Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

  1. #71
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,971

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Yes, the courts do so determine.
    And, no, re: slaves. You'd be wrong, and btw, nice lame strawman there, Zyph.
    How is it a strawman. You've clearly stated that apparently something isn't sexist because the courts don't deem it so.

    Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

    Therefore, by your own reason and logic, there was nothing racist about the notion of having slaves, or the segregation of blacks, until such a point that the courts ruled on it and decided it was.

  2. #72
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,316
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Grooming standards should be the same for both races as much as possible. When I was in the navy, a bunch of black guys where allowed to not shave regularly due to some problem black guys have that I never asked about, but that is reasonably.

    However, I got to admit hearing a bunch of white men complain about racism and sexism directed there way is kinda surreal, and amusing.

  3. #73
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    How is it a strawman. You've clearly stated that apparently something isn't sexist because the courts don't deem it so.

    Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

    Therefore, by your own reason and logic, there was nothing racist about the notion of having slaves, or the segregation of blacks, until such a point that the courts ruled on it and decided it was.

    Therefore, similarly, something should only be "racist" if a court deems it to be so (or more to the point, shouldn't be seen as racist if a court deems it isn't).

    That right there is your strawman. It is a ridiculous oversimplification of an argument, set up thus in order to more easily strike it down.

    In the arguments you and Tuck and others have put forward, you have claimed it's just not fair to the men because they are being treated differently than the women. The courts have specifically found your arguments to be specious, that in fact holding women to men's norms can be hostile to women, in fact.


    Putting forward an instance of a wrongful court decision that has been rightfully overturned to argue that no court's decisions should be respected because they could at any time be reversed is not just a strawman, it is a particularly outrageous strawman.

  4. #74
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Grooming standards should be the same for both races as much as possible. When I was in the navy, a bunch of black guys where allowed to not shave regularly due to some problem black guys have that I never asked about, but that is reasonably.

    However, I got to admit hearing a bunch of white men complain about racism and sexism directed there way is kinda surreal, and amusing.

    I remember those cases, or at least some very similar cases. I was in the 6th grade (I think) and we had to find newspaper articles about each branch of gov't. The only judicial cases on the front pages at the time were cases about male servicemen having skin problems from being forced to shave daily, or something very similar.

    I remember my teacher at the time saying it used to be very hard to find articles about the judicial branch of gov't, but no longer. She didn't explain why, but I remember being puzzled by it. I've since figured out that she meant since Roe v Wade in 1973. I guess I was in 6th grade around 1978 or so, so I guess the courts were starting to show up quite regularly in newspaper articles. Anyway, the only ones I could find at the time that were about the US courts and not local ones was the serviceman's shaving cases.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Ahem .... where is the word "MALE"?


    That is about as laughable as your notion that it was ONLY about female.


  6. #76
    Irrelevant Pissant

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    03-13-14 @ 07:55 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,194

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    The Philadelphia Daily News reported Monday that Officer Thomas Strain was put on desk duty this month because of the braids, even though the paper reported dozens of black officers wear cornrows.
    If it isn't racism, its sexism.

  7. #77
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    That is about as laughable as your notion that it was ONLY about female.


    No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    Interviewed by the Daily News, Vanore said he couldn't explain why black officers with cornrows weren't ordered to get haircuts unless they're women. The policy for female officers is slightly more permissive, he said.

    are we finished here? denial can be treated, you know.
    The whole statement is contradictory; are only female officers ordered to get their cornrows cut?

    On the other hand, the statement goes on to say that the policy for female officers is more permissive; so which is it, black officers or just female black officers?

    I think the language was pretty clear, he cannot explain why BLACK officers, OTHER THAN WOMEN, weren't ordered to get haircuts.


  9. #79
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.
    seriously.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  10. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    No, what is laughable is the condescension displayed by telling a poster not to comment until they've read the source material when the commenter is the one in the wrong.
    No, what is truly laughable is your attempts to obfuscate your obvious trolling by ASSuming, incorrectly I might add, that the person I told to read the article had indeed read the article. It only took her about four posts to get there.

    But then, you never let the FACTS concern you with your blatant trolling have you?


Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •