Army's new tattoo policy

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I strongly disagree with this. In a free and democratic society, ANY government action or limitation on freedom must be justified unless there's a very compelling reason (e.g. national security) not to make the justification public.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

And there are positions that never get deployed overseas... which means that the standards of some other country or culture don't need to be applied to every single recruit.

 

[Koldo]

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.

What is funny about 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)

On private matters, yes, indeed. You should expect.

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

Is the army an independent branch of the government on USA?
Doesn't the president ( and to an extent the congress ) have control over the army?

 

[esmith]

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).

Your statement about a company facing a difficult time in court if they fire someone over personal grooming requirement, fallacious. If those grooming standards were made known to you prior to you accepting a position at said company then you do not have a legal argument if at a latter date you violate those standards. In addition you would not have been offered a position if you did not meet those grooming standards in the first place. Second, if the grooming standards were changed after you were hired and the employer explained that the standards were changed due to a business and or regulatory situation, and you failed to comply again you would not have a legal argument. To your other point about employment to shoot someone is a juvenile statement that has little or no validity and a total lack of comprehension of the military.

 

[esmith]

Is the army an independent branch of the government on USA?
Doesn't the president ( and to an extent the congress ) have control over the army?

There are only 3 branches of the US government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Dept of Defense is under the Executive branch and the President is the Commander and Chief who basically has control of the military, with the approval of Congress in his use of the military in a offensive or defensive manner. Yes I suppose that an idiotic President or idiotic Congressional body could attempt to dictate grooming standards in the military and the military would have to comply but that happening has about a .000001% chance of occurring.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your statement about a company facing a difficult time in court if they fire someone over personal grooming requirement, fallacious.

It's correct in certain places; it depends on the law in the particular place where you are.

For instance, here in Ontario, unnecessary job requirements can be very risky for the employer: if they're found to be even indirectly discriminatory, then they can be struck down and the employer forced to pay a fine and/or an award to the discriminated employee. As an example, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has been cracking down on employers that require employees to have a driver's licence if driving for the job isn't actually necessary, since people can be ineligible for driver's licences because of disabilities.


BTW: merely being incorrect does not necessarily imply that a person has committed a fallacy.

 

[esmith]

It's correct in certain places; it depends on the law in the particular place where you are.

For instance, here in Ontario, unnecessary job requirements can be very risky for the employer: if they're found to be even indirectly discriminatory, then they can be struck down and the employer forced to pay a fine and/or an award to the discriminated employee. As an example, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has been cracking down on employers that require employees to have a driver's licence if driving for the job isn't actually necessary, since people can be ineligible for driver's licences because of disabilities.


BTW: merely being incorrect does not necessarily imply that a person has committed a fallacy.

I believe that we were discussing grooming standards.
Last time I checked the definition of fallacy is: a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea
definition of incorrect is: false; wrong
So, if one had a incorrect belief would not that be a false or wrong belief hence a fallacy. Of course you could argue the point but I see no need to get into semantics.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Your statement about a company facing a difficult time in court if they fire someone over personal grooming requirement, fallacious.

You need to take the time to use your reading comprehension skills on the post you're replying to.

your other point about employment to shoot someone is a juvenile statement that has little or no validity and a total lack of comprehension of the military.

I'm sorry for being facetious. I'm not stupid. You can't argue that the military is in the business of killing people, even though it also does other things too

 

[averageJOE]

And there are positions that never get deployed overseas... which means that the standards of some other country or culture don't need to be applied to every single recruit.

And you have to realize that more and more soldiers have more than one MOS.

 

[Koldo]

There are only 3 branches of the US government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Dept of Defense is under the Executive branch and the President is the Commander and Chief who basically has control of the military, with the approval of Congress in his use of the military in a offensive or defensive manner. Yes I suppose that an idiotic President or idiotic Congressional body could attempt to dictate grooming standards in the military and the military would have to comply but that happening has about a .000001% chance of occurring.

Why would they be any more idiotic than the current person enacting this arbitrary ruling ?

The chances of this happening depend on how much the citizens care about it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe that we were discussing grooming standards.

A "no beards" policy would run afoul of the law pretty quickly here too.

Last time I checked the definition of fallacy is: a wrong belief : a false or mistaken idea
definition of incorrect is: false; wrong
So, if one had a incorrect belief would not that be a false or wrong belief hence a fallacy. Of course you could argue the point but I see no need to get into semantics.

Check again. A fallacious belief is one that relies on faulty reasoning. Melt starting from an incorrect premise doesn't make a belief fallacious.

Take your argument here: you're mistaken about the definition of "fallacious", but AFAICT, your position isn't fallacious... just wrong.

 

[esmith]

Why would they be any more idiotic than the current person enacting this arbitrary ruling ?

The chances of this happening depend on how much the citizens care about it.

Mainly because the entity enacting the regulations comes from the military not a civilian. You obviously do not understand the relationship between the military and the civilian population as far as grooming standards go....they could care less.

 

[esmith]

A "no beards" policy would run afoul of the law pretty quickly here too.

A no beard policy put forth by a business or company that made it clear that prior to accepting a position with said entity that the grooming standards had a no beard policy would run afoul of the law in what manner?

 

[Koldo]

Mainly because the entity enacting the regulations comes from the military not a civilian. You obviously do not understand the relationship between the military and the civilian population as far as grooming standards go....they could care less.

Oh, well...
Do you at least have a source for that claim?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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 wonder if a tattoo would keep you from getting drafted...

 

[esmith]

Oh, well...
Do you at least have a source for that claim?

The uniform regulations are written by each branch of the Armed Forces and each are unique to each branch. There is no source for what most civilians think of military uniform regulations except for a small percentage of people that just like to *****.

 

[esmith]

... I wonder if a tattoo would keep you from getting drafted...

Well if there was a draft then I would expect that there would be a national emergency and they would probably take anyone that is physical and mentally fit. And even those on the extreme left of the political spectrum

 

[averageJOE]

... I wonder if a tattoo would keep you from getting drafted...

Drafting and enlisting are two different things.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Drafting and enlisting are two different things.

 

[Koldo]

The uniform regulations are written by each branch of the Armed Forces and each are unique to each branch. There is no source for what most civilians think of military uniform regulations except for a small percentage of people that just like to *****.

Then i should just trust what you say ... just because.