Army's new tattoo policy

[esmith]

Most certainly. However, what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

We are not talking about whether soldiers should (dis)obey these regulations. This is a debate about questioning a specific rule.

I see you want to question the why the rule about tattoos, correct? If this is correct you can discuss why the rule is in place if you like. So question away. But my answer to you is that there is no discussion as far as I am concerned. The Army has a policy, and the reason for this policy was basically explained. I agree with the policy and therefore will not attempt to change your mind.

 

[Koldo]

I see you want to question the why the rule about tattoos, correct? If this is correct you can discuss why the rule is in place if you like. So question away.

As i have been doing already.

But my answer to you is that there is no discussion as far as I am concerned. The Army has a policy, and the reason for this policy was basically explained. I agree with the policy and therefore will not attempt to change your mind.

It was explained. However, it remains arbitrary even with the given explanation.

 

[averageJOE]

Correct. But you are still allowed to have a mustache nonetheless.
People with mustaches will clearly stick out from people without mustaches. There is no uniformity then.

This is a funny post.

Somehow you believe the word uniformity means identical twin.

 

[Koldo]

This is a funny post.

Somehow you believe the word uniformity means identical twin.

Not at all.


Not a twin.
Nor identical, just very similar.

 

[Slapstick]

Soldiers told new rules governing tattoos, grooming standards on the way - News - Stripes

Some of the soldiers in my Unit think it's stupid. Some find it funny. Others think it's long past due. No more tattoo's below the elbow, knee, and above the neck line. Soldiers who already have them will be grandfathered in. New recruits, either pay out of pocket to have it removed or try another branch.

Thoughts?

I think the Army is the last branch of the military to actually implement something like this. Roughly 5 or more years ago the marines quit giving people promotions who had tattoos which eventually forced a lot of people to quit after their time was up for re-enlistment. The army and navy quit recruiting people with a criminal record and are doing away with allowing people in who have tattoos as well. I don't agree with any of these policies, seeing how someone could have been convicted of a possession charge, but now marijuana is legal or for medical purpose in half of the states, yet they use to recruit people who were not American citizens (and probably still do) or for crimes far worse than possession charges.

 

[methylatedghosts]

"While some soldiers at the meeting asked whether the Army will ever allow more visible tattoos, Chandler said it is a matter of maintaining a uniform look and sacrificing for the sake of the force."

Its not just tattoos either. Also make-up and fingernail polish, hair styles, body piercings, and the length of sideburns.

All those things are rather easy to change though. You can take out a piercing, shave you're sideburns, trim the hair and take off the nail polish.

And as was said before, if you really want uniformity, mustaches and beards should all be the same too - for everyone. If you want none to stand out, then everyone should have the exact same facial hair, no?

At any rate, my personal feeling is that tattoos are a silly thing to be concentrating on. So many people who would do well in the military would miss out because of some in they got a number of years ago is, I feel, more than a little unfair.

 

[averageJOE]

All those things are rather easy to change though. You can take out a piercing, shave you're sideburns, trim the hair and take off the nail polish.

And as was said before, if you really want uniformity, mustaches and beards should all be the same too - for everyone. If you want none to stand out, then everyone should have the exact same facial hair, no?

At any rate, my personal feeling is that tattoos are a silly thing to be concentrating on. So many people who would do well in the military would miss out because of some in they got a number of years ago is, I feel, more than a little unfair.

I think you too think uniformity means identical twin. By your logic, if a soldier was the only African American in a Unit of white soldiers he should be kicked out or transferred because he will clearly stand out.

Also, if you think it's unfair remember that LIFE is unfair. People should really think long and hard before getting that tattoo on their neck or cover their entire arm. As the Army isn't the only organization that will bar you from entry.

 

[averageJOE]

I think the Army is the last branch of the military to actually implement something like this. Roughly 5 or more years ago the marines quit giving people promotions who had tattoos which eventually forced a lot of people to quit after their time was up for re-enlistment. The army and navy quit recruiting people with a criminal record and are doing away with allowing people in who have tattoos as well. I don't agree with any of these policies, seeing how someone could have been convicted of a possession charge, but now marijuana is legal or for medical purpose in half of the states, yet they use to recruit people who were not American citizens (and probably still do) or for crimes far worse than possession charges.

You can enlist into the Army with a criminal record. You just can't have a felony charge.

 

[Koldo]

Also, if you think it's unfair remember that LIFE is unfair.

...Seriously?
Then you wouldn't mind being paid 50 cents an hour on your job, right? You would be fine with it.
Life is unfair after all...

 

[averageJOE]

...Seriously?
Then you wouldn't mind being paid 50 cents an hour on your job, right? You would be fine with it.
Life is unfair after all...

Non sequitur.

 

[Koldo]

Non sequitur.

How so?
You are saying life is unfair and using that as if it were a justification for what the army is doing.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I think you too think uniformity means identical twin. By your logic, if a soldier was the only African American in a Unit of white soldiers he should be kicked out or transferred because he will clearly stand out.

Also, if you think it's unfair remember that LIFE is unfair. People should really think long and hard before getting that tattoo on their neck or cover their entire arm. As the Army isn't the only organization that will bar you from entry.

Skin colour falls under that range of things you can't change.

I hold the same views for any profession or job. I simply don't feel that having tattoos is a good enough reason to be barred from any job, be it army recruit, pastor or politician

 

[esmith]

Skin colour falls under that range of things you can't change.

I hold the same views for any profession or job. I simply don't feel that having tattoos is a good enough reason to be barred from any job, be it army recruit, pastor or politician

The military has set standards for appearance in and out of uniform, you may disagree with this policy but if you are in the military you must conform to their standards. Just as in civilian positions, if the company has set standards of appearance either you conform to them or not accept the position and if you do then violate the standards you will be fired. So, discuss all you want, but rules are rules. Just as speed limits on public roads are mandated, you may disagree with them but they are the law.

 

[averageJOE]

How so?
You are saying life is unfair and using that as if it were a justification for what the army is doing.

Your under the impression that the Army has to justify this policy?

 

[averageJOE]

Skin colour falls under that range of things you can't change.

I hold the same views for any profession or job. I simply don't feel that having tattoos is a good enough reason to be barred from any job, be it army recruit, pastor or politician

Correct, skin color is something you can't change. However, tattoos are 100% within a persons control. A person has to cut their hair according to regulation, weight has to be in regulation, hair dye and nail polish has to be in regulation. All things that the soldier, or potential soldier, has complete control over. Tattoos have to be in regulation. Because they are in control of them.

 

[Slapstick]

You can enlist into the Army with a criminal record. You just can't have a felony charge.

Nope, roughly 3-4 years ago i tried and they told me if i had ever been "arrested" then I couldn't join. Yet, I know people who were locked up for felonies who joined a few years before I tried too. By felonies, I mean actually served several years in jail.

I look at it like this. Once someone does their time they shouldn't have an arrest record held against them for anything.

 

[methylatedghosts]

All I'm really saying is this is a policy I simply disagree with. And yes, personal appearance does play a part in terms of employability - you're more likely to get and keep a job if you shower more than once a week - but I just feel that tattoos alone are a poor reason to not allow someone to get employed to shoot others. Even if those tattoos are on a face or forearms. As far as I know New Zealand military had the same policy (excepting those tattoos which are traditional Maori. Fire someone because of his moko, and you face a particularly difficult time in court).

 

[Koldo]

Your under the impression that the Army has to justify this policy?

If this becomes a relevant issue to the citizens, it better come up with a really good excuse.

But that is not really the subject, is it?
We are in a debate. It is you who has to come up with a good justification in this case.

 

[averageJOE]

If this becomes a relevant issue to the citizens, it better come up with a really good excuse.

But that is not really the subject, is it?
We are in a debate. It is you who has to come up with a good justification in this case.

Me? Like I already said in post #91, I'm one of those that find it funny. I have no reason to agree or disagree with it. And I've always, always thought that getting tattoos on your neck and below the elbow is a very bad idea. Certain doors will be closed to you once you do. And you have to expect that. (kilgor trout said that)

And the Army does not have to justify this policy. They really are in a position to say "Because we said so."

 

[averageJOE]

All I'm really saying is this is a policy I simply disagree with. And yes, personal appearance does play a part in terms of employability - you're more likely to get and keep a job if you shower more than once a week - but I just feel that tattoos alone are a poor reason to not allow someone to get employed to shoot others. Even if those tattoos are on a face or forearms. As far as I know New Zealand military had the same policy (excepting those tattoos which are traditional Maori. Fire someone because of his moko, and you face a particularly difficult time in court).

You know there are positions in the Army that are considered Non-Combatant correct? They don't shoot anybody.