• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Father wants school dress code changed after son asked to remove Marines T-shirt

applying the one provided.

Nope, sorry. No real definition of activism exists to make the statement "A person trying to implement a new dress code is engaging in activism" an accurate statement.

The only accurate statement (that uses a real definition of the word activism) that conveys a similar meaning would be "A person trying to implement a new dress code might be engaging in activism."
 
The only way it could work perfectly is if you replaced it with your imaginary definition.


policies and procedures don't spontaneously appear. your definition is perfect. thank you.
 
I get it. you are just doing what is right. Everybody else simply wants to "stir up crap"

/eye roll

"Right " is subjective, but since I'm of above average intelligence AND a Conservative, I'm able to take these individual acts of "activism", and through objective analysis of empirical data, relying on a lifetime of experience and taking into consideration historic parallels, future possibilities and likely outcomes, determine if they are beneficial to the process. Does it take away or add to the end result ?

So yes, usually I'm right. Almost always. Actually I'm really hardly EVER wrong.
 
The teacher's political beleifs are not mentioned in the article, so you are just making **** up to fit your desired narrative. It could just as likely be a crackpot conservative teacher who never actually bothered to read the rules and is a stickler for following the exact letter of what they believe to be the rule, and the smart liberal superintendent pointing out that the rule is not what is claimed. We have no way of knowing based on the information given.
Not... really. Your argument can work without this false statement.
 
OK Rush
Fenton;1061510295 [B said:
So yes, usually I'm right. Almost always. Actually I'm really hardly EVER wrong[/B].
 
And most dress codes are not implemented by direct action in support of or opposition to a cause. Again, you fail to produce an accurate definition which supports your position, thus proving that you are using an imaginary one.

what indirect action will create an enforceable dress code policy?
 
It was very clear. You asked me a question which did not include all of the definition.

you highlighted one phrase, but failed to explain how it applies to our discussion. I suspect you don't really have a defense and this is the best one you got.
 
you highlighted one phrase, but failed to explain how it applies to our discussion.

Yet that highlighted phrase was exactly the one you arbitrarily decided to exclude. It applies ot the discussion because it is part ofthe definition.

TO explain further, if I was discussing the definition of the word "oak" in order to prove that oak is not ironwood, and I cited the following definition:

the tough hard durable wood of an oak tree

And then said Ironwood is not the tough, hard, durable wood of an oak tree

And you responded by asking me "Is there any other type of ironwood besides tough, hard durable wood?" I would apply the same pro tip that I did here.

Complete definitions are needed in order for the word to apply accurately.


I suspect you don't really have a defense and this is the best one you got.

I suspect that you haven't grasped the irony of your accusation that I was the one changing definitions yet.
 
Yet that highlighted phrase was exactly the one you arbitrarily decided to exclude. It applies ot the discussion because it is part ofthe definition.

TO explain further, if I was discussing the definition of the word "oak" in order to prove that oak is not ironwood, and I cited the following definition:

the tough hard durable wood of an oak tree

And then said Ironwood is not the tough, hard, durable wood of an oak tree

And you responded by asking me "Is there any other type of ironwood besides tough, hard durable wood?" I would apply the same pro tip that I did here.

Complete definitions are needed in order for the word to apply accurately.




I suspect that you haven't grasped the irony of your accusation that I was the one changing definitions yet.

We are talking about implementing a dress code, which is the cause.

so how do we directly implement a dress code while not supporting the cause?
 
Back
Top Bottom