Again, it is simply false that lice treatment is impossible with dreads, only more difficult and requiring a different method of treatment and of verification that the lice are gone.
And again, if it is about treatment, then that only justifies requiring the dreads be cut after lice is detected, not an a priori ban on dreads. Such an a priori ban requires clear evidence that dreads in particular, moreso than all non-banned hairstyles, significantly increases the odds of an infestation within a population.
No such evidence exists, and in fact, the evidence suggests the opposite. Dreads and other hairstyles or natually occurring hair types that do not lend themselves to combing technique of typical lice treatment are far more common among blacks than whites. Yet blacks are the least likely group to experience lice breakouts and whites the most likely group. This is true regardless of country (US or Africa), and the opposite of what is predicted by your theory that such hairstyles increase the odds of lice breakouts.
The fact is that lice grab onto individual strands of hair, and the current scientific theory is that they can better grab onto and flourish within the kind of straight narrow-shaft hair follicles most common among whites and least among blacks. IOW, they flourish in precisely the type of hair that a fine tooth comb could be run through. In fact, combing of hair is one way the lice get transferred to others.
Thus, the clumped together non-individuated follicles of dreads, even among whites, makes a lice infestation less likely to occur, even if that same property makes it harder to treat once it does occur.
So, again, if anything the science supports forcing all people with fine straight hair to keep their hair short, more than it supports banning dreads or other uncombable hairstyles.
Also, why introduce a race issue when none is relevant? Dreds are just as ugly on men, women, blacks, whites, homeless, and rich...
It inherently becomes a race issue because your are selectively targeting hairstyles that are strongly associated with race, despite the science showing that its actually the typical hairstyles of whites that are far more fertile ground for lice breakouts. Non-medical bias is the only explanation for that.
they usually smell bad too, thus the cologne... which also should be banned with all other non-deodorant artificial scents in school (and offices, IMO).
Why only "non-deodorant"? Plenty of supposed deodorants are strong and more unpleasant than the body odor they pretend to mask.
You cannot just arbitrarily ban some artificial scents and not others. Only a ban on all artificial scents, including all scented deodorants could be justifiable. Some standardized, objective criteria would need to be used to determine whether a scent, no matter its marketed purpose surpassed some threshold of impact on others to warrant being disallowed. The loudest objectors to such regulations would be the GOP, and not because they care about personal liberty, but because the bribes they get from the multi-billion dollar scent industry.
I misspoke about "prevention"...I meant to say "proof of elimination". I accept your claim about other hair types being more friendly to infestation... my point has been all along (again, apart from where I misspoke) that the issue is that one cannot ascertain that lice have been killed if a comb cannot be passed through (unless you wait for the eggs to hatch again).
So, again, that would at best only support requiring removal of the dreads prior to allowing readmission of the student to the school, not an a priori ban on dreads, the vast majority of which have no lice and thus your concern is moot.
And again, verification of elimination is a concern only because it impacts the odds that the person still has lice and could infect others. However, people with long, straight, fine hair are also more likely to have lice and infect others prior to being treated. So, requiring that the dreads be cut before readmission has only the same justification as requiring that all people with fine straight hair keep their hair short to reduce their greater odds of getting and transmitting lice in the first place.
OK, I accept "all scented deodorants" to be banned in these institutions as well as the non-deodorant types.
Good luck trying to enforce that. Are you going to install electronic odor detectors to smell everyone as they walk into the building? Or are you going to leave it up to the completely arbitrary discretion of supervisors to impose their own subjective bias about what smells at what level exceed some unspecified threshold of acceptability?
You can't realistically ban all scents or ban selective scents. The only realistic thing can be to have a policy where if multiple complaints from others are made about a person's odor (whether natural or not), that they will be asked to rectify it, and if the the complaints continue, they might be terminated.
Children should not be wearing makeup, jewelry, or "perfume/cologne" in school, in my opinion, and the dreads ban (for all) is a good start.
No, a dread ban is not a good start, if your goal is getting rid of things like makeup, jewelry, or perfume. Your list shows your issue has little to do with health or distracting odors, but with your personal idea of how kids should look. There is no good start toward that goal because its an awful goal and has no place in a free society. For lice, a long hair ban for those with straight fine hair (including girls) would be a "better" start if the goal was actually about reducing lice breakouts. But you don't support that because you don't have a subjective personal bias against females with long straight hair like you do against dreads.
As for any other goals, whatever they are, how is having any kind of styled hairdo (or even just long hair) or any kind of stylish clothing any less a problem than jewelry?
Your bans would be unacceptably arbitrary and biased on your personal taste, unless you basically shave all their heads and make them all (without regard for gender) where the exact same outfit. You know, like little Nazis. In fact, maybe make them all wear the same colored contact lens to ensure no one looks different.
The word "nigger" is banned in most places (socially, if not legally). Yet, the vast majority of people saying the word "nigger" are black people... for fucks sake its every other word out of their mouths when they are talking to each other... as a term of endearment, apparently...
Your experience with black people seems to be limited to rap videos.
anyway, are you opposed to the prohibited because its usage is "primarily black", so its ban is unjust?
Logic fail. First, their are millions of white Americans (and a huge % of Trump supporters) who say nigger way more than many black people do, and they don't mean it as a term of endearment. In fact, the raw number of such whites is greater than the number of blacks who use it, because whites overall outnumber blacks in America about 5 to 1.
So no, it is not a "primarily black" thing. Second, the fact that it is at least "socially" banned is the reason why more whites do not say it and why many of the whites that say it, only do so in the privacy of other bigots. Thus, it makes no sense to claim that its ban is a ban of a primarily black thing, when it isn't a black thing and the ban is the reason why it isn't far more of a white thing.
Finally, I don't support official bans on any word. I personally oppose the use of "nigger" and support social pressure against it, because its use does objective harm to many millions of people. Its objective harm is greater and more direct when used as a racist attack, which is how most whites use it. However, even its use by blacks is destructive and ultimately does indirect harm, even if just by reinforcing racial identity (an inherently harmful thing) and by allowing racist whites and excuse to keep using it. Thus, I support social pressure against anyone using it, because it is harmful.
Dreads are not any more harmful than the hairstyles you don't include on your ban list, so that makes the fact that they are associated with race a concern. When the excuse for a selective ban is objectively invalid, then the association of what is and is not banned with race makes it likely that the real motive is racial. Strong evidence supporting the claimed reason is important to ensure that the racism is not the ulterior motive.
