Should school uniform be scrapped

1) I don't recall you using the term on the basis in your previous statement, as you have said "I don't quite understand your bad wording" I shall use that for trying to make a connection between taking food away and kids excitement for wearing their own clothes to school

2) Society thinks skirts are more appropriate deal with it

3) Well do you think that there shouldn't be any uniforms in a work place, and no one should wear suits? as basically it is the same principle, school is a place to learn and wearing a school uniform gives the majority of kids pride to look smart and be associated with a certain school. On your basis to kids should be able to wear what ever they like for sports like football etc.

4) lol I was joking with that comment, jesus you need to lighten up and take that stick from out your backside

5) what do you mean "you what?"

6) wake up you said you "desire" designer clothes, why because they are fashionable, why because certain people say they are fashionable which makes you therefore desire them and want to wear them, why because they want to make money so you are being forced to wear the designer clothes you do, is the same thing if your not wearing your fashionable clothes you'll get "bullied"

lol you do just keep shooting yourself in the foot you should really read what you write before you post it as you say "whereas if you get bullied, you don't get punished at all" from my understanding if you get bullied for wearing certain clothes which aren't designer etc then you are getting punished because you are getting bullied

lol "get bullied then that's your own fault if you were stupid clothes " first you have a spelling mistake obviously you know what your talking about "in schools if you don't take responsibility you get poor grades", secondly your missing the really obvious thing of finance, how much is the kid going to cost the parent to get designer clothes to fit in at school compared to the cost of a school uniform, constantly keeping up with the fashion will cost parents a hell of a lot more money to do than just to have the kids wear a uniform throughout school years, so the kids from poorer families will therefore be bullied more, so they will suffer more than they currently do. The school uniform puts everyone on a level playing field so to speak as it is harder to tell who is poor and who is rich as everyone is wearing the same clothes

also another point on your statement "that's your own fault if you were stupid clothes" where you have shot yourself in the foot yet again, you have expressed your opinion that I have stated that I have dictated what girls should wear and blah blah blah about whats difference between school hours and none school hours etc etc, yet your statement above shows that you consider people who don't have designer clothes and clothes which aren't fashionable as being "stupid" which quite frankly shows that you must be one of the bullies and have no intelligence

1) yes you are if you're saying "I like school uniforms therefore everybody should be forced to wear them because I like them" - what else does that sound like? if I thought school clothes were good, I'd simply wear them and not force everybody to conform with my subjective beliefs
2) the fact that there are other outlets to express yourself doesn't negate the fact that what you're seeing as a virtue here (free will) is being taken away so you're not being consistent
3) then you'd be interpreting the term community very strictly and not realistically - community denotes that there is something in common, but if everybody is so different to one another and they all have different ideas and skills then that ideas is undermined a lot - if all you need to create a community is people doing things that other people are doing then anything can become a community and it loses its value
4) why should clothes be a collective decision? more so, why should the clothes of people who aren't those voting be the collective decision of such people? if a majority is just on the basis of popularity then surely if a majority of children prefer no school uniforms then their opinion is just too? surely if it is they who are forced to attend these schools then it should be their choice? I appreciate the fact that children don't vote, I'm saying that the people in the case here who are voting as a collective aren't affected by it, it's almost like the logic of people who disagree with gay marriage - how does the clothing of another individual matter to them when it directly causes no issues to their own lives?

or do you agree with it?

pure fallacy from start to finish - non-stop category errors and a complete disregard for consistent logic. it would take me all night to pick out each and everyone of the problem's you've spouted here.

1) I'm was using principle, not direct and literal comparison - if you deprive someone of something of desire then you make that object of desire more desired. there's absolutely no principle error in that regard and just because I'm using a dramatic example that doesn't make my reasoning insufficient when the logic is the same through and through

2) so "society says x therefore we must impose x through government" - I find it funny how you started with society and then concluded with the state. society thinks a lot of things, does that mean we ought to implement them through policies? calling people names or expressing criticism against religion is something society is against, does that mean we should ban those acts? you're suggesting this seeing as you're saying "society thinks girls should wear skirts, therefore, the government should impose it" - do you realise that matters of fashion are based on private opinion that ought not to be forced on others? an individual's fashion especially in school with innocent children.

3) I also explained that private properties are free to do whatever they want to and that the employees that work there are working there out of freedom of choice; if they are contractually accepting that in order to make money for a property owner they have to wear a specified uniform in order to do this, however, with a school run by a government, there is no such consensual action, there is only force. and in terms of pride, are you saying that all kids must like their schools? on what grounds are you to suggest that we must order kids to not be disloyal to a government institution? and on my basis of freedom, kids *can* wear what they like with football if the players know who's on which side - because there is no basis for uniform out of purpose or objective in schools because uniforms are not a necessary role in learning, this is different to a team whereby the other team *has to* know somehow that certain people are on the other team, and therefore, to compare the two is illogical

4) I'm really not in the mood, sorry

5) you didn't reply to what I said so I had no idea what you were saying, and therefore I replied (paraphrasing here) "what are you saying?"

6) woah wait a moment, so if I desire clothing because I like how they look, I am being forced to wear them? and if I don't wear them I'm being bullied? I'm sorry but you'll have to explain that one to me because I have no idea what you're saying - are you literally saying that a desire becomes a matter of slavery or something? what did you mean by "they want to make money so you are being forced to wear the designer clothing"? sounds like you're talking about the school clothing monopoly

7) you claim I made a spelling mistake a) and not state what I mispelt, and b) you spelt "you're" wrong. and bypunish I mean a literal punishment, not a "name calling punishment" - getting claimed names isn't bad enough to be considered a punishment; if we're talking about punishment in a manner that is to say that it is a forced initiation of something against one's will that cannot be reciprocated, then people can't do that to someone unless they're either a) the government, or b) breaking the law. in terms of name calling, you can avoid it by simply not listening or more obviously walking away. if that doesn't work then there is the option of fighting back (which is a way of reciprocating the deeds, which is not compatible with this objective approach to "punishment"). and why the hell should I care if there are poor people in schools? and who cares if there are poor people? who's fault is that? the school's or their own? a cause of one's reputation (clothes) is certainly not a matter of public policy! in that case am I entitled to anything from the government so long as everybody else has it and I'm too poor (or lazy) to get it myself? the fact that there is an imbalance of opportunity to get clothing means nothing - it is not going to be consistent with the purpose of the school (learning); if being unpopular is against that purpose, then quite frankly there's too much to render education useless in that regard. and if you're saying normal clothes are more expensive than school uniforms I think you'd be joking - school uniforms used to cost my parents are absolute fortune in comparison to my other clothes, so if your goal is to cost parents less money then how is it me that's shooting myself in the foot? sure it'll force richer people to have to wear unattractive clothing, but why should they be forced to not wear their own clothes? it's like you're punishing their parent's success on grounds of pure jealousy. and most importantly if you think that children *actually* create this "fashion hierarchy" then that will mean that unpopular and nerdy rich kids will become popular overnight - if it was that easy surely they'd all be saving up for clothes instead of basically anything else?

and no, I said "it's their fault if they wear stupid clothes" because it literally is their own responsibility and/or their parent's choice. I didn't say that a particular type of clothing e.g. skirts were bad looking, I never discriminated against any kind of clothing - I'm saying that the clothing that their society (school) thinks is stupid will be treated as such and that's only the fault of the person who persists with wearing those "stupid" clothes - and again, I didn't say "they're wearing x which is stupid" I simply said "stupid clothes" which could be anything" so I'm not bullying in terms of fashion choices. if I said "a person is wearing clothes that everybody thinks looks weird, therefore, they should change their clothing and not wait for people to respect them out of another arbitrary reason" would that make any difference? how am I being a bully when I am placing the *responsibility* on the individual who has an interest to uphold their reputation? if I did something stupid, would you blame my consequences on the people blaming me or me specifically? it's the same principle; the actor is creating a situation and the actor is failing to account for said situation and therefore only have themselves to stop the situation from continuing as this is within their means, and this is the same exact case with uniforms and children. but this isn't me saying "we should force kids to not wear the clothes that their peers think looks weird" - I said "we should leave the decisions of clothing to the child because I don't claim to know better than they do in terms of clothing and I don't claim to have a right to exercise this decision for them"

1) you chatting ****

no I'm not, the fact you had so many inconsistencies almost made me not bother replying and to be honest I'd love to not reply even now, but you'll reply back and if I don't reply I stand a chance of looking like I have no arguments back, which I inevitably will

2) "calling people names or expressing criticism against religion is something society is against, does that mean we should ban those acts?" you answered your own question there as it is being banned or haven't you noticed?

oh yeah, of course, I forgot which country I'm living in what a place to live, but still it would be very rare to actually get punished by the state for disagreeing with a religious person or else books like "the god delusion" would be banned and richard dawkins would be thrown in jail for calling religious people delusional

3) kids have freedom of choice they can either go to school or be taught at home, so your point is therefore void,

it's really not that simple if you think you can simply walk out; you have to have special grounds to do it e.g. investigations need to be frequent and the consent of the school from which you're taking out your child. to add, kids' parents are forced to pay taxes for these schools so it's no much different in that respect because it's still coercive; if I'm forced to pay for a certain service I can either accept it or I can pay for two schools at once; which seems the cheapest? but just because it's the cheapest option that doesn't make it any less coercive towards a family even when they can opt out, because you can't opt out of the tax

4) your dull then

you can't spell "you're" even after I corrected you

5) lost you there

wow these responses are getting interesting

6) in a way both, as for your desire to wear designer clothes you say you like them why because they fashionable why because you are told they are fashionable so you therefore desire them

I don't wear my clothes because I'm told they're fashionable, just what the heck are you talking about? that's utter bull**** - why would I wear clothes I didn't like? I accept that there is a factor that if I wear unpopular clothes I won't perhaps be treated in a particular way, so what? I'm not in school where you claim is the place where that would apparently matter. and if I had a reason of wearing them because then I'd get respect from students, that's different from physical coercion! jesus christ. I can choose to wear "trendy clothes" if I'm absolutely desperate for friends like some pathetic outcast but other than that why on earth would I, an adult, do something so stupid and sheepish? kids can make friends without being physically coerced to wear certain clothes e.g. a uniform policy

7) if you can't see your spelling mistake in the quote you obviously didn't do well at school here I shall help you "get bullied then that's your own fault if you were stupid clothes " I have put it in 'bold' for you. "getting claimed names isn't bad enough to be considered a punishment" so if someone calls you names everyday in school and outside of school it isn't punishment?? Tell that to the kids and family who have killed themselves. They can walk away can they if you haven't noticed we live in the 21st century they can be taunted outside of school via the internet and via a phone.

okay so I typed "were" instead of "wear" - do you have any idea how quickly I typed this out? I don't like wasting time so obviously I'm not going to make a huge fuss if my fingers go to the wrong places, but the fact that you're even saying this is ridiculous, as if my argument is based on my spelling. and do you have any idea how many times you're misspelling "you're" instead of "your"? did you hear me complain about that until you start this "spelling = good argument" rule of sorts? and before you say "I'm shooting myself in the foot" because I'm saying that spelling is only important when you do it, I'm not saying that, I'm only criticising yours after you've already criticised mine; I wouldn't have even bothered saying anything about spelling so long as I can reasonably understand it, but who can't understand that "were" might mean "wear" in the context of not only a typo but the surrounding words in the sentence? and for the record - I only said "wear" one time, you've said "your" countless times

And there we have it you think your better than poor people because you can wear designer clothes, as for it being their fault it isn't all their fault so your opinion it is their fault is flawed.

who said I claimed to be better than poor people? that's a useless argument which is nothing but an ad hominem - I'm not going to advocate a policy were all children are forced into a uniform on account of a minority of people whose parents aren't responsible people in terms of clothes - that's really not my business and I'll never claim that something so private and individual ever is. I'm not going to suggest a public policy of clothes because some people are too poor to buy the best clothes, that's like saying we should ban video games because some kids can't afford them and they won't be able to talk about them on the playground with the rich kids, there really is little different between that and your logic.

Your own clothes cost less overall than your school uniform, so tell me if you went to a school where you could wear your own clothes you would wear the same things for the entire week to which if you did then I would expect you to get bullied for the fact. Have you compared the prices between what your school uniform cost over all your school years and what the cost would be for your designer clothes and shoes through school years?? what no!! then you can't comment on it. How are you punishing them for their parents success if they have to wear smart clothes? You are getting well off topic

by "the same things" surely you don't mean that I'm not washing my clothes every day? and honestly this is turning into an excuse for you to attempt to claim a moral high ground - clothes and the prices of clothes should have nothing to do with schools because clothes are a form of expression - the fact that you're suggest that we ban clothes except for a uniform on the basis that some kids are poor is ludicrous! it's not the other kids fault even if clothes are a cause for bullying - if parents don't want their kids to get bullied then they wouldn't be so stupid as to not buy reasonably attractive clothing, and if they can't afford even that then quite frankly that's insane and too trivial to matter in this regard. if I can't afford a frequent hair cut, for example (my hair does happen to grow quickly) does that mean that I should force other kids to shave their heads as if we're all in the army simply because I'm not rich enough to cut my hair into a cool fashion? what's the difference here? my haircuts cost probably more money than clothes do because I and a lot of other people have more haircuts than trips to the clothes shops, especially at a student age

how is it their own responsibility if they can't afford it then they can't afford it, you are contradicting yourself there saying you don't discriminate on clothing yet you say "it's their fault if they wear stupid clothes" which as far as I can tell that is discriminating their clothing so you have yet again shot yourself in the foot. You also going back on what your saying your point seems to be changing which is obvious to me means that I am right and you are wrong since you can't seem to keep your meanings for the same quote the same. People should respect them for wearing different clothing.

it literally is their fault if they are getting bullied specifically because of their fashion choices. if I went out on the streets today and everybody laughed at how stupid my tatty clothes were, what would be my solution? force everyone to wear the same clothes or to live with it and rise above insults like a responsible human being? and if you're saying that my recognition of fashion-based accountability (e.g. the principle that if you wear "stupid" clothes, you'll be "stupidly" treated - which isn't even the case as I was arguing against that logic initially but now I'm only doing it because you insisted so much upon this fashion hierarchy idea) is me bullying kids then by that logic if I said that if you don't study hard for an exam and fail then that's one's own fault - because it literally is their (or their parents') fault and quite frankly I have no idea what more you're wanting to hear - individual choices mean things in a world of causes and effects! I can't stop that fact! and what specifically am I going back on? I've gone back on absolutely nothing - I have argued consistently and I have argued based on reasoned principled; if a kid chooses "stupid" clothes or their parents only buy them "stupid clothes" then that's not the fault of those other children who choose not to do that, in the same sense that if my parents force me to get a bad hair cut, that's no excuse to impose a rule that everybody else must have one specific haircut based on how my hair either isn't good looking, not growing back quick enough (if that was the situation) or I can't afford to go to the hair dressers while they can, assuming there was some sort of "free yet compulsory haircuts for everybody" policy for schools like they employ in the military)

^^^

All of your posts have contradicted themselves, rare is happening alot if you haven't noticed people getting arrested for calling black people wogs, calling a paki a paki etc etc quite often happens in the football world, calling muslims terrorists, what about the captain hook the one who did prays in the street about muslims attacking western countries getting deported on your basis he shouldn't have.

I really don't have a lot of time to type this because I have a lot of work to do tonight but I'll type this as quick as possible - don't be surprised if this is my last comment now. and you call them a contradiction yet you fail to explain this - I have used consistent principles of non-coercion throughout my reasoning, e.g. don't force me to wear a uniform, don't force others to wear a uniform, don't force me to pay for public school etc so long as I harm nobody else of deprive another of their freedom of choice etc. in terms of uniforms I consider this a transgression of that principle and if someone expresses humour or dislike towards what I or someone else wears this isn't an instigation of coercion against me or them, and therefore this is different to the reason I am against a coerced uniform policy towards children in a coercively exercised tax system-based school system. persuasion is not force. if someone insults what I wear yet doesn't rip them off my body, that merely serves as a persuasive element for me to change my clothes, but this doesn't rob me of any liberty to choose what clothes I wear and I am perfectly free to dismiss the criticisms that others give me regarding what I wear, and at the same time, I should be mindful of the effects that this may give rise to e.g. I may not be too affinative to make friends if I wear very peculiar clothes so I should account for this fact myself and not expect the people around me to help me by not wearing what I may consider more attractive clothes than mine.

See you said they are forced to wear school uniform however as you have just admitted they still have the option to be taught at home where they don't have to wear uniform it is still their choice, it is the same amount of choice they have of wearing top designer brands to not get bullied when they can't afford it so your point is still invaild. If they want to wear a uniform then go to school if don't want to wear school uniform get taught at home simple choice.

it is a very superficial notion of free will if the choices you get are very limited and fixed by somebody else for you against other non-problematic options (e.g. it goes without saying that you don't have an obligation to negotiate on other people's terms if it is against your will); if I force you to buy something from me and I say you have the liberty to not use it, are you going to be satisfied with that situation? if someone is forced to pay money and not benefit from it, the option are: don't waste your money, and waste your money. it's like saying "I have the freedom to punch you in the face, I'll just accept going to prison for this"; you don't have that freedom if it's based on a forced option being available that you aren't willing to accept while the other person (in this case, the government) *is* willing to bestow upon you through force regardless of how you feel; I could say "I have the freedom to either take your punch and put you in prison (representing the "justice" of accepting the admission of going to a school with uniforms as a reciprocation) or I can take your punch and do nothing about it (e.g. pay the tax and get nothing from it)" - if I'm physically forced to pay for something, I should expect something back, and the fact that I gain very little doesn't stop me from recognising the fact that gaining something is better than paying more for perhaps equal or less in return, seeing as most private clothes in my area operate a uniform policy, so again, it's arbitrary to say I have freedom to choose when the government is allowing me to either be forced to pay for a school that I don't want based on a uniform policy (if I was to be so persuaded to move merely because of the uniform which I, in reality wouldn't, but that's no relevant to the fact that I don't agree with a uniform policy) or I can move far away and go to a school that hasn't got a uniform policy; so I can either go to this uniform school, go to a private school miles away or I can get no qualified teachers from home (seeing as my parents are hardly teachers). it gives me a false choice of "either accept being taxed for this reward I'm giving you regardless of whether you'd accept it without the element of violence, or be forced to travel far away against your best interest (or stay at home and get no qualified tuition). therefore, this "choice", revolving around negotiations that are being forced upon me when I don't believe it should be (the uniform policy) which I shouldn't be expected to accept but I'm being forced into this term of negotiation because it is forced upon me via taxation - even though I'm not attending the school, I am forced to pay for it, and therefore forced to waste money all perhaps because these schools operate in a way I fundamentally disagree with (if we're talking about "choice", although I wouldn't in practice move or get home tuition, I'm simply demonstrating the reasoning if you're saying there is "choice")

"won't perhaps be treated in a particular way, so what? I'm not in school where you claim is the place where that would apparently matter." see now your saying you would get bullied for wearing unfashionable clothes, and you don't care about kids getting bullied for it, if kids are wearing own clothes in school bullying will get a lot worse you have just said it yourself so wearing a school uniform is a good thing.

no, I said on the hypothetical grounds that we're playing by your rule of the "fashion hierarchy"; I don't think people literally are bullied in society based on clothes, and in terms of school children up until perhaps the ages of 13 I don't think it happens there either. and as I've consistently argued - I don't care if kids get orally bullied, this isn't a valid reason to bully everybody else via government policy to wear uniforms through force; orally insults aren't a form of physical force against another person so I don't consider it against freedom of choice; I am free in society to, let's say, gamble at a casino, knowing the risks of losing a lot of money doing this, but I accept this and do it anyway and lose money - the principle applies with uniform and freedom - freedom comes with no only rewards but also losses if you're not responsible and rational with it.

As for spelling why yes I do remember you saying something oh yes this "I don't quite understand your bad wording" to which I then said and this includes some of quotes which you have made "lol "get bullied then that's your own fault if you were stupid clothes " first you have a spelling mistake obviously you know what your talking about "in schools if you don't take responsibility you get poor grades" " so this spelling topic has now officially ended, move on!

I *did* say if you wore "stupid" (a subjective term based on the opinions of those around you) clothes you'd logically expect to be criticised or shamed in some way - who said I didn't mean that? I stand by that completely - you can't just wear whatever you like and literally expect people to respect it - that's not how a lot of people in society function, as a lot of people are rude, sadistic etc etc. but that's life and stick and stones will break your bones but words'll never hurt you, etc etc. by the way, this isn't to say I think kids should actually orally bully each other, I think that's immoral, I didn't say that they should be *forced* not to, however. freedom of speech is more important that hurt feelings in my view, and you're welcome to disagree.

As for who said that you claimed to be better than poor people you did by saying poor people who can't afford to buy the latest designer clothes and were unfashionable clothes are stupid basically shows you feel poor people are lower than you and so you mock them. You can't deny that you want kids in school to know even more which kids parents are more rich and which kids parents are poor because by making kids wear their own clothes you are exactly doing that so your idea will therefore lead to more kids killing themselves. What has video games got to do with it you don't go to school to play video games that is something out of school so is completely different.

okay maybe you have a point - my choice of wording failed because by "stupid" I only meant "negative"; you're extending this to kids whom have no choice of clothing because maybe their parents are poor but not unintelligent - fair enough, I'll change my wording to account for your interpretation (e.g. I thought you'd be flexible with what I was pretty clearly saying) that I had not intended to mean: "if kids purposely wear unattractive clothes, *or* if kids have no choice of clothes and they have to wear stupid clothes, then that is not the fault of the school, that is the fault of their the child or the parents, and this principle extends into hairstyles, weight, etc".

Clothes and prices of clothes in schools will matter with no uniforms as the rich kids will show off their top brand designer clothes and the poor kids won't have designer branded clothes so will therefore get bullied. As for wearing the same clothes will you not be wearing the same clothes every week or would you expect your parents to get you new clothes everyweek which by the sounds of it you are expecting to be done. So now your moving on from clothes to hair now, hair is something completely different and off topic now from school uniforms.

again I must say I seriously doubt that schools are based on these obsessive fashion aristocracies; in my school when I was a kid, people would have a system of virtual royalty based on who'd have the best pokemon cards, and obviously, the kids that either didn't like pokemon (or failed to pretend to like it or adapt etc, not something I'd suggest but still an open option if they were desperate) or their parents were too poor to buy them pokemon cards - so what? let people have their subjective enjoyment if it harms nobody else (and I said "harm", not "hurt the feelings of"). I could perhaps equally apply this to the girl who'd have a sort of "ruling structure" based on who was best at playing with the skipping rope - those fit enough to do it well were respected a bit more in comparison to if they weren't good at it, whereas this obviously gave them an advantage based on their physical abilities, not money - but obviously, even if this was possible, I doubt you'd say we should render everybody unable to play with skipping ropes because certain people are overweight or weak. and again, based on how most schools, I suspect, have what is in effect a "sport based popularity system" perhaps; if you're good at football, you'll be "cool" - that's not to say we should ban football at break or lunch time (but ironically I'd actually say that kids shouldn't be forced to play P.E. if there's a chance of being kicked in the face or something e.g. which has happened counted time to me, so that must surely serve to demonstrate that my virtue of non-violence, even when it may be accidental, is bad, even bad enough to stop schools from forcing children into potentially painful environments, although I wouldn't go so far as extending this to forcing kids to not be given swimming lessons based on a small chance of drowning because drowing isn't cause by people accidentially kicking things at you etc it's caused by something internal if one was to suddenly drown in a pool, which obviously means that with that said, pools shouldn't be very deep on account of this)

so having poor parents is their fault is it which would result in them getting bullied for not having designer clothes, what a nice person you are wanting kids to get bullied more and to suffer more. ahh so now I see what you problem is with school uniforms it is that they are for poor people and rich kids are disgusted they have to wear such tat, the school uniform isn't designer so it should be banned. As for you getting laughed at for wearing tatty clothes in your example you missed your actual answer of - its your parents fault for giving you the tatty clothes and for them being poor. So now you are saying that if a kid doesn't get good grades it is the parents fault let me guess for being poor!! see you are changing your meaning yet again you said
"get bullied then that's your own fault if you were stupid clothes " which means as you have just stated "fashion hierarchy " therefore does exist and have admitted to and are now trying to deny there being one.

it's not their literal fault but that's their own business, not anybody else's -more simply, it's their parents fault and they're suffering for it in an objective sense. and yeah you could say I'm "a mean people" for recognising this principle that is logical, I'm not going to claim that I have a right to force children to wear different clothes because some people in the school will be poorer than others. kids are just going to have to live with it, because the initiation of force e.g. "don't physically harm the kid weaker than you" equally applies to a government if we're to recognise that principle of "don't physically force/threaten those children" if we're voting adults. I'll say that for anything based on that objective principle as humanly possible, e.g. don't force kids to have haircuts, don't force kids to have their ears pierced, don't force kids to get circumcised, etc because kids are more than property; the fact that they are somewhat economically determined by their parents doesn't draw away from that idea.

argued consistently my arse you have changed the meanings for things you have said in every post or are you just typing too fast to read properly what you are posting and are you actually reading any posts properly to actually give some viable consistent meanings to anyone?? You are basically saying kids should wear certain clothes to fit in so basically you want to force kids to wear certain clothes to advoid getting bullied which is basically what you are saying you are against "being forced".

what did I change the meaning of? I'll happy admit that I changed my choice of what at your own behest so you knew what I had intended to say based on two definitions of the same word (which was "stupid") but in terms of my arguments of principle how exactly could I possibly use the same principle and change my intended concept? principles aren't flexible things like that. and no! I didn't say that at all, I said they have the CHOICE to wear "popular" clothes if they're desperate to fit in at if they wear "silly" looking clothes than they should expect to be called out on that because people aren't angels (how many times must I repeat that same idea?) - that is completely different to physical coercion e.g. forcing me to pay for an all-uniform school, or forcing me to attend it; if I tried to run away from a school as a child do you think they'd let me do that without any interventions in respect to my liberty? and you can't possibly have interpreted me to mean, literally, that I want to actually physically coerce/force children to wear what I might think is "cool" - I completely detest that concept and that's the concept that is present in school uniform policies - I want children to choose what they want to wear based not merely on their social surroundings, but also on their own comfortability or self interest. that interpretation there was COMPLETELY against my principle that I've probably repeated too often now - the instigation of physical force against free will - that one principle - that's my underlying value in this debate! I'll accept happily that this has it's drawback e.g. perhaps this may cause kids to criticise each other, but that's not a value I uphold to be fundamental, e.g. I don't adovcate, and I suggested before, that people should be locked up and imprisoned for being immoral orally e.g. anti-religion, anti-culture or even racist, seeing as racism doesn't physically force people to do things or cause them physical pain/loss of property etc. but then again, after saying that based on my consistent non-violence principle you'll undoubtedly claim that because I'm so tolerant as to accept racist speech that mean I *must* be a racist, as if to say that accepting the different views of people in terms of politics is to consider myself exactly what they are, as by allowing someone to move their vocal chords to reflect what is in their minds, whether it's ignorant or invalid in my opinion, isn't an acceptable excuse to harm or rob people.

One thing that is being made clear is that you advocate bullying and hold yourself in a higher standing to poorer people who can't afford to buy designer branded clothes etc

oh my god. I can't believe you're actually saying that. seriously if I say "I condone x" that doesn't mean "I want x to happen" - I'll condone people being completely fools, that doesn't mean I WANT them to be fools - I don't have the right to force them to not be fools and I don't claim to know what's best for them over their own self-interests. as well, I condone peopl being fundamentalist muslims or nazis/communists, that doesn't mean I desire everybody to be those things, does it? I am simply more tolerant over the peaceful (not necessarily well-meaning) actions of non-violent individuals (including kids, whether this facilitates divisions is irrelevant). again, it's as if to say "I like capitalism, therefore I want everyone to be poor" or something.

You are now just contradicting yourself and changing all the meanings for things you have said trying to make yourself feel that you didn't mean this and that when you clearly did. You should really re-read what you have wrote in your previous posts to see the fact your meanings have constantly changed throughout. As for now I clearly have the high ground and that isn't going to change so I am going to end it here.

again, what meanings are you talking about? again, I changed one word for you to clarify what I had said based on the fact that "stupid" has two semantic and lexical meanings. what did I change the meaning of? "force"? by force I meant, as I have said so many times before, not give someone a choice in the matter (e.g. taxing a person to pay for an all-uniform school, or forcing people to wear uniforms) - I can't, for example, force somebody to change their clothes simply by insulting their clothes - people aren't sheep that'll do anything you tell them to do; their best interest and their right to wear what is in their best interest is their prerogative, not mine, and I don't claim to even intend for them to wear "cool clothes" if it means that they won't gain from it; although there is a chance that cool clothes will benefit someone in a school, it is irrelevant, for example, if they don't particularly care about making more friends than needed.

Good day sir

good day to you too and I hope you don't misunderstand what I've put in this reply because I intended to make it crystal clear

Bullies will pick on you for anything, if its not your clothes you're too skinny, if you're not too skinny you're ginger.

School is a place to learn, not to demonstrate your Gucci handbags or Barbour jackets..

Yes, bullies will pick on something else but it's not very nice when at the same time they pick on how you dress.. It's like carrying 2 rocks at the same time instead of 1.

It's a place to grow and to develop yourself as a person. That includes appearence

I think uniform avoids the problem of inappropriate clothing. We had uniform and some girls would already pull their skirt as high as they could. It's pretty awkward for a male teacher to be telling girls to pull their skirts down as it is.

But it doesn't stop the issue people just wear their uniform like that


Posted from TSR Mobile

It's a place to grow and to develop yourself as a person. That includes appearence

The thing is, we should be addressing bullying not saying "you can't do this because of bullies'

I think uniform avoids the problem of inappropriate clothing. We had uniform and some girls would already pull their skirt as high as they could. It's pretty awkward for a male teacher to be telling girls to pull their skirts down as it is.

While uniforms can be uncomfortable, I think they're really important to create a 'working atmosphere' in the classrooms.
My school has a uniform for the lower school, and sixth form can wear any suit- this works really well because we're still smart, but have a bit of individuality