Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'student, special, needs, dress, code, untucked, shirt, police, officer, fascist, cop, beat' to 'student, special needs, dress code, untucked shirt, police, officer, cop, beat' - edited by thinker247

Tags for this video have been changed from 'student, special, needs, dress, code, untucked, shirt, police, officer, cop, beat, slam' to 'student, special, needs, dress, code, untucked, shirt, police, officer, fascist, cop, beat' - edited by therealblankman

Your video, Cop Slams Special Needs Student To The Ground For Dress Code, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^ponceleon:
Why was the cop there to begin with?


There was a cop stationed at my high school, mainly to handle any situations that might come up. That probably isn't the case for all schools, but it isn't unusual.

There is no difference in my mind between a ban on bikinis and a ban on public nudity. As a society, we force each other to cover up. To what degree we must cover our natural gifts is determined by the community we live in.

If we truly were free, we could walk around naked with no fear of reprisal. If you are not ok with nudity, then you should have no problem taking it a little further and saying bikinis don't always cover enough. And that goes double for speedos.

Personally, I have no problem with a stricter dress code at a public facility. If they try to tell me girls can't walk around my private pool naked, then we will have a problem.

>> ^pho3n1x:
...You surely wouldn't expect to move to an Amish town and demand a TV tower be built in town square would you...
Ahh, but there's a difference. The Amish would never stop you from building a television tower because they do not believe in forcing their own beliefs on others. This is what the issue really is about.

Instead of thinking about this in terms of LDS creating dress codes in Utah, try juxtaposing the idea. How about Catholics making laws about what type of artwork is acceptable Jewish council members making laws concerning what foods can be eaten. It doesn't take much to understand why seperation of church and state is important.

The main Ninja in Ninja Gaiden is a dude, however, he always has some ridiculous side-kick who is execively Bebewbed. Case in point... this is a "CIA agent" in the link below... frankly I was unaware the CIA had such a progressive dress code:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/ninjagaidenii/images/0/42/

Okay, but we're back to just talking about your belief here. You think what would be tyranny if the government did it is perfectly okay if it's being done by a private company.

I don't really make much distinction, because the real relationship our government has with us is that it owns everything here. Sure, they let people "buy" parts of it, but just like buying a condo, you're still beholden to the building's rules, and to the other residents.

I would even make the argument that there is no innate right to property, simply a concept called property rights that's established by government.

I also don't think of the government as being a "they" or "them", because I am a component of it myself. Not because I work for the government, but because I pay attention to it, speak my voice, vote, and encourage others to do the same. I may not always agree with what comes out of the process, but that's not tyranny, it's just losing the argument.

Employment at a company on the other hand imports almost no control whatsoever. Owning shares might, if you bought the right kind and had enough that they'd bother soliciting your opinion, but at the moment the company I work for is privately owned, so I can't even do that.

Theoretically I could petition my manager to push on his manager, to push on his manager to possibly change a policy I find overly constraining, but more likely than not my direct manager will just tell me to piss off.

I could organize a union, and hold a strike, I suppose, but there's so much anti-union propaganda and legislation right now such a thing would be impossible unless there was both broad and deep discontent with conditions (and it's not that bad).

So according to your philosophy, whatever it is that gives me the right to wear red pants when I choose is clearly not something our society thinks is part of the human condition of liberty, it's just the condition of whether I can afford to purchase enough land in the world to be able to wear red pants.

To put it more succinctly, what if it were universal that all rental properties required people to accept cameras in their rooms, as it is with dress codes and e-mail surveillance?

We have uniforms, don't we? My work has a dress code, and we hardly ever have in-person interactions with our customers.

I'll gladly say that being told to dress a certain way or lose your job is terribly oppressive.

Having a law against a specific type of clothing that's not really enforced wouldn't be. For example, if the enforcement model was like seat belt laws used to be; they could add a red pants violation when arresting someone for breaking some other law, but they wouldn't stop you for that on its own.

As for the e-mail question, don't you think invasion of the employee's privacy counts?

To ramp up the example, do you think a landlord has the right to set up cameras in the leased apartments to make sure they don't do anything untoward to their property? Add in that the cameras would be hidden and the renter wouldn't be told they're there, and you have a pretty good analog to the e-mail question.

Would a law that forbids that be tyrannical?

Well, you deal with people that think they are doing you a favor by being a customer and thus "paying your salary" - a very specific animal.
But hey, jeans are great for the gym, they protect against scratches, chug moisture and keep the gym cleaner. Tough life being an enforcer of dress codes... for a gym... meh

I got out of high school early by taking a High School Proficiency Exam after my Sophomore year, and started taking classes at my junior college while I waited on the results. When I finally got my results, half-way through my junior year of high school, I just stopped going to my high school classes, and that caused a rumor to circulate that a new dress code had been enacted, one that banned long hair and earrings on guys, and that I was expelled over it or something.

Ahh... good times...

>> ^MaxWilder:
^I'm gonna guess it's because the Arab world is very large, and only a few places actually mandate the traditional dress codes. We're seeing a lot of the repressive side of the Arab traditions in the last few years, but that doesn't mean they all live that way. Far from it. That would be like looking at Utah and thinking that all westerners practice Mormon traditions, when in fact only a small percentage lives that way.


So you're saying that only a small percentage of Arabs live by the Islam traditions (hijab)?

^I'm gonna guess it's because the Arab world is very large, and only a few places actually mandate the traditional dress codes. We're seeing a lot of the repressive side of the Arab traditions in the last few years, but that doesn't mean they all live that way. Far from it. That would be like looking at Utah and thinking that all westerners practice Mormon traditions, when in fact only a small percentage lives that way.

Oximoronic language "freedom of speech"
The school's dress code is not available here, lack of information is the hallmark of reactions/decisions/sensibilities in the newsspeakin' 21st....

Most folks whose illusion of "choice" with regard to the ballot box (rigged computer?), shaped from birth by the machine, cultivated and nurtured to fruition in the form of a fleshbot.

Two to "choose" from, one actual, "choice".