Private colleges to be asked to rethink the ban against students with tattoos

[Shawn0001]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

Your level of 'interest' has clearly not led to more than a simplistic level of thought on the matter. Do you find it "interesting" that black people wanted equal rights? Did that not do away with the whites "same" right to deny them those rights?

Actually I think exactly that. A person or business should have the right to make whatever choices in their lives that they want. And then live with the consequences. As long as there is no public funding then there should be no laws or intimidation. I do find it “interesting” that you try to equate race with getting a tattoo. The race card has been played too many times for it to be affective.

It was a parallel that any level headed person would understand. Simply put, the perpetrators of prejudice do not deserve the same right of 'choice' as their victims of their prejudism.

You want zero public finding? Back to the feudal days then? There would be plenty of intimidation if there were no laws! Intimidation and brutality would be the law!

Somehow I doubt the "race card" ever played well with you!

[tbthailand]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

Your level of 'interest' has clearly not led to more than a simplistic level of thought on the matter. Do you find it "interesting" that black people wanted equal rights? Did that not do away with the whites "same" right to deny them those rights?

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

it's not cliche, but let's test that...

you explain to us what tattoos have to do with academic ability...

there you go, the floor is all yours...

[ourmanflint]

.....

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

it's not cliche, but let's test that...

you explain to us what tattoos have to do with academic ability...

there you go, the floor is all yours...

tattoos and academic ability are not at question here. Having a tattoo makes you no less academic than someone of a different sex or skin colour. But then that really has nothing to do with what is happening.

They are not saying people with tattoos are not or cannot be as academic as other students, but that those with lots of highly visible tattoos are likely to be disruptive and will lead to a lesser learning experience for other students.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ourmanflint

[Shawn0001]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

Your level of 'interest' has clearly not led to more than a simplistic level of thought on the matter. Do you find it "interesting" that black people wanted equal rights? Did that not do away with the whites "same" right to deny them those rights?

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

The commonly held prejudice against tattoos is one of assumed class, the association of tattoos with activities deemed 'low class', even crime or violence as in this case. Are you saying that you think there is an explicit difference between classism, racism and sexism? If the difference is so easily defined, then please explain.

[ourmanflint]

...

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

The commonly held prejudice against tattoos is one of assumed class, the association of tattoos with activities deemed 'low class', even crime or violence as in this case. Are you saying that you think there is an explicit difference between classism, racism and sexism? If the difference is so easily defined, then please explain.

Really! I have to explain the difference to you? Discriminating against someone because of a facet of their genetic make-up, ie skin colour, sex, disability is not the same as discrimination against someone who makes choices you do not agree with.

The logic of your argument would also allow students to turn up naked, drunk, smoke in class, bring their pet goat or masturbate whenever they want, all are personal choices, and I'm guessing you would defend these choices equally?

Edited August 7, 2015 by ourmanflint

[Mudcrab]

What if you got sick in New York and you were sent to see the "dangerous" Dr. David Ores!

David-Ores.jpg&imageversion=widescreen&maxw=770.jpg

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20131027/HEALTH_CARE/310279999/for-dr-david-ores-tats-not-all-folks

Over the years, Dr. David Ores has covered both his arms and upper back with tattoos. He likes to do the opposite for his patients. Dr. Ores is the founder of Fresh Start, a service that removes tattoos for free from people coming out of prison or leaving gangs. The side gig is just another expression of Dr. Ores' colorful approach to medicine.

........

His tattoo removal focuses on hands and necks—areas that pose big barriers to employment. He's removed about 200 tattoos since 2006, working out of his practice on the Lower East Side, near his home. He would like to do more but his marketing is limited, as was the laser he used, which could remove only certain colors. Five doctors in other states are donating their services, and he's asking tattooed NBA players to spread the word.

"Just the fact that you helped someone can change their perception of the world," he said. "I think that helps them know it's not so bleak."

Dr. Ores is the founder of Fresh Start, a service that removes tattoos for free from people coming out of prison or leaving gangs.

Hmmmmm...all good law abiding tattooed people.

Apparently.

[mikemac]

.....

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

it's not cliche, but let's test that...

you explain to us what tattoos have to do with academic ability...

there you go, the floor is all yours...

tattoos and academic ability are not at question here. Having a tattoo makes you no less academic than someone of a different sex or skin colour. But then that really has nothing to do with what is happening.

They are not saying people with tattoos are not or cannot be as academic as other students, but that those with lots of highly visible tattoos are likely to be disruptive and will lead to a lesser learning experience for other students.

......................"But then that really has nothing to do with what is happening.".........................

Exactly, ourmanflint, but don't hold your breath trying to convince them of that.

There are people on this forum who will do just what you said, use improperly thought out arguments, fall back on old cliches, and use the argument of the dimwitted.

[Shawn0001]

...

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

The commonly held prejudice against tattoos is one of assumed class, the association of tattoos with activities deemed 'low class', even crime or violence as in this case. Are you saying that you think there is an explicit difference between classism, racism and sexism? If the difference is so easily defined, then please explain.

Really! I have to explain the difference to you? Discriminating against someone because of a facet of their genetic make-up, ie skin colour, sex, disability is not the same as discrimination against someone who makes choices you do not agree with.

The logic of your argument would also allow students to turn up naked, drunk, smoke in class, bring their pet goat or masturbate whenever they want, all are personal choices, and I'm guessing you would defend these choices equally?

What a poorly thought out response, perhaps take a little longer to think about it. All of the other scenarios you give could give others a genuine inconvenience therefor it is not prejudiced to exclude these activities, besides turning up naked of course, which I would support anyway, and why not?

By the way, the explicit similarity which you appear unable to grasp, is that all of these prejudices, racism, sexism and classism, involve an assumed inherent difference between the people other than their race, sex or in this case, tattoo. An inherent difference is just not actually there and so it is prejudiced to assume that there would be, get it now? And I'm surprised I have to explain this but there you go, I must be on TV.

[Lupatria]

For a small handout you will always find a monk or abbot stating your SS runes next to the swastika are religious tattoos.

[ourmanflint]

...

Really! I have to explain the difference to you? Discriminating against someone because of a facet of their genetic make-up, ie skin colour, sex, disability is not the same as discrimination against someone who makes choices you do not agree with.

The logic of your argument would also allow students to turn up naked, drunk, smoke in class, bring their pet goat or masturbate whenever they want, all are personal choices, and I'm guessing you would defend these choices equally?

What a poorly thought out response, perhaps take a little longer to think about it. All of the other scenarios you give could give others a genuine inconvenience therefor it is not prejudiced to exclude these activities, besides turning up naked of course, which I would support anyway, and why not?

By the way, the explicit similarity which you appear unable to grasp, is that all of these prejudices, racism, sexism and classism, involve an assumed inherent difference between the people other than their race, sex or in this case, tattoo. An inherent difference is just not actually there and so it is prejudiced to assume that there would be, get it now? And I'm surprised I have to explain this but there you go, I must be on TV.

First of all having tattoos is not related to class discrimination, it just is not. And secondly you might say that being a free masturbator or an alcoholic is not the same as they are "genuine inconveniences", but that just goes to prove that there are somethings that we all agree to be disruptive, but try telling that to the alcoholic or monkey basher, and they would think you are just being a fascist for not letting them do what they want as in their opinion it is not harming anyone.

Edited August 7, 2015 by ourmanflint

[tbthailand]

.....

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

it's not cliche, but let's test that...

you explain to us what tattoos have to do with academic ability...

there you go, the floor is all yours...

tattoos and academic ability are not at question here. Having a tattoo makes you no less academic than someone of a different sex or skin colour. But then that really has nothing to do with what is happening.

They are not saying people with tattoos are not or cannot be as academic as other students, but that those with lots of highly visible tattoos are likely to be disruptive and will lead to a lesser learning experience for other students.

right, in other words, the schools are discriminating based on how the students look.

It's total nonsense.

[casualbiker]

.....

people who discriminate like to discriminate against people "not like us"...

Skin color, sex, tattoos... it's all based on prejudices and in this case, prejudices that have ZERO to do with getting an education.

No, no, no... disliking tattoos is not in any way the same as racism or sexism. If you have a properly thought out argument tell us, just don't fall back on old cliches, that really have nothing to do with this. It is the argument of the dim witted, and I didn't take you for that.

it's not cliche, but let's test that...

you explain to us what tattoos have to do with academic ability...

there you go, the floor is all yours...

tattoos and academic ability are not at question here. Having a tattoo makes you no less academic than someone of a different sex or skin colour. But then that really has nothing to do with what is happening.

They are not saying people with tattoos are not or cannot be as academic as other students, but that those with lots of highly visible tattoos are likely to be disruptive and will lead to a lesser learning experience for other students.

right, in other words, the schools are discriminating based on how the students look.

It's total nonsense.

Schools do it all over the world in their uniform regulations for example. These are private technical colleges. If they don't want students with visible tattoos it's entirely up to them, or at least it should be!

[Docno]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

The distinction is quite simple.

Tattoos harm no-one.

Discrimination does harm.

Period.

[Shawn0001]

...

Really! I have to explain the difference to you? Discriminating against someone because of a facet of their genetic make-up, ie skin colour, sex, disability is not the same as discrimination against someone who makes choices you do not agree with.

The logic of your argument would also allow students to turn up naked, drunk, smoke in class, bring their pet goat or masturbate whenever they want, all are personal choices, and I'm guessing you would defend these choices equally?

What a poorly thought out response, perhaps take a little longer to think about it. All of the other scenarios you give could give others a genuine inconvenience therefor it is not prejudiced to exclude these activities, besides turning up naked of course, which I would support anyway, and why not?

By the way, the explicit similarity which you appear unable to grasp, is that all of these prejudices, racism, sexism and classism, involve an assumed inherent difference between the people other than their race, sex or in this case, tattoo. An inherent difference is just not actually there and so it is prejudiced to assume that there would be, get it now? And I'm surprised I have to explain this but there you go, I must be on TV.

First of all having tattoos is not related to class discrimination, it just is not. And secondly you might say that being a free masturbator or an alcoholic is not the same as they are "genuine inconveniences", but that just goes to prove that there are somethings that we all agree to be disruptive, but try telling that to the alcoholic or monkey basher, and they would think you are just being a fascist for not letting them do what they want as in their opinion it is not harming anyone.

If someone believes that a visible tattoo makes someone look low class then it becomes entwined within classism. As it is a fact that many people associate tattoos with low class people, it is clear you are talking nonsense. Peoples prejudice of tattoos may not always be classist in origin, but it certainly sometimes is. If there is a belief in the mind of the discriminator that those with tattoos are more likely to take part in anti social activity, such as the reason given by these colleges, then that would be also be linked to classism, as many people do associate anti-social behavior with low class people, in fact many people differentiate between classes purely by behavior. As the Buddha said, "By your deeds alone you are a Brahmin." It is certainly the feeling of many Buddhists that bad behavior is low class.

It doesn't matter what is in the mind of an alcoholic or public masturbator, they actually do cause a genuine inconvenience to others, the colour of someones skin, whether through genetics or through tattooing does not actually inconvenience others at all, so they should just get over their prejudice instead of inconveniencing the person with the different skin. Is that clear enough?

[Shawn0001]

Schools do it all over the world in their uniform regulations for example. These are private technical colleges. If they don't want students with visible tattoos it's entirely up to them, or at least it should be!

Considering the reason that the colleges seek to ban those with tattoos, that they link these to anti-social behavior, I find your comment ironic.

School uniforms originated in a time when only rich people went to school, the uniforms were made of sack cloth, with the purpose of appearing very lowly despite the students being of the landed classes. This was seen as a humbling experience for the students and with a purpose to make a more inclusive society.

[casualbiker]

...

Really! I have to explain the difference to you? Discriminating against someone because of a facet of their genetic make-up, ie skin colour, sex, disability is not the same as discrimination against someone who makes choices you do not agree with.

The logic of your argument would also allow students to turn up naked, drunk, smoke in class, bring their pet goat or masturbate whenever they want, all are personal choices, and I'm guessing you would defend these choices equally?

What a poorly thought out response, perhaps take a little longer to think about it. All of the other scenarios you give could give others a genuine inconvenience therefor it is not prejudiced to exclude these activities, besides turning up naked of course, which I would support anyway, and why not?

By the way, the explicit similarity which you appear unable to grasp, is that all of these prejudices, racism, sexism and classism, involve an assumed inherent difference between the people other than their race, sex or in this case, tattoo. An inherent difference is just not actually there and so it is prejudiced to assume that there would be, get it now? And I'm surprised I have to explain this but there you go, I must be on TV.

First of all having tattoos is not related to class discrimination, it just is not. And secondly you might say that being a free masturbator or an alcoholic is not the same as they are "genuine inconveniences", but that just goes to prove that there are somethings that we all agree to be disruptive, but try telling that to the alcoholic or monkey basher, and they would think you are just being a fascist for not letting them do what they want as in their opinion it is not harming anyone.

If someone believes that a visible tattoo makes someone look low class then it becomes entwined within classism. As it is a fact that many people associate tattoos with low class people, it is clear you are talking nonsense. Peoples prejudice of tattoos may not always be classist in origin, but it certainly sometimes is. If there is a belief in the mind of the discriminator that those with tattoos are more likely to take part in anti social activity, such as the reason given by these colleges, then that would be also be linked to classism, as many people do associate anti-social behavior with low class people, in fact many people differentiate between classes purely by behavior. As the Buddha said, "By your deeds alone you are a Brahmin." It is certainly the feeling of many Buddhists that bad behavior is low class.

It doesn't matter what is in the mind of an alcoholic or public masturbator, they actually do cause a genuine inconvenience to others, the colour of someones skin, whether through genetics or through tattooing does not actually inconvenience others at all, so they should just get over their prejudice instead of inconveniencing the person with the different skin. Is that clear enough?

Personally I just believe people who tattoo excessively like the two " scholars " you depicted have a screw loose!

In Thailand amongst the younger generation those with visual tattoos and big ear ear piercings who attend technical college tend to be bad apples. Private colleges don't want them, public colleges don't want them (but will take them) Why, because generally they cause trouble!

In a way the colleges are actually looking out for the youth of Thailand by discouraging excessive tattooing and piercing until the students (16-20) have finished their technical education and get a job.

[casualbiker]

Schools do it all over the world in their uniform regulations for example. These are private technical colleges. If they don't want students with visible tattoos it's entirely up to them, or at least it should be!

Considering the reason that the colleges seek to ban those with tattoos, that they link these to anti-social behavior, I find your comment ironic.

School uniforms originated in a time when only rich people went to school, the uniforms were made of sack cloth, with the purpose of appearing very lowly despite the students being of the landed classes. This was seen as a humbling experience for the students and with a purpose to make a more inclusive society.

And yet now school uniforms can classify the opposite. It can show class distinction, talk about the current century not years gone by!

[sagittarius6999]

A lot of stuff to answer here.

Any private institution or employer should be able to decide who they want to work with, even , race, colour, sexual orientation or tattoos. If someone is providing a job or service, it costs them money to do do so and therefore it should be their decision whom they want. No one forces , blacks, or gay people discriminate against white or homaphobic people so why should organisations not be able to discrininate,

This site obviously has a big tattoo fan base, considering the outcry at banning tatted students, I believe as some earlier posters, there is something lacking mentally for someone to adorn large parts of there body, especially visually obvious ones and 90% of doing so when young seriously regret it in later years.

A matter of fact, no matter how many people can be named as tattoo wearers who are decent people, the fact remains most low lifes and criminals do have them, so the schools are right to ban students with them. If you are say an employer, there are many things you make a judgement on. education, previous experience, personal appearance, communication skills etc etc and I will guarantee that having tattoos up your neck and on your arms will alomost cetainly put you at the bottom of the likely candidates, unless you are looking for a job as a bouncer.

Let me see now, how many CEO's companies, leaders of industry and politicians have them, eeeerr non

[lovetotravel]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

The distinction is quite simple.

Tattoos harm no-one.

Discrimination does harm.

Period.

It is discrimination. Happens all the time, unfortunately. And as the good doctor said, visible tats reduce a persons chance for getting a job. That is a fact and it's undeniable. Not having visible tats/large ear rings is in these underage students best interest. What they do after their graduation is up to them!

[Shawn0001]

Schools do it all over the world in their uniform regulations for example. These are private technical colleges. If they don't want students with visible tattoos it's entirely up to them, or at least it should be!

Considering the reason that the colleges seek to ban those with tattoos, that they link these to anti-social behavior, I find your comment ironic.

School uniforms originated in a time when only rich people went to school, the uniforms were made of sack cloth, with the purpose of appearing very lowly despite the students being of the landed classes. This was seen as a humbling experience for the students and with a purpose to make a more inclusive society.

And yet now school uniforms can classify the opposite. It can show class distinction, talk about the current century not years gone by!

Ok, in state schooling, uniforms are used to encourage integration between students from all economic backgrounds, again the uniform is about inclusion.

[Shawn0001]

A lot of stuff to answer here. Any private institution or employer should be able to decide who they want to work with, even , race, colour, sexual orientation or tattoos. If someone is providing a job or service, it costs them money to do do so and therefore it should be their decision whom they want. No one forces , blacks, or gay people discriminate against white or homaphobic people so why should organisations not be able to discrininate, This site obviously has a big tattoo fan base, considering the outcry at banning tatted students, I believe as some earlier posters, there is something lacking mentally for someone to adorn large parts of there body, especially visually obvious ones and 90% of doing so when young seriously regret it in later years. A matter of fact, no matter how many people can be named as tattoo wearers who are decent people, the fact remains most low lifes and criminals do have them, so the schools are right to ban students with them. If you are say an employer, there are many things you make a judgement on. education, previous experience, personal appearance, communication skills etc etc and I will guarantee that having tattoos up your neck and on your arms will alomost cetainly put you at the bottom of the likely candidates, unless you are looking for a job as a bouncer. Let me see now, how many CEO's companies, leaders of industry and politicians have them, eeeerr non

"No one forces , blacks, or gay people discriminate against white or homaphobic people"

Sorry, what? You mean to say that no one forces black people not to discriminate against white people? Well, in many countries they certainly do, Thailand included, racial discrimination is clearly banned by the constitution.

But what are you saying about gay people and homophobes? That gays are not forced to employ homophobic people? Is that really what you wanted to write?

"This site obviously has a big tattoo fan base" I do not have or want tattoos, I am a big fan of freedom, thanks.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Shawn0001

[Shawn0001]

Personally I just believe people who tattoo excessively like the two " scholars " you depicted have a screw loose!

In Thailand amongst the younger generation those with visual tattoos and big ear ear piercings who attend technical college tend to be bad apples. Private colleges don't want them, public colleges don't want them (but will take them) Why, because generally they cause trouble!

In a way the colleges are actually looking out for the youth of Thailand by discouraging excessive tattooing and piercing until the students (16-20) have finished their technical education and get a job.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that people who genuinely believe that there is an inherent difference between people with and without "excessive" tattoos have a screw permanently missing! I believe in individuality and abhor generalizations made on peoples appearance, my beliefs, thanks.

[lovetotravel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/tattoos-hired-job-chances-study_n_3873425.html

That body art of yours better be getting you some good attention on the street, because it's certainly not helping you get a new job anytime soon.

Yes, visible tattoos still carry a negative connotation among employers and could be hurting your chances of getting hired, according to a new study by Dr. Andrew Timming of St. Andrew's University School of Management in Scotland.

.............

Surveyed employers said visible tattoos can "make a person look dirty" and "would stop me from employing them," according to Management Issues. Distaste for the tattoos seemed to stem not so much from the employers themselves but from their fear of how other customers might react.

"Respondents expressed concern that visibly tattooed workers may be perceived by customers to be 'abhorrent', 'repugnant', 'unsavoury' and 'untidy'." Dr. Timming said. "It was surmised that customers might project a negative service experience based on stereotypes that tattooed people are thugs and druggies."

To be honest, I could care less. A whole bunch of my friends have tats. None have large ear rings. I just don't care. But I'm not an employer!

[sagittarius6999]

Too Shawn 0001 , re-jigged the piece and missed some out,the bit about, "no one forces" should have deleted, to read that "blacks and gays discriminate against, whites and homaphobes" .

discrimination works both ways,not just theway people would like it.

Everybody discriminates every day of their life, whether it be to have peas or carrots for dinner or if you should walk on the other side of the street as you dont like the look of those tatted black guys approaching you.

To you heavily tatted people, what do you think having them says about yourself?

[tbthailand]

A lot of stuff to answer here. Any private institution or employer should be able to decide who they want to work with, even , race, colour, sexual orientation or tattoos. If someone is providing a job or service, it costs them money to do do so and therefore it should be their decision whom they want. No one forces , blacks, or gay people discriminate against white or homaphobic people so why should organisations not be able to discrininate, This site obviously has a big tattoo fan base, considering the outcry at banning tatted students, I believe as some earlier posters, there is something lacking mentally for someone to adorn large parts of there body, especially visually obvious ones and 90% of doing so when young seriously regret it in later years. A matter of fact, no matter how many people can be named as tattoo wearers who are decent people, the fact remains most low lifes and criminals do have them, so the schools are right to ban students with them. If you are say an employer, there are many things you make a judgement on. education, previous experience, personal appearance, communication skills etc etc and I will guarantee that having tattoos up your neck and on your arms will alomost cetainly put you at the bottom of the likely candidates, unless you are looking for a job as a bouncer. Let me see now, how many CEO's companies, leaders of industry and politicians have them, eeeerr non

"No one forces , blacks, or gay people discriminate against white or homaphobic people"

Sorry, what? You mean to say that no one forces black people not to discriminate against white people? Well, in many countries they certainly do, Thailand included, racial discrimination is clearly banned by the constitution.

But what are you saying about gay people and homophobes? That gays are not forced to employ homophobic people? Is that really what you wanted to write?

"This site obviously has a big tattoo fan base" I do not have or want tattoos, I am a big fan of freedom, thanks.

I don't have any tattoos either. I don't generally find them attractive on people, even extremely artistic and well done tattoos. Nor do I have any body piercings.... But I am tolerant of everything except intolerance. And I believe that education is a fundamental right of every person.

Moreover, the justification given on this forum is that people with piercings and tattoos are more likely to cause trouble is completely unsupported. It is nothing more than an unjustifiable personal prejudice ... same with the administrators who dreamed up this "rule" in the first place.

As Docno said, tattoos hurt no one, prejudice does.

[Shawn0001]

Too Shawn 0001 , re-jigged the piece and missed some out,the bit about, "no one forces" should have deleted, to read that "blacks and gays discriminate against, whites and homaphobes" . discrimination works both ways,not just theway people would like it. Everybody discriminates every day of their life, whether it be to have peas or carrots for dinner or if you should walk on the other side of the street as you dont like the look of those tatted black guys approaching you. To you heavily tatted people, what do you think having them says about yourself?

Oh, so you feel that gays discriminate against homophobes? OK, that makes perfect sense!

What you neglect to consider is that the persecuted cannot be accused of discrimination against the persecutor, for that is not discrimination, that is fighting for their right to not be persecuted. I already made clear that black people are living under the same discrimination laws as white people. You do hear the odd white racist complaining that black people are racist but they are a dying breed of old folk who miss the "good ole days" when they could go a lynchn', they are really not to be listened to.

There is no case of discrimination for vegetables, that is the kind of lunacy you could only hear on Fox! Walking on the other side of the street is, but I don't judge people, and I never cross the road out of fear. All you are actually confirming is that there are many prejudiced people and that you accept that, I do not, and I do not want education facilities to enforce their stereotypes, prejudices and fears onto others.

[englishoak]

Well its not like a student gets value for money out of any private school in Thailand, much better and often costs less to send the student overseas for better education anyway.

Place is a joke for education and always will be when monkeys like this are allowed positions to make decision.

Id say the danger to education of most students here is .... The Thai education system, period.

Edited August 7, 2015 by englishoak

[Shawn0001]

Well its not like a student gets value for money out of any private school in Thailand, much better and often costs less to send the student overseas for better education anyway.

Place is a joke for education and always will be when monkeys like this are allowed positions to make decision.

Id say the danger to education of most students here is .... The Thai education system, period.

Well, to be fair, there are some decent schools using foreign curriculum's, and there are some decent courses at the leading universities. For instance, pharmacology is doing pretty well in Thailand.

By in large the system is broken, but I'm not sure if it would be 'better value' to send abroad rather than just pay for a very good school here if you can afford it. For example, Harrow in Bangkok costs 14,000 pounds per year, whereas Harrow in the UK costs 36,000. Bangkok's Harrow sees students into top universities throughout the world, although perhaps not at the success rate of Harrow UK, not really sure.

[sagittarius6999]

I find it interesting that so many people, under the argument of "it's their right", for people to have tattoos, but don't give private intities the same "rights" to choose who they allow in.

Normally, entrance criteria to an educational institution are based on academics, not on looks....

[cookee68]

If these colleges think like this, then why bother going there, it shows what sort of education you will get, an un-educated one, so i take it all the pollititions and mayors have tattoos and earrings too, as they are crooks and thugs