Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 105

Thread: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

  1. #81
    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
    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?

    I made no assumptions about the poster you called out, however I did note, correctly, that YOU did not comprehend the source material, since what the poster you called out was saying was true, and your 'posts' were baseless.


    There was no claim in the source material, nor any other material posted afterwards, that claimed that other black male officers were permitted to wear cornrows; to the contrary, there was a quote by the police spokesman stating that a black male officer HAD been required to cut cornrows, and also that standards for women were different than for men.

  2. #82
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    The courts have consistently declared your argument baseless. Differing standards for grooming for men and women can be based on social or community norms. Expecting a woman to conform to standard male norms exacts a cost for the woman that the man does not pay. You don't have a legal leg to stand on here, you're just howling victim, with no legal basis.
    False. The Courts have consistently declared that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination...".

    Most importantly: that reflect customary modes of grooming


    Since cornrows are a unisex hairstyle, and do NOT reflect customary modes of grooming between genders, the case has a legitimate grounds ONLY because female officers are NOT prevented form having them as well.

    If they are against the rules for men, they should be against the rules for women and vice versa specifically because they do NOT adhere to any gender norm.



    Thus, legally, there is NO precedent for this case. Previous cases do not apply as the hairstyle is unisex, and not in accordance to any customary modes of grooming.

    In this case, we have a distinct difference of application of a rule (profesional looking hairstyle) based SOLELY upon the gender, and NOT in accordance to societal norms surrounding the hairstyle.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #83
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    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.
    Pot meet kettle. Nobody has ever argued that women should be held to male standards, but you sure have battled that strawman all day.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #84
    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

    personally they should all just shave themselves bald.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

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


  5. #85
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    False. The Courts have consistently declared that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination...".

    Most importantly: that reflect customary modes of grooming


    Since cornrows are a unisex hairstyle, and do NOT reflect customary modes of grooming between genders, the case has a legitimate grounds ONLY because female officers are NOT prevented form having them as well.

    If they are against the rules for men, they should be against the rules for women and vice versa specifically because they do NOT adhere to any gender norm.



    Thus, legally, there is NO precedent for this case. Previous cases do not apply as the hairstyle is unisex, and not in accordance to any customary modes of grooming.

    In this case, we have a distinct difference of application of a rule (profesional looking hairstyle) based SOLELY upon the gender, and NOT in accordance to societal norms surrounding the hairstyle.

    Sorry, could you please show me the legal ruling declaring French braids and pinning up of Navy female officers hair to be illegal because male Navy officers are not allowed to wear that hairstyle?

    There is nothing in the law that says anything about unisex hairstyles, and nothing about differences must be small.

  6. #86
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Pot meet kettle. Nobody has ever argued that women should be held to male standards, but you sure have battled that strawman all day.

    I'm sorry, but what was it you were arguing when you said that if a male cannot wear cornrows than neither can a woman?

  7. #87
    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
    I made no assumptions about the poster you called out, however I did note, correctly, that YOU did not comprehend the source material, since what the poster you called out was saying was true, and your 'posts' were baseless.


    There was no claim in the source material, nor any other material posted afterwards, that claimed that other black male officers were permitted to wear cornrows; to the contrary, there was a quote by the police spokesman stating that a black male officer HAD been required to cut cornrows, and also that standards for women were different than for men.
    You have done nothing BUT make assumptions in this thread and by attempting to play the condescension police and wandering OFF the topic doing nothing more than troll.

    Again, it is readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence of the implications of the contents of the article that other BLACK officers were not asked to get haircuts suggesting there was some BIAS.

    Now you can continue your desperate trolling and baiting, or argue the topic at hand. My comments to your buddy was an effort to help her in the future before she asks people to prove what she could have read in the article rather then have a coherent debate.

    Now carry on and end your foolish trolling.

  8. #88
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: White Philly officer told to get rid of cornrows

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Sorry, could you please show me the legal ruling declaring French braids and pinning up of Navy female officers hair to be illegal because male Navy officers are not allowed to wear that hairstyle?
    Why would I entertain yet another strawman of yours? What part of "there is NO precedent for this case" makes you ask as stupid question about precedents?

    There is nothing in the law that says anything about unisex hairstyles, and nothing about differences must be small.
    No, there isn't anything about unisex hairstyles. At all. Thus the "there is NO precedent for this case" statement.

    But the logic behind long hair restrictions and such do declare, explicitly, that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination..." since I quoted that directly from Knott v. Missouri Pacific.

    Thus, when the case does NOT have anything to do with "customary modes of grooming", as is the case here, there is a legal argument that can be made since... wait for it.... its coming.... there is no precedent for this case!
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #89
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    Why would I entertain yet another strawman of yours? What part of "there is NO precedent for this case" makes you ask as stupid question about precedents?



    No, there isn't anything about unisex hairstyles. At all. Thus the "there is NO precedent for this case" statement.

    But the logic behind long hair restrictions and such do declare, explicitly, that "...minor differences in personal appearance regulations that reflect customary modes of grooming do not constitute sex discrimination..." since I quoted that directly from Knott v. Missouri Pacific.

    Thus, when the case does NOT have anything to do with "customary modes of grooming", as is the case here, there is a legal argument that can be made since... wait for it.... its coming.... there is no precedent for this case!

    Another strawman? Sorry, you are the one that said a court somewhere ruled that unisex hairstyles may not be included in grooming standards?

    I can find no legal cases stating any such thing. Only that the distinctions between the sexes based on grooming are not sex discrimination. I can further find nothing stating that differences must be small.


    You are the one making these arguments, not me. You are stating that a particular form of braids is unisex, and thus wearing of one type of braid cannot be allowed for one sex and not another. And yet, I find that Navy regs do allow the wearing of braids for women and not men.

    So, where is the legal basis for your argument that a 'unisex' hairstyle cannot be prohibited to one gender under grooming standards, and further that any such grooming standards differences must be small?

  10. #90
    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
    You have done nothing BUT make assumptions in this thread and by attempting to play the condescension police and wandering OFF the topic doing nothing more than troll.

    Again, it is readily apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence of the implications of the contents of the article that other BLACK officers were not asked to get haircuts suggesting there was some BIAS.

    Now you can continue your desperate trolling and baiting, or argue the topic at hand. My comments to your buddy was an effort to help her in the future before she asks people to prove what she could have read in the article rather then have a coherent debate.

    Now carry on and end your foolish trolling.

    Assumptions? Where?

    YOU made the assumption about male officers, not me.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 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
  •