Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are these the NYPD guidelines? For someone who seems so concerned about what the "new" rules are, you seem unmotivated to learn what they actually are.
Also, please stop with the slippery slope fallacy - it's not compelling, in the least. Muslim women that wear the burka would never want/be allowed to be LEOs, so it's a moot point. You might have a point with the hijab, but that doesn't cover the face.
Yes, you're right - however would we identify these men as police officers what with the radical uniform variation....
The uniform guidelines are that all of the cops wear the same uniforms. That's what a uniform means. As for the "slippery slope" comment, the last line of Vector's post says it the best "Give an inch, and the liberal malcontents will always try to take a mile by pushing the envelope until no standards exist."
The only person who looks like a cop in that picture is the woman. The rest of them look like they are ready to go to a Halloween Party.
I'm glad you brought up the "guidelines" because at post 130 plus, let's discuss exactly why these special rights create a problem. Based on the posts here by defenders of the "reasonable accommodations" policy, let's wade through the swamp of "guidelines" for cop uniforms:
Jews get to modify their uniforms, but we have not discussed how or in what way.
If Jews get to modify their uniform, then Sikhs can wear turbans and beards.
Catholics cops can't wear habits because only devout Catholics wear habits, and devout Catholics are not also cops (but devout Jews and Sikhs can be).
Buddhists can't wear robes, because robes are shirts and not hats or beards.
You can't cover your face - for now (unless of course its with a beard) - but I'm sure this will be the next issue.
Should we continue to discuss these "guidelines" or just go back to uniforms?
Hasidic Jews don't have to modify their uniforms, they are just allowed to have beards and their peyes because that is required by their religion, and if you looked closely at the video, you would see that his peyes are pinned back.
Sikhs wear the modified NYPD hat/turban that you saw.
Devout Catholics don't wear habits--now you're just making up stupid stuff. Habits are worn by nuns, and not all of them anymore because the POINT of the habit was to dress like the peasant women in medieval times, and now most of them dress like the peasant women of modern times. Nuns don't apply to become cops because they already have a job and have made a lifelong commitment to serve their church in poverty. Again, you know this and are just playing dumb.
Buddhist don't wear robes. Monks do. Monks don't become police officers. See Catholic nuns, above.
Again--the question was asked but of course you ignored it--WHO covers their face other than a group of religious women who would not be permitted EVER to become police officers because the same religion that makes them cover their face would preclude such a career?
You're just being ridiculous, and it's obvious to everyone what the real problem is behind your comments.
The uniform guidelines are that all of the cops wear the same uniforms.
Evidently not in the NYPD, since they have exceptions for Jews and Sikhs, at the very least. The women's uniforms are different from the men's uniforms, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
...As for the "slippery slope" comment, the last line of Vector's post says it the best "Give an inch, and the liberal malcontents will always try to take a mile by pushing the envelope until no standards exist."
You're right, Vector's post is another example of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm right - it is wholly unpersuasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
The only person who looks like a cop in that picture is the woman. The rest of them look like they are ready to go to a Halloween Party.
It's normal for people to resist change, especially if it's happening thanks to a group of people who were previously or still are a minority, or oppressed, or seen as somehow less than other groups of people.
There was a time when women couldn't vote. When men could legally rape their wives. When men, not women, dominated higher ed. When blacks were enslaved, for God's sake. People resisted - and in some cases still do - all those changes when they were made. I think letting certain religious cops adhere to certain uniform guidelines is not nearly as big a deal as 3 of the other 4 big, super important changes I just mentioned, in the grand scheme of things. Women can vote, and we survived the change. We no longer have slavery, something we fought a damn war over, and we have survived and moved on. It will be fine.
Good for them.... Sikh men often wear beards and turbans as part of their beliefs and traditions.....The RCMP have allowed this for over twenty five years, and that is a good thing....Recently female Muslim officers have been allowed to wear hijabs.....I have no idea why this would threaten you.......One day perhaps the US will catch up to Canada with respect of accepting other cultures and beliefs.
Good for them.... Sikh men often wear beards and turbans as part of their beliefs and traditions.....The RCMP have allowed this for over twenty five years, and that is a good thing....Recently female Muslim officers have been allowed to wear hijabs.....I have no idea why this would threaten you.......One day perhaps the US will catch up to Canada with respect of accepting other cultures and beliefs.
Some parts of the U.S. are catching up faster than other parts, unfortunately.
Evidently not in the NYPD, since they have exceptions for Jews and Sikhs, at the very least. The women's uniforms are different from the men's uniforms, as well.
You're right, Vector's post is another example of a slippery slope fallacy. I'm right - it is wholly unpersuasive.
Now you're simply being intentionally obtuse.
I'd say wait till she needs one of them to save her bigoted ass, but likely such a person would never venture into NYC in the first place.
Some parts of the U.S. are catching up faster than other parts, unfortunately.
Unfortunately?
Gee, golly, Sikhs were OK when they were being parachuted behind Japenese lines as agents to terrorize Japs and report back to U.S. generals on Japanese movements.
Father-in-law flew the "hump" and dropped many of them out of the belly of his B-25 into jungle territory no other ally would set foot into. No one gave a crap what they wore on their heads back then.
They were just fine when they served with distinction during the Africa campaign and other theaters of war all through WWII as your freak'n allies. My father had Sikhs and Ghurkas attached to his armoured division and they were very effective at getting right in amongst the German entrenchments and killing numbers of them without detection to soften them up before an attack.
They have a code of honour no typical fat azzed, donut eater, bribe accepting, NYPD cop would understand.
You people are ineffably stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
