Says the person trying to change the subject and not engaging in reasonable debate but instead attacking the poster. You are acting in the defining way of a troll. And here I am engaging with you. Look you disagree that’s fine. You don’t want to engage that’s fine. Attacking the poster or making bland and unsubstantiated comments about their post is trolling. Having a different opinion and so criticising them while refusing to debate or being open to the possibility you may be wrong is bigotry. I may come off as an arsehole for agreeing with both the kid and parent in this story and not the majority in this thread, but at least I am not proving I am a bigoted troll on the internet to get my jollies and try to feel superior.
No they are not. I state that they cannot break a crime for which there are set punishments and expect not to be punished because the crime was acceptable. either they are in an unjust country with unjust laws and so face the consequences because the world is an unfair place or they live in a just country and the crime is considered to be just or just enough not to have changed in which case they committed a crime and that has consequences.
I said they have to accept that those are the consequences of the act. Cause and effect, when performing the act you decide if it is worth the consequences. If the consequence for getting caught with the likelihood of getting caught is less than the consequence of not breaking the law then break it, but you can’t be surprised if you are caught and must face the penalty. None of that makes it just or fair and that doesn’t mean they deserve it but they accepted that when they chose the path they did.
It also puts me in a list with Churchill, Washington, many conscientious objectors and suffragettes and Nelson Mandela
and you in a category with rapists, serial killers, the westbro baptist church and scientologists
so picking and choosing really does not add to an argument it is in fact the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
No that’s not true, I feel gravity is unjust but I cannot break it. (Yes I am taking the piss now because your statement seems to have reduced to that). You believe it depends upon the law, but that is your opinion. Assuming all humans are decent and know morally what is right and wrong that would be a reasonable argument, but then laws would be unnecessary. Laws exist because that is not the world we live in and so it is not down to an individual to decide what is right and wrong and which laws to follow. Whether it is right or wrong we operate on a policy of don’t allow people to break any laws (even if they are unjust) and they wont break laws that are just.
Case in point a jury. A jury does not decide if a law is just or not, they determine if a person is guilty or not. Following that decision the judge may have required sentencing (in which case if the law is unjust they would still have to give a minimum sentence).
I guess really it comes down to faith in humanity. I have little faith in humanity and would rather people were forced to follow all laws so that they don’t break the important ones. You seem to believe that a person should be allowed to break any laws they wish and then it should be decided if they are in the wrong. I think that requires a lot of faith in humanity. The same humanity who kicked the child out of school for shaving his head when he knew it was against the rules.
Same here, hair buddy!
My headmistress felt the need to flex some muscle when she was showing some visitors around, so berated me over a hairstyle she was well aware that I had. Apparently it became immediately inappropriate. I kindly told her to stuff it and continued with my education.
That headmistress was a Ms Despina Pavlou, who “… was suspended for allegedly assaulting her Deputy Head”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Grey_School#Despina_Pavlou
She also misused school funds and is now banned from taking up the position of head teacher or deputy head.
But at least she cared about the rules, right?
Simple explanation about what the school did: Skinheads, people. You
know , walking symbols of UK working class racism?
This isn’t the 80’s. When was the last time you saw an actual skinhead? I’m 28 and can’t recall ever seeing a bona fide skinhead, ever, anywhere.
Hardnuts and unsavoury types (EDL is basically just a racist gang of idiots) tend to have shaved heads, but it’s very much a one-way correlation.
Most hard-types in the US are the same (your average gang banger rarely has a floppy doo); doesn’t mean that they ban shaved heads.
You make for a great authoritarian, but a questionable human being.
You should watch this Star Trek episode: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation) - not directly related, but provides some interesting thought experiments relating to strictly applied laws in an authoritative society which ignore any moral founding.
There’s nothing wrong with people questioning the status quo, especially when it’s broken. And if the law isn’t flexible enough to allow for it to be fairly applied, then it’s broken.
Do you also think that GITMO prisoners should face up to their situation? US prisons full of weed smokers, all fine because the law is the law? No room for critical thought?
You make for a poor human being yourself. A good human being cares more for the state of humanity and the safety and success of society than his own selfish ends. You make for a great anarchist though.
When a person is told that performing an act will result in punishment if they choose to perform the act then they must accept the consequences. There are means to effect change other than ignoring the rules. The child and his mother accept the treatment he receives and the legitimacy of the rule as a broad rule.
You should consider a world in which all laws are not rules to be followed unless you agree with them.
I raise to you three points:- 1. if a rule is malleable until diagnosed by the public as just or not what is to stop the government from arresting you for a crime and holding you indefinitely before you receive this judgement? After all until they are found to be doing moral wrong their action is acceptable.
-
Who is to decide what is morally right or wrong? Perhaps a jury of your peers? In which case what you are referring to is common law and makes up 90% of British law (depending on the source you read this varies) meaning that justification and justness in the eyes of the people has been established and if you oppose the law you are therefore opposing the same principal you are saying should be followed to determine whether a person has done wrong deserving of punishment.
-
[quote=“NathanHornby, post:156, topic:11315”]
And if the law isn’t flexible enough to allow for it to be fairly applied, then it’s broken.
[/quote]
the law is not broken when it is not fairly applied, the law is broken when people have the liberty to decide if it is the law or not based on their own conscious. In a world where people will make the right decision and be accurate in their decision as to whether it applies the law is no longer necessary. We do not live in this world. The world we live in requires the law to be upheld. And British law does not excuse a person for breaking a law because the Law is unjust, instead it offers means to challenge and rectify those laws. Teaching a child that breaking the law is wrong when other avenues exist is important and exactly what a school should be doing. However I am sure you know better than the legal experts who maintain the British legal system and the board who have devoted their lives to teaching and raising children to be responsible members of society. After all who am I to question a random on the internet who uses an episode of Star Trek and labelling me as a questionable human being as his only evidence.
“You make for a poor human being yourself. A good human being cares
more for the state of humanity and the safety and success of society
than his own selfish ends.”
Hence why a rigid application of law is a bad thing, because it’s bad for society.
Where does the selfish bit kick in , exactly? You think I’m an advocate for sensible justice policy for my own ends? I’m not a career criminal… 0.o
“When a person is told that performing an act will result in
punishment if they choose to perform the act then they must accept the
consequences.”
Why?
I’m not suggesting an overhaul of the justice system anyway, I think you might have taken my comments slightly out of context.
My point is that if a school system can punish a student for something like the above, then it is broken. If the only defence of an action is ‘they broke the law’, if the use of that law (or in this case, rule) is the only justification, then it’s likely not justified.
When someone is arrested for murdering someone, they’re not so much arrested for breaking the law, as breaking an important moral code - they pose a danger to society. As does a speeding or drunk driver. Someone who steals from someone else causes great emotional distress, plus the whole ownership thing. The law itself is just a formalisation of that act. A law for laws sake does not need to command your respect simply because it exists - respecting these laws does not magically benefit society through compliance.
Rules about haircuts in schools that may or may not relate to a subculture from nearly 30 years ago are allowed to be challenged.
tl;dr: the ‘because I said so’ justification should stop being relevant during adolescence. Law or not. That’s not being an anarchist, it’s thinking for oneself.
2 Likes
In your point of view, if they pass a law allowing them to do so (something powerful governments have little trouble doing), their action is also acceptable. So, what’s your point? What’s to stop governments from doing that under a non-authoritarian system? Well, primarily, whether the law allows it or not, we generally consider arresting people for a crime and holding them indefinitely to be unjust in and of itself, and even if we’re in a temporary aberration to that trend, we generally will in the future.
The law is a tool, not an end. If the tool leads to bad results for society, not using it is a good. If a law is revealed to be stupid when broken, changing the law and not punishing the offender is the right move. It might take a while, but it’s still the right move.
Not to Godwin the thread (if we haven’t already with 'shaven heads are for neo-Nazis), but there’s the classic ethics/morality example of a Nazi Germany type situation: Harboring Jews is against the law. If you know the location of a Jewish family, who will surely be executed if they get found, and you report them just because it’s the law, you’re a horrible human being. If you don’t report them, and somebody decides to punish you for it, they are horrible human beings. If they found out years later that you didn’t report some Jews, after the Nazis are reviled for what they did, and instead of lauding you as a hero, they say, “Yeah, well, that’s nice and all, but, you broke the law, so, we have to punish you for the whole harboring Jews thing,” then they’re not just horrible, they’re deeply, deeply stupid.
I’m sorry, I must have missed the history lesson where Washington went back to England and said, 'Yeah, I thought the war for independence was a good thing and all, but, technically I committed treason against you guys, so… death penalty please!" And the part of history where, after being sentenced to life imprisonment by the laws of the time, Nelson Mandela was released and the laws he was charged under removed, he said, “No, no, please, I can’t go, my life’s not over yet, and rules are rules, even if they’ve since changed.”
Have cites for that? Otherwise, I’m going to have to leave you alone in the cheering section of authoritarian dictators without being able to claim the support of people like Washington and Mandela.
3 Likes
As somebody with no experience with British school kids (or Welsh, I suppose, in this case), what would the reason be for this part of the rule, then?
[quote=“theograce, post:151, topic:11315”]
You seem to believe that a person should be allowed to break any laws they wish and then it should be decided if they are in the wrong. [/quote]
Nope, not at all. Nothing I’ve written suggests this.
That’s an honest assessment of your position. To counter your ridiculously false assessment of my position, I’ll state it clearly here: I think any law designed to prevent people from engaging in activity in which there is no victim or involuntary engagement in risk, is worthy of being ignored. (Note the obvious, dramatic difference between this and “a person should be allowed to break any laws they wish.”)
You think my position is too liberal and I think your position, as you’ve stated it, is misanthropically authoritarian, elitist, and amoral, and is at the root of most government sanctioned injustices throughout history.
So, really, that’s that and we’re finished, thank goodness.
2 Likes
A lot of what you have written has suggested this but never mind. Again you decide which laws have no victims and which laws do not. You set a standard on when it is acceptable to break laws and when it is not. Apparently you consider yourself superior to the combined wisdom and knowledge of the judiciary.
So I correct, you believe a person should be allowed to break any law YOU feel is acceptable as you are clearly the high authority on what is acceptable.
I think your your position is not too liberal, it is not the liberalism that is at fault… I think it is childish, naive, ridiculous, opposed to order and supports criminals, poorly thought through, idealistic and the product of someone out of touch with reality. ( I figured while you were going to list biased opinions and state them as if they were an argument I should at least point out that your argument is just as poor if not more so).
Welsh is British (but not English, unless we are talking pre-1914).
Skinheads are a group of British racists somewhere between the Westbro Baptists and the KKK but with political movements that are open and teaparty-esque. Their symbol is not a white robe but a shaven pate hence their name. As it was taken to be a symbol of their movement and was placed on many of their children it was banned in a similar fashion to children wearing swastikas. This is a cultural thing throughout Britain as most choose not to be shaven headed for fear of associating with the skinheads and so it affects few people other than those who wish to align that way. Lastly the skinheads are not common these days and really the shaven head is no longer representative of it, however it is still most commonly a style used by the lower financial end of the working class and especially in the more criminal areas in cities. The rules remain as a relic of this practice.
For a film representing the skinheads I recommend This is England (on the suggestion of others, having not actually seen it myself).
Those people stood and face the charges placed against them (Mandela) until such a time as they were corrected or made statement that man must do the same under his Government (Washington, whose argument was that the British government offered no representation and so was not his government and so their laws did not apply to him). Regardless this still leaves you in the same class as anarchists, terrorists, authoritarian dictators (who do not believe they should have to follow the laws of society) and rapists. This is the problem with using guilt by association, it does not have any bearing on the value or quality of your argument.
Aside from my point of this is Britain and so any law passed is still subject to common law and thus must be passed by the people unless dealing with a previously unenforced field of law (e.g. when music piracy online first appeared and there was not substantial applicable common law).
However my point is your defence for this post-facto determination of guilt or innocence based not upon whether law was broken but on whether what was done was wrong is open to mass abuse. It also leaves all manner of opening for people to commit crimes because their morals do not line up with societies, which is in fact the reason law exists. If you agree that laws do not need to be assessed every time but can be based upon prior determination of right and wrong then that is British common law and if it is law then a jury of your peers has already determined that performing that act is morally unacceptable. If you do not then no law exists until after it has been tested and there is no restriction on a persons actions save whether a jury determines if what he does is acceptable. No country on earth practices a system that allows a man to perform any act he chooses and then tells him if it was wrong. That is an awful idea, how wrong would that be? Seriously?
Actually the law is a tool to an end. If you maintain the law as a whole it has meaning.If the law need only be followed if you believe in it then it has no meaning save to restrict those good enough that they would not require it in the first instance. The law acts to curtail all of society into a semblance of order, it does this through ephemeral promise. break it and suffer. And only in keeping this promise does it hold any worth.
I do not argue that my system is best, but in a fair society with freedom of speech and the power for the majority to control the law and elect their government it is a fair system and the best system.
To use the words of Barlow “Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed.” if they “have neither solicited nor received” said consent then they are not your government they are your captor and as such you have no social contract with them.
I will not get into an argument based on reductio ad absurdium. This does not apply in any reasonable discussion nor within the parameters of this discussion.
Lastly while a person may believe the punishment is unfair when they break a law they are part of a social contract saying that they are now liable to face the punishment, If they break it knowing the breaking of that law incurs that penalty they must accept that they have responsibility in cause and effect. Now in the event that they are put in a position where not breaking the law leads to suffering then they were driven to break it. In the UK we have a process of mitigating circumstances. These do not make the crime acceptable but do allow for leniency in punishment. (to the point a token gesture, such as taking a boy out of class but still teaching him the full day and then returning him to class the following school day). However the crime is not just the act, it is the act of breaking a law also (see resisting arrest when the crime you were being arrested for was one for which you were not guilty).
“Sensible justice policy” no I think you are so full of yourself as to take it as a given that your opinion is correct and there is no possibility you might be wrong.
“because it is bad for society” well I mean you said that as fact so it must be true. I mean the British legal system has clearly produced a society of barbarians with its policy of upholding all law breaking as criminal and then adapting punishments to suit the moral context of the crime. On the other had the US system that acquits people if it deems a crime was excusable is famous for being the paradigm of virtue.
Now I will not claim that there is not the possibility that this is down to other differences in the legal systems and cultures. But at least I am showing some evidence and making some argument instead of just giving opinion as fact.
I agree that the rule should be allowed to be challenged, however he did not. He went straight from warning to breaking it without ever once seeking permission.
We have systems in the UK to allow laws to be challenged without breaking them, in fact if the law is overturned after you broke it you are still likely to be charged. This is to maintain the status quo. The law is not a real thing, it only has the power we give it, therefore in the UK we maintain a policy of upholding the law until it is changed.
If a person resists arrest and is then found innocent of the crime for which he was being arrested should he be done for resisting arrest? I believe yes as that makes the law have a value. If the law only applies if you are guilty then those who believe they are innocent are encouraged to ignore it.
In the same way if a law only has meaning if it is just then those whose moral view is different from society as a whole have no strict guide as to what is wrong and what is not.
In Britain most of our law stems from common law, this means that it is the will of the people that it is upheld. New laws must then slot into and establish common law. This answers your problem. The law may be wrong but the people of Britain agree with it. If you break it you are punished. If you were pushed into it you are still found guilty and still punished but a judge/magistrate may be lenient in light of mitigating circumstances.
I disagree with the claim that ‘it is the law’ is not reason enough. That enforcement is what gives the law meaning. Otherwise the law is moot and we are simply deciding post-facto if a person is conforming to society. That sounds far more dystopian to me than a world in which you may be denied a minor liberty for the duration of an appeal process to determine if a law is just or not. It also stops people being unjust in the duration prior to it being decided that the law is fair. especially as 90% of the laws are judged and established under the verdict of a jury of your peers.
Lastly the school has a role beyond maintaining order and discipline (which in children requires a greater tend towards the authoritarian than in the real world… are you made to wear a uniform? Punished for non-attendance (beyond not receiving wages not earned or losing a job you failed to do)? Forced to eat according to set regulations? Set work to do in your own time, unpaid? Forced to exercise? Tested continually? Disciplined for language, thoughts, etc? and so on). A school must teach a child to be part of the society he is growing towards. In that society he must conform to laws, even ones he does not understand. If he disagrees with them then he must protest through the proper channels. By enforcing no rule breaking the school teaches this. By forgiving him crimes it endorses the notion that he need only comply to rules he agrees with.
Not really. Because my argument is not “you should not have to follow the laws of society if you don’t feel like it”, but rather, something like, “if the overall good is better served by disobeying any particular unjust law, then it should not be applied blindly, we can, and should, as a society, decide not to apply it, and there’s no moral failing in someone who breaks it”. It is not, and never has been, “anyone can perform any act he chooses and then tells him if it was wrong.” There are things that are against the law, and, if we realize we made a mistake in the law, we can overrule that, through a number of means, including deciding not to apply that particular law anymore. Whereas yours seems to be, “It’s never okay to break the law, and even if the law subsequently changes, the perpetrator should still have been punished.” and “There are other ways to change the laws, civil disobedience is never appropriate.” If I’m wrong on these characterizations as you have been with ours, please correct me.
And your attempted use of Nelson Mandela STILL perplexes me, because Civil Disobedience IS exactly what happened: He broke a law, that was an unjust law, and yes, he went to jail for it… and then, in large part because of him, the law was eventually changed, and his sentence removed (because of the linear nature of time, we couldn’t undo the time he already served, but he almost certainly would have). That IS civil disobedience, and the use of civil disobedience to change the laws, of the same kind you’ve stated repeatedly you think is inappropriate. As you’ve said it, Nelson Mandela should have stayed in jail because the law was broken. And whether Washington thinks the laws apply to him don’t seem to matter either - this student had no say in the rules, and so he, just like Washington, could consider himself exempt (or that they were not his government, but his captor), but you clearly don’t think that’s appropriate.
I’m sorry, what are you referring to here? The Nazi example? That’s less ‘reductio ad absurdum’ than it is ‘reductio ad THINGS THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN’. But reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid argument technique in a reasonable discussion, if you don’t want to get into an argument based on it, perhaps that’s because your belief system falls apart under scrutiny. (Meanwhile, your insistence that our side is “nobody has to obey any laws, you’re just like the rapist terrorists!” is the inappropriate form of it, the strawman fallacy, completely mischaracterizing the opposing side because it’s easier to knock down that strawman). Unless, of course, I’m wrong that you believe you should always obey the law, and even if a law changes later, you should still be punished for the breaking of the original law while it was law. In which case, it would be a strawman, but I’m giving you the opportunity to correct that mischaracterization
So you don’t argue your system is best, you argue your system is best in the best possible type of world. Something you can’t control or count on continuing over the long term.
Anyway, I disagree, because your system, that suggests we should punish people for things that are against the law, EVEN IF THE LAW IS UNJUST, seems to have as its only additional effect to harm people who should never have been punished in the first place. Other countries don’t have this philosophy, and you don’t have a notably better standard of living than them (maybe the US, sure, but they’re not the only ones who don’t, and have a whole lot of other issues), so you get to harm people who shouldn’t have been punished in the first place, AND you don’t even get a better place to live out of it.
Whereas a system that allows civil disobedience as a means to change the law, and eventual recognition that “yeah, this was a stupid law and we should never have applied it” means people who are caught up in temporarily unjust laws (because even relatively fair societies with freedom of speech can screw up and have unjust and unfair laws for brief or sustained periods… see the laws against homosexuality, laws allowing slavery, etc) aren’t needlessly punished in ADDITION to having unjust laws thrust on them in the first place. Now, if we want to get reductio ad absurdum to a rather silly level (as opposed to “stuff that actually happens”), let’s saw Britain passed a law to the effect of “No being a Muslim.” Sure, a totally unfair law, but maybe it’s right after a huge terrorist attack, governments panic, the non-Muslim majority goes a little crazy, and the Muslim minority gets shafted. Maybe they repeal it a month later. But every Muslim in Britain broke the law, just by existing in Britain and not renouncing their lifelong faith. So… they deserve punishment for breaking the law, under your ethos, right? And now what was ONCE a stupid and totally unjust law that got repealed… is now still targeting all Muslims. Because although that law might have been repealed, the “no breaking the law” philosophy still demands they get punished. I don’t believe you actually think this way, by the way. I’m just pointing out how dangerous the philosophy is. Sure, there MIGHT be mitigating factors, if the individuals trying each individual case agree when the cases inevitably come to trial (because you said it’s wrong to change the law retroactively so there’s no punishment, we must make an example of rule breakers even for stupid rules that have no business being there)… personally, I’d rather we accept that they never should have been bound by the stupid law, that WE as a government made the mistake, not them. That seems like a more fair society.
Anyway, I’m still going to call your system less fair and worse. It leads to more harm to more people.
3 Likes
Well, you heard it here. We’re a bunch of anarchists.
I’m good with that. Think for ourselves, make choices, act autonomously when necessary.
Actually saw elsewhere people being referred to as ‘Rand-quoting stereotypes’, I think it was. This would have been a better day if I had been called that instead…just because I love the self-contradicting language of it. Sorta like being called ‘Mother Teresa thugs’. Plus, I’d still get to be an ‘anarchist’, as far as I can tell. But hey - 'sall good!
Much thanks, theograce! I’m feeling all kinds of patriotic and American right about now. Inspiring stuff.
And how does a person know if a law meets your personal criteria for being breakable and so being forgiveable? Or does this only apply to you? Who decides the Overall good? Because the line you claim it is not is the only practical way to implement your system unless you are saying that the public should have to agree to the law in the first place, in which case I once again bring you to common law. You are correct in what I establish however you have not responded to what I characterise with equivalent claims. I have characterised your system as applying to all laws because it does. If a law is only guarantee valid after a court case determines if it is just then it is not a law, instead a person must decide before acting if society agrees it is a law or not. This is greatly biased by personal belief and by how close your moral compass is to societies and how well you empathise with society. Can you please explain how it is possible to selectively indicate which laws are fixed and which are not prior to their being broken and who gets to decide and how. Failing any established system my claim seems the only applicable way of using your system.
Nelson Mandela was urged by his family and friends to run but refused and insisted that he remain, he claimed that he knew the consequences when he acted and while they were wrong he would not run away from them.
Based on what? As a former student in Britain I can openly say that I approached my school on many occasions to request to perform banned activities and they were often accepted. This story makes it clear that the student was told it was against the rules (not having asked permission at this point) and his next interaction with the school was breaking it, at no point is it suggested that he requested permission.
No it isn’t. My argument is contained by parameters of ALL people following ALL laws that are held true or else facing the consequences, this prevents the formation or action of a dictatorship or authoritarian state. Reductio as absurdum is only a valid argument if there are no parameters or it remains within them. At all points my argument has included the argument ‘because there are mechanism’s in place to allow for change to the law outside of breaking it’. It is a requirement that the Government act under its just powers (as I tried to make clear in the paragraph in which I openly stated this) if a government does not do this then there is no social contract of cause and effect, rather’ the government can punish you and might if you break x law’ which is actually closer to your law which allows parties that believe a law is unjust to break it to take power and hold it.
As I clearly state the opposite no. I believe it is the best system in the real world while yours I believe is best only in a world so idyllic as to make the act of having laws redundant.
According to the world freedom index 4 of the top 6 nations use this system, but I can see how your unevidenced claim that [quote=“ghostly1, post:166, topic:11315”]
Other countries don’t have this philosophy, and you don’t have a notably better standard of living than them
[/quote]
Proves you right and the evidence wrong.
A law that can’t be passed under my system because to pass it would break laws and because common law makes it impossible. We have the functional version of your decided by the people system and it prevents extreme laws, hence no reductio ad absurdum, because to put it into effect you must break the parameters of my argument which means you are not using my argument but some made up argument to make yours seem valid or the strawman argument (which seems to be your main defence against me. Though I have no doubt you will claim the same of me. The difference I feel is when I am ‘misrepresenting you’ it is because I am applying your argument to the real world laws and how it works when applied as a whole, if you have a way of implementing this other than the way I detail perhaps you can fill in the blank).
As I will continue to call your system ignorant and idealist to the point of redundancy. It harms the law and punishes people on a post facto basis.
Apologies. I said 4 of 6 when it is in fact 5 that I know. All save the Netherlands, who could be but I know nothing of their legal practices and would not be in a place to speculate. But 5 of the 6 countries ranked above the US on the freedom index definitely operate on my system and not yours.
No, I understood the skinhead part, I was referring to the part of the rule I quoted after my comment (about no unnatural hair colours). Sorry, looking back I was unclear.
Is a buzz cut (what this kid got) truly considered a skinhead? I always thought, to be a traditional skinhead, you had to go right down to the skin. Hell, one of the One Direction kids shaved his head for charity a while back (and I believe one of the guys from The Wanted shaves his head as well), certainly it can’t be THAT taboo anymore?
