Wow, you guys were a bunch of brats. We had a sit in because they were locking the bathrooms. Slavish enforcement of the hall pass rules was causing actual problems of kids not being able to go to the bathroom when they needed to.
Sure, but “some” does not mean “all” and especially does not mean “it’s vitally important to prevent kids from shaving their heads”.
So make an actual argument that shaven heads is ok in school. Be sure to use “context”; I.E. the origin and reasons behind the rule, history of the UK in general and that part of Wales in particular. Be complete.
There is no burden, this is a discussion, but if there was, you also have the same burden. 
Show me information you have, about this?
But let’s assume for a second this decision was in fact justified. In fact, I’ve already agreed that the Headmaster did in fact enforce a valid school rule.
Does that mean the rule cannot be discussed? Improved? Validated in various contexts?
Or should it simply be enforced, black and white, across the board in every scenario?
And you dogmatically claim that it’s not.
Why don’t you accept the burden of proof? You’re making the positive claim that this was necessary. Prove it.
You don’t seem calm. You also can’t infer from a simple use of the “f-bomb” (I guess using the term “f-bomb” is supposed to prove your “maturity”?) what my emotional state is. I’ve often used the word “fuck” quite calmly as I did in the quoted post.
Are you even capable of acknowledging that you are also making this emotionally charged and making a lot of assumptions?
Make an actual argument that they’re not. I went to school with lots of kids with shaved heads and we never had any problems with it. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim (that shaven heads are a problem in this case). Alluding to the mere fact that racists have worn the same hairstyle is not in itself a robust argument that the hair style in question is the problem.
From above…
*So, let’s examine a different scenario… what if a child HAS cancer, and loses part of their hair, and their parents decide to shave the rest of it off?
Are you telling me, through the direct interpretation of the rules in this situation, which according to you have to be enforced fairly (subjective word), consistently etc… that child suffers whatever consequences the rules provide?
Can you see where context needs to be examined? Discretion applied?*
NOTE: I don’t like using this example… but in this scenario, it does fit.
Actually, the school did have prior notice, and informed him that he would be punished if he went through with it, but he and his mother talked and he told her that he’d already accepted a lot of donations for the charity so he felt he had to follow through.
Asked and answer above. Willfully shaving your head is different from a medical condition. School official are not as dim as you would seem to argue. And for you next inane rejoinder, which will inevitably be about religious hair styles. Again , clearly different, School official generally can ace this one too.
So, you’re saying you got nuthin’.
The fact that your child keeps whining and whining and whining because she has no respect for you as a parent is NOT helping your argument.
Classy.
Wrong. Now who is resorting to personal attacks (and it’s “your” not “you”)?
You’re the one who said rules have to be enforced across the board… black and white… fairly (subjective), consistently, etc… right?
By bringing in more context… the medical condition, we can see how the rule might not apply as written, black and white, in every situation right?
So, when Rhys and his mother went ahead because of their specific situational context, even in the face of “rule enforcement” by the Headmaster… can’t we at least admit that this “rule enforcement” was at least questionable, if not silly?
Or do you think the context of the situation (Rhys support of cancer patients) did not warrant an exception?
Prove your case now.
Emoticons. Now that’s some fine rhetoric. Typing critiques. Powerful stuff. Simple gainsaying. Wow! hoo’d a thunk it?
Don’t be surprised when someone uses your daughter in an argument where you used your daughter as a talking point.
Classy, The Sequel.
I’m saying I have exactly as much as you do.
By that reasoning, any rules are acceptable. This is a case of bad rules and asshole school admins with no heart. Plain and simple.
No, personal appearance save nazi tattoos or other racist markings is not a valid reason for expressing your bigotry towards someone, no matter how much they remind you of someone you don’t like.
Were you planning on trying to justify your position at some point? You know, in your own words, “actually make an argument”? Again “there is such a thing as racist skinheads” is simply not much of an argument.
