Keeping a Breast (or maybe two) of an Issue

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I mean, if everybody ignored the breasts, they'd still be sitting in a warehouse somewhere, and there would definitely not be any problem at all.

But the teacher won't ignore the breasts, so why should anyone else? If these were real breasts, on a woman, we'd try to ignore them out of decorum and a sense of respect for her as a person. She probably wouldn't be able to ignore them, though. She'd probably go through every day grateful to everyone who ignored them, or at least pretended to, and painfully aware of everyone who could not keep up the pretense (or didn't bother). She'd probably be saving up, or waiting in queue, for some kind of medical intervention to reduce them.

With a prosthesis, though, the shoe is on the other foot. Nobody puts on a prosthesis like that in the desperate hope that everyone will pretend it's not there. Quite the opposite. So no, just ignoring the breasts is not the solution. Not unless it starts with the teacher himself ignoring the breasts. By which I mean, leaving them at home when he comes to work.

Speaking of work, his job is to get students to pay attention to the curriculum he's teaching, not to his comically large breasts. Given that he's donning the prosthesis so that people will pay attention to it, he's already undermining the job he's supposed to be doing, that he's being paid to do.

Do you have evidence (telepathy is not accepted) for your claim that the wearer is "donning the prosthesis so that people will pay attention to it" as opposed to any other possible reason they might have?

It reminds me of the men who think women wear make-up to look good for the men.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Oh, you're very wrong there. Some people posting in this thread care very, very much about the biological maleness and only the biological maleness.

Unevidenced appeal to transphobia ignored.

Quote:

Again, not everybody. Earlier a poster said it wasn't the nipples that were problematic because there shouldn't be a judgment on nippliness.

These nipples aren't bare so that doesn't apply here. Whether male or female nipples are provocative or not, or real or fake nipples are provocative or not, is also debatable. But as I don't agree with you that the nipples are central to the controversy I'm not much interested in tweaking the argument in their direction/s.

The students' dress code in that school prohibits visible (which does not only mean bare in this context!) nipples or genitalia.

Quote:

Courts have affirmed students' rights to not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, recite prayers, cut their hair into or out of particular styles, wear black arm bands in protest, and quite a few other things. This is precisely why "disruption" as a blanket catch-all doesn't work. If you want to prohibit specific behaviors you need specific rules. Add to them as necessary as you go, but don't expect a blank check to rule by fiat at the discretion of whoever is in charge.

Dress codes against visible (which does NOT only mean bare in this context!) nipples or genitalia are specific rules.

Quote:

I meant "quote the handbook". I think if the administration is policing the students' nipples by examining them and investigating their layers of clothing that that is a far more alarming issue than somebody wearing silly fake boobs.

I'm not inclined to travel to Canada to obtain a copy of a handbook containing a rule that is commonplace in many schools.

The article linked in the OP reports: "Students who joined the fracas said they are bound by a dress code that prohibits visible nipples or genitalia* so they are left wondering why the same rules don’t apply to Lemieux."

You're welcome to feel as alarmed as you wish about this, I suppose. It's possible those students are lying, of course, or that the reporter is. But I'm not wondering those, as much as I'm also wondering why the same rules don't apply to Lemieux.


*It's probably necessary to point out that "visible" in this context does not only mean bare.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So you wish people to be bound by a rule that you feel cannot be expressed but must be followed? Who gets to decide what is and isn't prohibited by this unexpressable rule?

I think there needs to be room for judgment calls, because the space of possible situations is too broad to codify individually. As well, the more specific you get, the more gaming of the system can go on, and you start getting things like "skirts must be below the fingertips fully extended unless the arm length to height ratio is blah blah blah..." and it still doesn't stop the next wiseacre.

Decide what you want out of the rule (or as you put it, what harm is being avoided), write the rule to that principle with some common examples, ask people to respect the spirit of the rule, and put someone sensible in charge of making the call. You don't get perfect consistency. What you do get is something that can function without trying to build an increasingly specific body of rules that never runs out of details that weren't covered.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Unevidenced appeal to transphobia ignored.




The students' dress code in that school prohibits visible (which does not only mean bare in this context!) nipples or genitalia.




Dress codes against visible (which does NOT only mean bare in this context!) nipples or genitalia are specific rules.




I'm not inclined to travel to Canada to obtain a copy of a handbook containing a rule that is commonplace in many schools.

The article linked in the OP reports: "Students who joined the fracas said they are bound by a dress code that prohibits visible nipples or genitalia* so they are left wondering why the same rules don’t apply to Lemieux."

You're welcome to feel as alarmed as you wish about this, I suppose. It's possible those students are lying, of course, or that the reporter is. But I'm not wondering those, as much as I'm also wondering why the same rules don't apply to Lemieux.


*It's probably necessary to point out that "visible" in this context does not only mean bare.

Does this mean that in this case, the example in the OP, if the person involved were to tape down the nipples so they were not explictly visible through clothing you would have no objection to them continuing to wear them?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by gnome

I think there needs to be room for judgment calls, because the space of possible situations is too broad to codify individually. As well, the more specific you get, the more gaming of the system can go on, and you start getting things like "skirts must be below the fingertips fully extended unless the arm length to height ratio is blah blah blah..." and it still doesn't stop the next wiseacre.

Decide what you want out of the rule (or as you put it, what harm is being avoided), write the rule to that principle with some common examples, ask people to respect the spirit of the rule, and put someone sensible in charge of making the call. You don't get perfect consistency. What you do get is something that can function without trying to build an increasingly specific body of rules that never runs out of details that weren't covered.

That sounds reasonable. But then the person in charge goes on a power trip and exerts their whims unreasonably upon everybody else. Or selectively upon some and not others. You ask for something that can function without specifically mentioning every potential item. I ask for something that has safeguards against abuse.

In either case, whether a rule is narrow and detailed or vague and broad I think it still needs to only prohibit things that cause quantifiable harm, and that this has not been demonstrated to be the case here.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Does this mean that in this case, the example in the OP, if the person involved were to tape down the nipples so they were not explictly visible through clothing you would have no objection to them continuing to wear them?

Judging from the pictures it would take strong 8-inch wide duct tape to do that, if the texture of the appliance allows it at all, but yeah, if it worked that would help a lot, and leave little grounds for objection from me. It would just be a funny-shaped fat suit that might as well be a couple of beach balls strapped to his waist under an oversize shirt.

(My greatest objection was to the apparent double standard involved: girl students aren't allowed clothing that makes their nipples visible, but that doesn't apply to Lemieux's "prosthetics" because... gender inclusivity? WTF?)

How likely do you think it is that, if the giant nipples were taped down like that, the person involved would still want to wear them?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So at the present you're arguing that a behavior should be prohibited because it violates a rule that hasn't yet been written

No. It should be prohibited because it's bad. In order to prohibit it, rules will need to be implemented to do so, but the reason to prohibit it isn't the rules. That would be backwards.

Quote:

I don't "well know".

Sure you do. For the same reason you know that politeness is preferable to impoliteness.

Quote:

No, I don't. If a behavior harms nobody then I don't think that behavior can be bad.

We disagree that this behavior harms nobody. I don't expect you to change your mind on that point, but really, stop pretending that I agree that it harms nobody but want to stop it anyways.

Quote:

I do not ascribe to a belief system that uses a god's purportedly expressed feelings about behaviors to evaluate their goodness or badness.

Not relevant. Nothing about this discussion depends upon deities, the supernatural, or any belief in same.

Quote:

What are the alternatives? How you do evaluate if a behavior is good, bad, or neutral if you aren't using harm or divine commandment as the basis for your judgment? Hammurabi's Code? Legalism? Gut feelings?

Wow.

Normally, the accusation that atheists don't believe in morality is a straw man advanced by certain religious people as a lazy way to argue against atheism. And you're basically making that argument for them. Do you really think that we can't have any sense of shared morality in the absence of religion? Because if not, I really don't see what you're trying to get at.

And it's also contradictory to your own expressed values. You think individual freedom is a good thing in and of itself. That's a moral judgment (one I'm largely sympathetic too, I will note).

Quote:

I wasn't really trying for an analogy, I was just trying to point out that "causes protests" isn't a clear indication of harm ensuing from a behavior.

Except it is. It's just that in the example you gave, that harm is dwarfed by much more important concerns. That's not really the case here.

Quote:

Once again: if everybody ignored the breasts, would they still be a problem?

Maybe not. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone to. It's not gonna happen, regardless of whether or not it should. In contrast, it's not unreasonable to expect a teacher not to wear those prosthetics.

You could likewise say that if everyone ignored nudity, then public nudity wouldn't be a problem either. But that's not going to happen either. People won't ignore it, and you're never going to get everyone to, even if you manage to get a few people to. So public nudity is a problem.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

"That turban is absurd and obscene, and you need to leave it at home from now on". So long, Sikh!

I don't think only space alien robots have an interest in having a just society run on rational rules applied fairly rather than the irrational unquantifiable whims of authority.

How about a Papuan teacher turning up with only a penis gourd? Okay with you?

[lionking]

I haven’t seen it mentioned here, but this person is a trade (possibly woodwork) teacher. Those fake boobs would be a safety hazard near almost any equipment in my view.

[Rolfe]

It did get a mention or two earlier. I think the long blonde wig is a hazard too.

The question was asked, if H&S is the issue, would all this be fine if he was just standing at a blackboard explaining quadratic equations?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The question was asked, if H&S is the issue, would all this be fine if he was just standing at a blackboard explaining quadratic equations?

It would be less dangerous. I’m surprised that the school hasn’t appeared to take issue with H&S.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Do you have evidence (telepathy is not accepted) for your claim that the wearer is "donning the prosthesis so that people will pay attention to it" as opposed to any other possible reason they might have?

I make inferences from observed behavior, and long experience of human nature.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by lionking

I haven’t seen it mentioned here, but this person is a trade (possibly woodwork) teacher. Those fake boobs would be a safety hazard near almost any equipment in my view.

It has been mentioned I think, and I totally agree. Some kid is wielding a chisel, jigsaw, rotary sander, whatever ... when those tits pass by and 'distract their attention'

Probably Undoubtably good cause to sue for damages

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It should be prohibited because it's bad. In order to prohibit it, rules will need to be implemented to do so, but the reason to prohibit it isn't the rules. That would be backwards.

What makes a behavior bad? For me, it's if it causes harm. For you, it's....what?

Quote:

Sure you do. For the same reason you know that politeness is preferable to impoliteness.

No, I don't. I don't agree with you. Are you truly unable to grasp that not everybody thinks like you do?

Quote:

We disagree that this behavior harms nobody. I don't expect you to change your mind on that point, but really, stop pretending that I agree that it harms nobody but want to stop it anyways.

If you think the behavior harms somebody, who is it? What is that harm?

Quote:

Not relevant. Nothing about this discussion depends upon deities, the supernatural, or any belief in same.

Wow.

Normally, the accusation that atheists don't believe in morality is a straw man advanced by certain religious people as a lazy way to argue against atheism. And you're basically making that argument for them. Do you really think that we can't have any sense of shared morality in the absence of religion? Because if not, I really don't see what you're trying to get at.

And it's also contradictory to your own expressed values. You think individual freedom is a good thing in and of itself. That's a moral judgment (one I'm largely sympathetic too, I will note).

You started that exchange by replying to my question "If there is no demonstrable harm then how can a behavior be bad?" with "I think you actually know". I don't. Why can't you answer this question? You apparently disagree with my belief that a behavior can only be bad if it causes harm. I offered some other suggestions of how other people sometimes believe behavior can be judged good or bad. What is yours? What makes a behavior bad?

It would simplify matters greatly if you could answer directly a direct question without saying just "I think you know" and "you already know" and forcing me to scroll up and down to trace your responses.

Here it is again, very simply:

What makes a behavior bad?

If you can't answer it, or won't answer, fine. Just stop with the "oh ho ho, you know the answer, me thinks" routine. It's irritating.

Quote:

Except it is. It's just that in the example you gave, that harm is dwarfed by much more important concerns. That's not really the case here.

Maybe not. But it's unreasonable to expect everyone to. It's not gonna happen, regardless of whether or not it should. In contrast, it's not unreasonable to expect a teacher not to wear those prosthetics.

You could likewise say that if everyone ignored nudity, then public nudity wouldn't be a problem either. But that's not going to happen either. People won't ignore it, and you're never going to get everyone to, even if you manage to get a few people to. So public nudity is a problem.

A recursion, then: a behavior which may be harmless can be made harmful if people decide to fuss about it. Therefore there is no possible behavior which can't be decided to be harmful because anybody can fuss about anything. That doesn't seem to me to be fair or even practical way to run anything.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by lionking

How about a Papuan teacher turning up with only a penis gourd? Okay with you?

You seem to be confusing me with someone else's strawman suggesting I'm arguing in favor of public nudity or near-nudity. I'm not and I haven't. Start a thread if you wish to discuss that topic.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Thermal

One of the articles interviewed students of the school, who said they don't much think about this. Kind of a no biggie.

So is that good or bad? Are these kids so forward thinking and progressive enough as to accept anyone's oddities without comment, or are they so disconnected from reality that they see real people as essentially like anime characters?

After years of indoctrination none of them feel safe to express any other opinion.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You seem to be confusing me with someone else's strawman suggesting I'm arguing in favor of public nudity or near-nudity. I'm not and I haven't. Start a thread if you wish to discuss that topic.

I’m confusing you with someone defending religious and cultural wear in schools? Penis gourds are religious and cultural wear for Papuans.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lionking

I’m confusing you with someone defending religious and cultural wear in schools? Penis gourds are religious and cultural wear for Papuans.

Well you're confused about something. He's making an argument from analogy to religious accommodation. IF YOU accommodate Sikh Turbans as a religious observance, THEN YOU must also accommodate Papuan penis gourds,and by extension novelty breasts.

These are not his positions. They are positions he is ascribing to you, based on the assumption that you believe in making religious accommodations.

I'll have to add "sometimes an argument from analogy fails because it's just plain confusing" to my list of failure modes.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by lionking

I’m confusing you with someone defending religious and cultural wear in schools? Penis gourds are religious and cultural wear for Papuans.

Yes, you are confusing me with that. My position is that the boobs cause no harm, therefore they shouldn't be prohibited. A turban also causes no harm, and also should not be prohibited. I don't care what reasons the wearers have for wearing either, that's not my business.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Well you're confused about something. He's making an argument from analogy to religious accommodation. IF YOU accommodate Sikh Turbans as a religious observance, THEN YOU must also accommodate Papuan penis gourds,and by extension novelty breasts.

These are not his positions. They are positions he is ascribing to you, based on the assumption that you believe in making religious accommodations.

I'll have to add "sometimes an argument from analogy fails because it's just plain confusing" to my list of failure modes.

No, I'm not and no, I don't.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

My position is that the boobs cause no harm, therefore they shouldn't be prohibited.

Someone who rolls a random number generator to decide when next to deploy the compressed air horn causes no harm, therefore it's acceptable classroom behavior.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Someone who rolls a random number generator to decide when next to deploy the compressed air horn causes no harm, therefore it's acceptable classroom behavior.

I don't think the burden is upon me to justify the harmlessness of any possible behavior. I think the burden is upon those who would prohibit this one specific particular behavior to demonstrate that it causes quantifiable harm.

Unless the criteria for prohibiting a behavior is something other than it causing harm; if so, then I'm curious what that criteria could be.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That sounds reasonable. But then the person in charge goes on a power trip and exerts their whims unreasonably upon everybody else. Or selectively upon some and not others. You ask for something that can function without specifically mentioning every potential item. I ask for something that has safeguards against abuse.

In either case, whether a rule is narrow and detailed or vague and broad I think it still needs to only prohibit things that cause quantifiable harm, and that this has not been demonstrated to be the case here.

Agree on both counts. In the case of my suggestion, safeguards against abuse would be some method of appeal and a means of removing the person from that responsibility if it's being abused. Same thing you try to do if a school official is abusing dress code power already.

Also for sure agree that we have to be sure what harm is being avoided.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I don't think the burden is upon me to justify the harmlessness of any possible behavior. I think the burden is upon those who would prohibit this one specific particular behavior to demonstrate that it causes quantifiable harm.

Unless the criteria for prohibiting a behavior is something other than it causing harm; if so, then I'm curious what that criteria could be.

Inappropriate behaviour does't necessarily cause harm. Businesses deal with inappropriate behaviour all the time and often discipline or sack those concerned. The problem here is that this is a school and everybody is terrified of speaking up lest they be called transphobes.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I don't think the burden is upon me to justify the harmlessness of any possible behavior.

The airhorn is harmless; prove me wrong.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The airhorn is harmless; prove me wrong.

Start a thread about the airhorn incident, see if anyone's interested in discussing it.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Start a thread about the airhorn incident, see if anyone's interested in discussing it.

Quantify the harm bro.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The airhorn is harmless; prove me wrong.

The Red Herring Kid rides again! Back with the his old ally, a sense of entitlement to dictate the terms of the discussion.

This line of attack is meaningless and should be ignored.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by lionking

Inappropriate behaviour does't necessarily cause harm. Businesses deal with inappropriate behaviour all the time and often discipline or sack those concerned.

What is "inappropriate" behavior? How does it differ from harmful behavior? What about it justifies prohibition if it isn't harmful?

Quote:

The problem here is that this is a school and everybody is terrified of speaking up lest they be called transphobes.

Hyperbole and projection. Lots of people seem to be speaking up, otherwise how did any of us even hear of this? I don't accept uncritically your assertion for the motivations behind unspecified persons not speaking. Do you have evidence of these persons and their reasons? Or are you just going to claim silent, teeming masses agree with you but can't be asked directly?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The Red Herring Kid rides again! Back with the his old ally, a sense of entitlement to dictate the terms of the discussion.

This line of attack is meaningless and should be ignored.

Attack on what, exactly? What are you even setting out to defend, with this?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Attack on what, exactly? What are you even setting out to defend, with this?

I'm attacking the attack, in this case on basic reasoning standards and who gets to decide what way a conversation goes. Setting demands for (really, truly, worthless) red herrings leads down paths without illumination. It tells us nothing and we learn nothing apart from what arguments the red herring wishes to avoid.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What is "inappropriate" behavior? How does it differ from harmful behavior? What about it justifies prohibition if it isn't harmful?

Let’s look at clothing codes, which many and probably most businesses have. In some cases not wearing agreed attire could be harmful to the image of the business, but in other cases (back room staff, say) it is not. Yet businesses do discipline people who fail to follow the code.

Besides, how have you determined that the teacher concerned hasn’t caused harm? How do you know that no students have been caused upset or even distress by this teacher?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I'm attacking the attack, in this case on basic reasoning standards and who gets to decide what way a conversation goes.

I didn't claim to decide harm is the only relevant standard here, that was TragicMonkey.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by lionking

Let’s look at clothing codes, which many and probably most businesses have. In some cases not wearing agreed attire could be harmful to the image of the business, but in other cases (back room staff, say) it is not. Yet businesses do discipline people who fail to follow the code.

I'm not certain a business should have a dress code if not having one does no harm to the business. Having a code for the sake of enforcing it would be pointless.

Certainly I've had jobs where dress codes made no sense. For instance when I was required to wear "business casual" because crawling on the floor of an operating room running cables at 2 in the morning would have been "inappropriate" in jeans. Nevermind I had a paper "bunnysuit" on over everything anyway...

I'm quite in favor of applying rational standards and critical judgment of existing dress codes with a view to getting rid of any line items that do not prevent a specified harm.

Quote:

Besides, how have you determined that the teacher concerned hasn’t caused harm? How do you know that no students have been caused upset or even distress by this teacher?

Okay, what harm has been caused? I think the burden is on those who claim harm has occurred to prove it, not upon those who don't know if harm has occurred to disprove it. I'm open to the possibility that harm may have been caused: but if it has that harm should be able to be specified, demonstrated, and quantified. I'm not sure "upset" and "distress" will pass critical scrutiny. They sound rather vague to me.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I didn't claim to decide harm is the only relevant standard here, that was TragicMonkey.

There is no answer to your demand that tells us anything about what TragicMonkey argued. It has zero value in exploring the subject.

Prove otherwise.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

There is no answer to your demand that tells us anything about what TragicMonkey argued.

If you think the airhorn is harmless in a classroom setting, just say so and I'll make the counterargument.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

I'm attacking the attack, in this case on basic reasoning standards and who gets to decide what way a conversation goes. Setting demands for (really, truly, worthless) red herrings leads down paths without illumination. It tells us nothing and we learn nothing apart from what arguments the red herring wishes to avoid.

Ah. Gotcha. You've chosen to go insufferably meta, rather than engage with the actual debate as such. Well noted.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If you think the airhorn is harmless in a classroom setting, just say so and I'll make the counterargument.

You've again failed to make a valid argument as to how this explores anything. All you have is demands that others make the argument you want them to make.

Now it needs ignored.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Ah. Gotcha. You've chosen to go insufferably meta, rather than engage with the actual debate as such. Well noted.

Nope. There is nothing meta about identifying empty avenues and the effects of following red herrings. If you want to make d4m10n's argument for him, have at it. Perhaps you'll be able to support how it has any value.

Your handwave fails to address my point. Oh well.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You've again failed to make a valid argument as to how this explores anything. All you have is demands that others make the argument you want them to make.

Now it needs ignored.



Nope. There is nothing meta about identifying empty avenues and the effects of following red herrings. If you want to make d4m10n's argument for him, have at it. Perhaps you'll be able to support how it has any value.

Your handwave fails to address my point. Oh well.

Not addressing, dismissing.

[d4m10n]

Seems obvious to me that the airhorn would be problematic, even if it causes no "quantifiable harm" to students.

Now try swapping "airhorn" out with other harmless distractions, as an exercise.