Daughters

[Jeneralissimo]

Younger girls can definitely get away more with the clothes, it's when they're wearing makeup that they start to look bad. I don't even think I started wearing gloss until I was 12. I think that society is making girls get into their "I want to be sexy" stage a little too soon after the "I want to be a princess" stage. And it makes me really sad.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Locke

What? What?!! Hold up a second! What are you talking about? Do you know how many assumptions that makes? That is by nature conservative--and if you openly admit that, that's fine--but conservativism also entails overexemplifying and glorifying tradition. "Supposed to be?" Are we really in 2005? Innocence? This is a Utopian concept--people are not innocent. They have greedy desires, they have selfless desires, they want sex, they don't want sex, they do drugs, they don't do drugs, they're jaded, they're not jaded--either way it's fine, but there is not supposed to be. That means nothing and is part of the "Leave it to Beaver" nuclear family myth. I have a great book on that-- "The Mommy Myth." Wholesome=shielding your eyes.

I think I might've been referring to a different age than you. I think parents should allow room for their children to develop their own opinions. Later on they can choose to have sex, dress provocatively, etc. because they should be mature enough to make those decisions by then. I'm not trying to say that these things are bad- sex, drugs, smoking, etc., can all be take responsibly or irresponsibly- but that they should be introduced at an age when they can think critically about them.

Also, that book you mentioned sounds interesting and I'll keep my eye open for it.

[Staizer]

What the 'don't dress like sluts' "moral" is doing is actually infringing upon other peoples' morals. That is "unjust." Leave people be.

Hypocritical maybe? I didn't say that other people's morals are wrong, because they aren't, your morals are your own, and, as an example, if your morals say that my morals have to follow your standards, so be it. You are entitled to the opinion. However, what you are saying is that anyone who is of the opinion that people act a certain way because doing otherwise is wrong, are in fact wrong themselves. Which is very egotistical and like I said, hypocritical. This is pretty much true for all of your statements against what we have been saying. Because I believe how I believe, you are entitled to be hypocritical.

Quote:
It is wrong by some people's standards because it encourages people to have bad thoughts about women. "That woman is a slut. Damn she looks sexy, I want to fuck her. Look at those boobs!" And I agree with those people's standards.


Excuse me, but are you denying that you have carnal, sexual thoughts? A lot of people--no, about 90% of the human race does. I'm a feminist and I still see someone hot (male or female) and often think--"wow, they're hot. i'd like to fuck them." this is not hypocritical: it's a natural human desire.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I would have to explain this, but I guess I have to I will. Dressing slutty encourages people to think as we have both said about women. It doesn't force people to have those thoughts, but it does encourage. And encouraging people to have thoughts that they may consider wrong is considered wrong by some people. If I don't want to have sexual thoughts about people because my denomination says I should not (and I agree with my denomination, whether you consider that brainwashing or not is irrelevant) then encouraging me to have those thoughts is cruel. Like encouraging a recovering alcoholic to have a beer is cruel. I am not saying that having such thoughts is wrong, hell, I have them all the time. But they don't control me, and I would rather not have them if it were up to me.

Actually--it's not forcing people to be liberal. If someone is conservative, they are archaic--this is my position. On many fronts I believe one can argue that conservativism is ultimately not beneficial (keyword many, not all). Progressive ideas, and that is, those that are usually giving the most liberty, are the ones I endorse. The problem is, the (nice, smart) progressive people don't care about the conservatives and do what they want. this is another good way to have the least amount of conflict. Unfortunately, conservatives by nature want things to conform to their traditional view, and do get offended by such (uncommon!) concepts as sex.

When you say "(nice, smart)" are you saying that only progressive people are nice and smart? Or that those progressives that are nice and smart?

When I said forcing people to be liberal I meant that, if someone doesn't agree with you they are wrong, forcing people to walk around naked all day long is wrong because clothes are the signs of social oppression, is wrong, even if you said it in jest you still agreed with it to a degree. You are entitled to that opinion, I won't say your opinion is wrong. Forcing other people to conform to your opinion however is wrong, and far more hypocritical of a liberal than a conservative.

What? What?!! Hold up a second! What are you talking about? Do you know how many assumptions that makes? That is by nature conservative--and if you openly admit that, that's fine--but conservativism also entails overexemplifying and glorifying tradition. "Supposed to be?" Are we really in 2005? Innocence? This is a Utopian concept--people are not innocent. They have greedy desires, they have selfless desires, they want sex, they don't want sex, they do drugs, they don't do drugs, they're jaded, they're not jaded--either way it's fine, but there is not supposed to be. That means nothing and is part of the "Leave it to Beaver" nuclear family myth. I have a great book on that-- "The Mommy Myth." Wholesome=shielding your eyes.

Sure it is fine to do whatever the fuck you like, because there are no consequences to your actions. Right? No, there are consequences for every decision we make. Teaching our children to consider the consequences is the ideal. Once you see that doing drugs can lead to; being arrested, becoming addicted, ruining your life. You don't really want to do drugs. Or once you see that running wild and having sex with anyone you meet can lead to; sexually transmitted diseases, lower self esteem, early parenthood, you really don't want to be promiscuous. (Before you refute these claims, please look up the meaning of the word "can" and also ask me about my life, because maybe I happen to know the effects of these things, maybe I don't, but that is my choice because I have looked at the consequences and chosen not to make what I would consider a mistake, or chosen to do something and now have to pay the consequences.)

That is what innocence means, that children are not aware of the hardships of life and forcing them into said hardships can and does cause emotional problems. Let them discover the hardships on their own, and guide them towards what you know are beneficial consequences and away from you know to be bad ones. That isn't wrong, because you aren't forcing anything.

Finally, your insistance that what we believe is a result of what society wants us to believe is really annoying. I haven't come to my conclusions about life because I read it from Cosmo, or seen it on MTV, or Fox, or CNN, or any form of media. I have come to my conclusions because I have seen the consequences of both chosing to do something, and chosing not to do something. If the results favor not doing something as the easiest, non-painful path, I will take that path, or if the results are worth the pain I will chose that path despite the immediate consequences. Telling me that what I believe is a result of having society force its standards on me is wrong, not bad, merely untrue.

[Krylo]

However, what you are saying is that anyone who is of the opinion that people act a certain way because doing otherwise is wrong, are in fact wrong themselves. Which is very egotistical and like I said, hypocritical.

Putting words into someone's mouth and then arguing against them is a patentedly bad debate strategy.

Having spoken to Locke, I can tell you what he actually means is that trying to ENFORCE that moral onto others is wrong.

Looking at someone dressed slutty and thinking, "ew" or whatever is fine. But looking at someone dressed slutty and then talking about how no one should dress like that and how they're horrible people for it is not. They can dress how they want. You don't have to agree with it, but it's unjust to tell them how to dress because then your morality is suddenly destroying there's.

The 'naked 24/7' was satire meant to make this point.

'You' (and by you I mean your side of the arguement) wants everyone to dress prim and proper etc. This is no different than someone telling you that you need to be naked and/or dress like a whore. Both ideas infringe upon the morals of everyone who is outside that idea. Both ideas destroy the ability of someone to make benign choices.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I would have to explain this, but I guess I have to I will. Dressing slutty encourages people to think as we have both said about women. It doesn't force people to have those thoughts, but it does encourage.

Which does more damage to woman's rights, thinking of them as sexual objects for a few minutes or telling them that they don't have the right to dress like they want?

The entire objectification thing related to woman's rights is completely retarded. Yes, it might increase objectification, but that's a non-issue compared to stealing away the ability for women to make choices of their own.

I realize that's not your main point in this, but it's a point... and using your quote was easiest at this point.

And encouraging people to have thoughts that they may consider wrong is considered wrong by some people. If I don't want to have sexual thoughts about people because my denomination says I should not (and I agree with my denomination, whether you consider that brainwashing or not is irrelevant) then encouraging me to have those thoughts is cruel.

Not nearly as cruel as telling me what I can and can not wear. Especially when I'm not dressing in such a way JUST to make you think those thoughts. I (and by me I mean any random person you may find attractive [and yes, I realize I'm probably not actually one of them]) am dressing that way because I like the way it looks, or because it's warm out, or for whatever other reason. I'm not targetting you and your denomination. I'm acting in the way I want.

Stealing away my rights because YOU can't handle looking at someone's ass without feeling the need to wank is selfish and weak hearted. You deal with your issues that you press onto yourself. There's no excuse for forcing everyone else to cater to you just because you don't want to think about certain things.

It's tantamount to me going into the rules thread and saying no one is allowed to talk to/about Staizer anymore because I don't want to think about you. Or that no one is allowed to talk Harry Potter because I don't want to think about that.

If I don't want to think about something that doesn't give me the right to force everyone else to stop doing anything with it.

Like encouraging a recovering alcoholic to have a beer is cruel.

The two don't even compare, unless you consider wearing a shirt that says "Miller Genuine Draft" around town where an alcoholic might, maybe, see you as encouraging them to drink.

In other words: Mountain to a mole hill logical fallacy.

When I said forcing people to be liberal I meant that, if someone doesn't agree with you they are wrong, forcing people to walk around naked all day long is wrong because clothes are the signs of social oppression, is wrong, even if you said it in jest you still agreed with it to a degree.

Again, it's satire and meant as a dichotomy to forcing everyone to dress like puritans.

Using dichotomy to make a point doesn't mean that he agrees with it to any degree, it just means he's trying to make you understand how forcing people to dress puritanically makes them feel by giving you an idea of what being forced to dress the opposite of how you wish to dress would make YOU feel.

No, there are consequences for every decision we make. Teaching our children to consider the consequences is the ideal. Once you see that doing drugs can lead to; being arrested, becoming addicted, ruining your life. You don't really want to do drugs.

You REALLY don't want to get into that with Locke. He knows more than you about drugs and their use. Trust me. Most rock bands haven't had half the experience.

Or once you see that running wild and having sex with anyone you meet can lead to; sexually transmitted diseases

Yes, having sex randomly without protection can. However, how does dressing in a certain way immediately mean that you're going to have unprotected sex with anything that moves? I'm unsure how this relates to the arguement.

lower self esteem

...Having sex hasn't hurt MY self esteem, so I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. I suppose if you prescribe to a certain moral code that says sex is wrong and thus makes you feel like shit for having sex, you'll probably feel bad about it, however if you don't prescribe to that moral code it won't affect your self-esteem. It's an interesting paradox: sex is only harmful in this manner if you believe it should be harmful in this manner.

early parenthood

Again, only if you're stupid about it, and again, I'm not sure how you think this relates to the way people dress, or even what Locke said.

you really don't want to be promiscuous.

Nah... I still do. Other than I have a girlfriend I wouldn't ever want to cheat on.

But seriously, Locke says that not allowing children to see anything/not educating them on anything (and let's face it, if they're never exposed [preferably indirectly], they're never get educated on how to act in situations) is bad, and then you talk about whores and druggies? I'm so confused by where you drew any of that from.

Well he said that and we shouldn't do things just because it's what we're 'supposed to' do. Because doing things merely because you're supposed to do something IS merely allowing yourself to be a result of society. Do things because you want to do them for whatever reason, not because it's the way it's been done.

Your arguement here doesn't relate to his at all. And it's faulty to boot.

That is what innocence means, that children are not aware of the hardships of life and forcing them into said hardships can and does cause emotional problems. Let them discover the hardships on their own, and guide them towards what you know are beneficial consequences and away from you know to be bad ones. That isn't wrong, because you aren't forcing anything.

Who's forcing them into hardships?

If they want to dress x-way, how is that giving them ANY kind of hardship by allowing it? Especially the younger ones who aren't sexual at all in the first place, and the older ones certainly aren't being forced into anything.

And, further, he never said anything about forcing anyone into anything, merely that shielding their eyes from it is bad, which is true.

It's a hell of a lot easier to get your kid to use condoms during sex or abstain if you talk to them about sex then it is if you never tell them and hope to god they won't be confronted with it ever.

Same with drugs or anything else you might want your kid to be responsible with. Presenting them with HONEST information on the subject is key. Pretending like sex and drugs don't exist doesn't help anyone.

But that's off topic... but then... this is in off topic... so... whatever, I guess.

[Staizer]

GAH! I'm going to start over because I'm not getting through. I want to say that this . . .

If they want to dress x-way, how is that giving them ANY kind of hardship by allowing it? Especially the younger ones who aren't sexual at all in the first place, and the older ones certainly aren't being forced into anything.

And, further, he never said anything about forcing anyone into anything, merely that shielding their eyes from it is bad, which is true.

It's a hell of a lot easier to get your kid to use condoms during sex or abstain if you talk to them about sex then it is if you never tell them and hope to god they won't be confronted with it ever.

Same with drugs or anything else you might want your kid to be responsible with. Presenting them with HONEST information on the subject is key. Pretending like sex and drugs don't exist doesn't help anyone.

. . . is what I agree with.

The real problem that I have with Locke's arguement isn't necessarily the ideas but the way they are put. I do not like extremes in any issue. The way Locke was presenting his ideas, it seemed that he was saying it was his way or nothing. It seemed from the wording that the tone was somewhat condescending. That the conclusions I had come to about life, because they are in agreement with society, came from society and that society is inherently wrong, because it forces what it believes on other people (which it sometimes can, I cannot deny that, but in general I don't believe it does). If I am wrong and this is not the case, I apologize truly and deeply. If I am not wrong, however, I cannot agree with that sentiment, which is what I was truly arguing. I ended up sounding hypocritical to myself because I was trying to argue it through ideas that I agreed actually with.

I am sorry I did not express that right out. It confused everyone including me.

Basically my point then is that of what Krylo said in the quote above. Presenting people with honest information and letting them come to their own conclusions is the correct answer.

That is what I meant to say with the drugs and sex section that Krylo ripped apart so well. That what you see and experience tells you what is or what isn't, not what someone else tells you to see or experience. It isn't wrong to give advice, but forcing is wrong.

Thus Locke and I are in agreement on these terms, forcing people is wrong, people should do what they do because they want to do it, not because they are told to.

The end, for now.

p.s. you know, I think that's why I have a hard time arguing with people. I happen to agree with most things people say, its just the way people say it that I don't agree with. Instead of saying, "I agree with what you are saying, but not how you are saying it." I argue the points they make and try to make them sound less extreme, and end up sounding extreme myself. I will work on this, please be patient with me.

edit: In order to be included in a group there are some requirements and rules that one must follow. If you are in school you have to dress according to the rules of the school. If you are going to college you have to meet certain requirements before you can receive your diploma. To write in these forums you must follow strict rules. To join a religion you have to follow their guidelines. To run for president of the US you have to be born in the US and over a certain age limit. All of these are voluntarily accepted upon joining the group that . . . enforces? . . . requires? . . . has these rules. There are exceptions, things you don't have to do upon extenuating circumstances, or if some other equally satisfactory requirement is met instead. But to be included in the group you must meet the requirements.

Take these boards for example. If you want to be able to write here you must remain civil, and follow other set rules. We accept these rules voluntarily because we want to be here. I come here because I know that I can be accepted and treated respectfully here, as opposed to other message boards that have no civility whatsoever. And I appreciate it.

School uniforms are a little more grey area for me though, because school is manditory for people living in the united states until, in my state, you reach the age of 16. But if you want to be a member of the U.S. you have to follow their guidelines, and to follow their guidelines you have to follow other guidelines as well. It gets more iffy because of that.

If my logic is faulty and this is another logical fallicy, then I don't understand the world as well as I thought I did and I would be willing to accept that and the changes it would require, but I don't think my logic is faulty. The reasons why rules and guidelines are set may be different, but they are set, and we must follow them if we want to belong.

[phil_]

Very quick: isn't this, by the wording of the first post, supposed to be about girls under ten? Since when is a child under ten in, it can be postulated, a developed nation free to do whatever they want regardless of their parents wishes? You guys are running as quickly from the actual topic as your internet-legs will take you.

Also, Locke, you have a knack for inspiring conflict.

[Lockeownzj00]

The real problem that I have with Locke's arguement isn't necessarily the ideas but the way they are put. I do not like extremes in any issue. The way Locke was presenting his ideas, it seemed that he was saying it was his way or nothing. It seemed from the wording that the tone was somewhat condescending.

I believe you should look up the wikipedia article on Straw man.

Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

It's not "my way or the highway." Life is subjective. Your whole bit about morals being wrong--I, fortunately, came to the conclusion that there are no objective morals a long time ago. I'm talking about relative wrongs--that is, even with people of largely differing opinion, infringing on their right to do whatever the fuck they want.

That the conclusions I had come to about life, because they are in agreement with society, came from society and that society is inherently wrong, because it forces what it believes on other people (which it sometimes can, I cannot deny that, but in general I don't believe it does). If I am wrong and this is not the case, I apologize truly and deeply. If I am not wrong, however, I cannot agree with that sentiment, which is what I was truly arguing. I ended up sounding hypocritical to myself because I was trying to argue it through ideas that I agreed actually with.

It's not "you agree with society and therefore you are wrong." False dichotomy. Society says, "it's a generally good idea not to kill people." I tend to agree. This can be perverted, true, but I tend to agree. Society says, "it's best not to slap someone on the face on the street and run away," although the results can sometimes, admittedly, be funny. Okay, bad example--I just wanted to say "slap someone in the face." Better example: society generally says, "be kind." Again--this can be perverted into PC rhetoric and legal loopholes, but it's a common sense--that is, taking all factors into consideration--thought.

But there are many ideals in "our society" that people are forced to adhere to, indirectly or directly, that are widespread, but in relative terms, wrong: wrong to violate someone's rights, that is, their freedom to do as they (generally) please, wrong to judge them...in fact, I think it would be, if anyone, you who is condescending for having the gall to say certain people should stop being "hot." Although, I don't think you're condescending--I just mean if one were to observe the situation and come to that conclusion at all about either participant.

Basically my point then is that of what Krylo said in the quote above. Presenting people with honest information and letting them come to their own conclusions is the correct answer.

Yes, honest--what we are not doing right now. Drug education is literally non-existant. That is to say, it is complete fabrication and an exemplification of conservative morals under the guise of education, with no semblance of choice. It's funny how the pro-drug reform people are alwas the only ones saying "you can choose either way" while the anti-drug people are the ones saying, "don't do drugs."

Sex education is in very bad shape. All attempts thus far to "modernize" and "get down to earth" with sex education have failed due to the need to a) be politically correct, and b) purport conservative morals--preconceived societal ones at that! Man, do I love the word preconceived. So handy.

There are real dangers to sex and there are real dangers to drugs. Unfortunately, the misguided world this educational system is setting kids up in forces them to experience them first hand, much like I did. And what did I do? I learned about them, and heaven forbid me, considering the aspects of my life and my opinions, I quite love them. You are allowed to like sex. You are allowed to like drugs. Both without any inherent consequences.

Krylo amused me, but is completely right--I think, unfortunately, when it comes to drugs, because of my hobbies and interests and circumstance, I know significantly more about them--dare I say first hand?

Thus Locke and I are in agreement on these terms, forcing people is wrong, people should do what they do because they want to do it, not because they are told to.

The end, for now.

Agreed--but please don't try to paint me like I was frothing at the mouth and being reactionary when I was just talking--a lot.

p.s. you know, I think that's why I have a hard time arguing with people. I happen to agree with most things people say, its just the way people say it that I don't agree with. Instead of saying, "I agree with what you are saying, but not how you are saying it." I argue the points they make and try to make them sound less extreme, and end up sounding extreme myself. I will work on this, please be patient with me.

This is also agreed--I often agree with someone's point but not their motive behind it or why they say it. But you're not only sounding extreme yourself, you're painting your opponent as extreme. It's good that you'll work on it--I'm nowhere near a perfect debater either. But it's pointless to call me a "liberal" because I'm not. I was surprised you called me that immediately. Do you even know what it means? Here is the article for liberal on wikipedia: Liberal

If you'll read through, I do fit for loose definitions of the world. Fortunately, I don't live in 2-party fairyland, and unfortunately, the word liberal has become inseperably tied with the democratic party and many people I consider stupid motherfuckers.

edit: In order to be included in a group there are some requirements and rules that one must follow. If you are in school you have to dress according to the rules of the school. If you are going to college you have to meet certain requirements before you can receive your diploma. To write in these forums you must follow strict rules. To join a religion you have to follow their guidelines. To run for president of the US you have to be born in the US and over a certain age limit. All of these are voluntarily accepted upon joining the group that . . . enforces? . . . requires? . . . has these rules. There are exceptions, things you don't have to do upon extenuating circumstances, or if some other equally satisfactory requirement is met instead. But to be included in the group you must meet the requirements.

Hmm...here's the "have to" again. Since when did people have to do something because they were told? Thomas Jefferson endorsed armed rebellion every twenty years. He had just come from a society much like our current one and wished for it never to happen again. He was a brilliant man.

You "have to" you "have to" you "have to." Why? If the government says you must wear a thong at all times, why should you obey them? Why should just even obey them until the law is reformed? You have a right to disobey laws. This is the problem with the word law and all it encompasses: it purports objective, unchanging, unfeeling (non-functional) morals. Because it is objective, it can't take everything into account, and therefore any organised set of objectivities (school, law, religion) is inherently flawed.

extenuating circumstances

And that's a word people love to throw around--that support for some subjectivites is included in the law. Only in isolated situations. If by extrenuating circumstances, you mean, really common circumstances, then you should be right.

Take these boards for example. If you want to be able to write here you must remain civil, and follow other set rules. We accept these rules voluntarily because we want to be here. I come here because I know that I can be accepted and treated respectfully here, as opposed to other message boards that have no civility whatsoever. And I appreciate it.

I accept these rules because fighting them might just be pointless. Yeah, 8-bit is a great community--there's little I would change. Almost nothing, in fact, except for the ability to debate religion. Luckily, the "rule-makers" here are not high in mighty nor disillusioned in their positions; they are, effectively, one of us. If Krylo started banning people whose names started with L, I would surely protest--something that is not bad.

[Lockeownzj00]

Sorry, had to make two posts again. Fuck.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

School uniforms are a little more grey area for me though, because school is manditory for people living in the united states until, in my state, you reach the age of 16. But if you want to be a member of the U.S. you have to follow their guidelines, and to follow their guidelines you have to follow other guidelines as well. It gets more iffy because of that.

It's not mandatory. I don't know where people get this idea. Picture this: Two people fuck. They have a baby. They raise the baby in their home. The Feds do not come busting down your door. I'm not saying this is better--I'm just saying school isn't really as "mandatory" as people seem to think.

I have a problem with the section I bolded. Once again, we bring about every argument that is consistently used with (and I'm not saying you're supporting these things--but similar issues) support for the Iraq war, support for the Patriot Act, support for xenophobic legislation...just about everything that infringes on rights of some sort of people involves saying, "our world, our guidelines, you shut up and do what you're told if you want to have the 'privelege' to live here." Even aside from these separate issues, which I can understand you might object to me comparing you to, this is a very simplistic view, I think, of guidelines and the law itself.

If my logic is faulty and this is another logical fallicy, then I don't understand the world as well as I thought I did and I would be willing to accept that and the changes it would require, but I don't think my logic is faulty. The reasons why rules and guidelines are set may be different, but they are set, and we must follow them if we want to belong.

"must." I already addressed this earlier on. I don't understand why a sycophantic trait must exist in every citizen.

But these are generally good things you're saying--be open minded. Even though I feel strongly about anarchism and such things, I'm still not 100%...for 99% of the things in the world (don't get me started on the 1%... :P), as in the concepts or ideas, you can't be objective about them, or absolutely positively solid. To date I contend that if someone convinces me, I could become a vegitarean--I haven't yet because I've made a decision thus far and been presented with many things. But if you're persuasive enough, be my guest--and this goes for most things in my life, especially music. You may already know, but i download thirty or fourty albums a day (hey, you might from the copyright thread), so music for me is a very important thing. I stopped confining myself to specific genres a long time ago and I base my listening on the sole principle of listening to anything that sounds good. It sheds an entirely new light on so many genres I had once neglected.

ps: knack for conflict...or knack for debate? hmm, maybe conflict. also, i never understood the "tangent" point. I mean, I can understand if we end up talking about cookies, but human conversation naturally evolves. It's how we have conversation. It's good--and it seems to be mutual here. When it isn't, that's a problem--maybe if we had improvised, ever-changing metadata-based thread titles, tracking the course of the debate, the conversations would be more "true" to the title. Still don't see why it has to be.

[Illuminatus]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

What the 'don't dress like sluts' "moral" is doing is actually infringing upon other peoples' morals. That is "unjust." Leave people be.

I'm all about not infringing on other peoples morals. But here's the thing. That's what people dressing like this is.

To many people, IT'S OFFENSIVE.

There are lots of places where you can dress wherever you like.

School is not one of them.

So are you trying to tell us that the moral right of these kids to dress offensively is greater than the moral right of the more conservative kids/parents to not be offended when they go to their state-mandated education?

EDIT: This is a pretty heated debate, and I admit that I didn't read the whole thread. So before I get destroyed, I'm just arguing a point, because I found this particular statement of Locke's to be ironic.

[Archbio]

because I found this particular statement of Locke's to be ironic

In turn, I couldn't tell if your remark is sarcastic before you added this edit.

It seems obvious to me that the former's right is more important than the latter's, considering that when phrased like this the latter's doesn't seem like a right at all. Except in very particular cases (something clearly hateful), I don't consider that anyone has any special right to a surrounding that conforms to their view of what is moral, even if it is just within their line of sight.

On the other hand, if you don't side with the one "breaking the dress code", then you're telling them how to dress somewhere that is also state mandated for them to be.

In one case their is an intervention, in the other there isn't. There's no common measure.

If you're not doing something to someone, or not forcing them to do something; you're not "infringing their morals". That's it.