does it make sense?
In my opinion, this rule does not make sense, and should be completely disregarded, as it is, quite likely illegal anyway. Just because the school makes a rule, does not mean it has the legal right to do so.
You are doing it again. No I am not. I am saying if the school has rules they should be followed. I repeat: The parents had to know what the rules were going in and we are talking about pre-school. Parents take their kids to pre-school anywhere. They do not have to stay in the boundaries of a catchment area.
1. Most schools do not make their dress code known up front. It is not part of the registration package. I was personally stunned when my daughter was sent home with a note from kindergarten explaining that her tank top was inappropriate attire because the straps were less than two fingers wide.
2. Pre-K and pre-school are not the same thing. Pre-K is run through the school board, the busing system, etc. You can't just pick up and move the kids around pre-K the same as with pre-school programs.
Maybe we do not have pre-kindergarten here then. I know that kindergarten children now go to school for a full day here starting this school year. I'm sure that must help people with a lack of child care. My own grandchildren are not that old and I know the oldest still had a nap in kindergarten so I don't know how the kids do all day in school. It may be the greatest thing that has happened or it may not be. In regard to rules, I think you have to teach children to obey them before you teach them which ones they may consider dis-regarding. (that's in response to Bob's post). I agree that the length of anyone's hair is a minor issue and if they want to play that card then the girls with long hair should also have to wear braids. If the parents take that approach, they may win their war.
I have seen articles in the local papers (this city and just BC in general) where children have been sent home for inappropriate attire. So far, I've never seen where the parents have fought it so I guess the schools have just won.
I have seen articles in the local papers (this city and just BC in general) where children have been sent home for inappropriate attire. So far, I've never seen where the parents have fought it so I guess the schools have just won.
...and this has what to do with long hair in a Texas kindergarten? Some of the stuff kids wear to school is downright disgusting or more suitable for more mature audiences. Long hair? That's a tad petty ... unless it's complete control and domination they want.
Last edited:
lol I'm just pointing out that length of hair has nothing to do with religion, as far as looks are concerned, those grossly obese backsides in the school have no reasonable grounds for whining about length of hair of the kids, and that they take themselves entirely too seriously. It makes me wonder if they teach "intelligent design" in their "science" classes, too. lol
Good point! Speaking of "early influences", I often like to tell people why I can type 50+ words per minute these days...when I was in high school, one of the electives I chose was typing! Why? Wellll...it was because the typing teacher was a real fox! (About a 15 on a scale of 1 - 10)
My buddies and I ended up being some of the best typists around, as we always requested extra 'assistance.' Now that was a positive influence on my education! :lol::lol::lol:
Awesome! I'm in the 40s myself but I was taught a little by the sweetest, little French (real French) lady ever. She was also the French teacher (go figure
). My grade 2 teacher fascinated me, though. She was the first redhead I ever saw and she was a fox, too. Major crush. At least till she wouldn't let me go pee and made me sit there until the dam burst and the crush died right then and there. Whatta biatch!
Awesome! I'm in the 40s myself but I was taught a little by the sweetest, little French (real French) lady ever. She was also the French teacher (go figure
Is that like putting a damper on a relationship? :-|