Cindy Sheehan Arrested For Wearing T-Shirt

[Glocksman]

I may have missed this somewhere, but did Cindy Sheehan resist a request to leave and did the congressman's wife acquiesce?

According to CNN, that's what happened.

[SirNitram]

My position is that formal wear is subjective; I remind you what was considered formal wear a mere few hundred years ago.

Clearly standards of dress are subjective. This does not mean that anything goes in events with established dress codes.

So we're back at the original question: Is there a dress code? Is it clearly stated on invites? For all that she may be a spectacle, we are talking about a woman whose probably not accustomed to banquets and the like.

I also feel that anyone whose going to say 'They're a sloppy idiot' because they wear a t-shirt is an idiot, unless the t-shirt shows signs of actually demonstrating those attitudes; stains, wear and tear, et cetera.

I disagree in cases like this. Wearing a t-shirt to a wedding or a funeral (for instance) does establish something of your attitude towards the precedings, and realistically no one is going to go to a formal event wearing a t-shirt without understanding that this is in and of itself making a statement about how they view the event. Whether or not it's reasonable, people do make judgements of others based on their adherence to societal dress codes--the preponderance of retarded fashion shows that follow around stars on red carpets, and the popularity of Kentucky Derby hats is ample evidence of this.

We return to the question of 'Is the invitation clearly marked that it's formalwear?' I'm guessing not, since a GOP Congressman's wife came in a T-shirt. This complicates matters.

Incidentally, I never said people won't make judgements on all kinds of fashion. I said those people are idiots. The citations you list(Fashion shows, red carpets, and the evil that is the Derby) only support my position.

[Master of Ossus]

Whether they bother with combing their hair or brushing their teeth or washing their clothes shows insight into them personally.

Brushing one's teeth is actual a health issue, as is washing one's clothes. Not combing your hair, though, is not a health concern. So why does that one show insight into someone's character if the manner in which they dress does not?

The value of the imposed dress codes and concepts of fomal vs. informal clothing however is still lacking.

Whether or not I find something valuable is a judgement exercise and will be different from person to person. Society, though, does expect people who go to an opera to wear a tuxedo or similar and would react negatively if someone wore a t-shirt. Maybe it sucks, but it's the way that society is.

[SirNitram]

Grooming Habits != wearing a t-shirt. If my hair looks like shit, if my clothes are stained, if my nails are jagged, if I've got five o'clock shave at 7AM.. Those are grooming and signs of character.

What's the difference? Not shaving very often, or even not combing one's hair, presents no appreciable health risks, and are only faux pas because of social standards... just like wearing a t-shirt to a formal event is a faux pas because of social standards.

I'll pass over the 'The standards are idiotic' as we both wound up getting to that point in the other set of replies(Red carpet, etc).

The difference between looking unkempt and showing up in a t-shirt is that one shows you really are lazy, and the other is a shallow, silly stereotype. Indeed, someone above mentioned t-shirts reek of 'laziness'.. So why do folks who work manual labour so often in them? That would imply the opposite, to my mind(Not gonna get into the logical connection that comes to that particular linking, t-shirt = Low class).

In short, yes, society attaches values to these. I just assert they're fuckin' dumb ones, and question whether there's any evidence anyone was warned they'd be thrown out for a t-shirt, regardless of the content.

[Master of Ossus]

Incidentally, I never said people won't make judgements on all kinds of fashion. I said those people are idiots. The citations you list(Fashion shows, red carpets, and the evil that is the Derby) only support my position.

I agree that they're morons for watching such vacuous programming, but regardless of whether or not they're morons they still represent part of society, and they demonstrate that what you wear does in fact show something about your personality (if only by demonstrating that you are a non-conformist). To reject the premise that what you wear does provide information about you to others makes little sense to me.

[Gaidin]

I may have missed this somewhere, but did Cindy Sheehan resist a request to leave and did the congressman's wife acquiesce?

According to CNN, that's what happened.

So, theoretically, given the Constitution clearly states that congress makes the rules for events at the capitol...no matter how...mundane(at least I've heard of no precedent holding them to a standard and I'm no law student and would have no clue where to look) the reason, they can ask you to leave.

And theoretically, in this, they function like hte management of a movie theatre. Granted congress is so split down the middle that I don't see all of them agreeing on this, but thats not the point of my question.

The management thing is just an analogy, so please don't run off with it.

My question is if the management can't get the person to leave, aren't the police supposed to see that the person leaves as quickly and efficiently as possible so as not to disturb the proceedings? If this involves an arrest(at least I don't know if they're allowed to cuff unruly people otherwise...arms flailing about as they try to escort them out is...not good for efficiency), then so be it?

[Keevan_Colton]

Whether they bother with combing their hair or brushing their teeth or washing their clothes shows insight into them personally.

Brushing one's teeth is actual a health issue, as is washing one's clothes. Not combing your hair, though, is not a health concern. So why does that one show insight into someone's character if the manner in which they dress does not?

I was more thinking of hair grooming in general since there's such fun things as lice etc you'll find out about pretty quick when brushing. Frankly, I really find that grooming only matters objectively in terms of the health implications, and those are really what ought to be considered for "dress codes"...are you clean and fresh...since smell is certainly an issue as is catching something, be it disease or parasite.

The value of the imposed dress codes and concepts of fomal vs. informal clothing however is still lacking.

Whether or not I find something valuable is a judgement exercise and will be different from person to person. Society, though, does expect people who go to an opera to wear a tuxedo or similar and would react negatively if someone wore a t-shirt. Maybe it sucks, but it's the way that society is.

Yes, though my take on it is that it shows more about the inherent stupidity of humans when grouped together...I wont argue with you that society expects it, I will argue whether society on the whole is fucking stupid in relation to such matters.

[Keevan_Colton]

To reject the premise that what you wear does provide information about you to others makes little sense to me.

The only really definitive information it can provide about you is that you are wearing those clothes at that time. People can try and draw inferences from that information to other things, but those, as we've already agreed, are generally shit.

[Master of Ossus]

I'll pass over the 'The standards are idiotic' as we both wound up getting to that point in the other set of replies(Red carpet, etc).

The difference between looking unkempt and showing up in a t-shirt is that one shows you really are lazy, and the other is a shallow, silly stereotype. Indeed, someone above mentioned t-shirts reek of 'laziness'.. So why do folks who work manual labour so often in them? That would imply the opposite, to my mind(Not gonna get into the logical connection that comes to that particular linking, t-shirt = Low class).

I will amend the original comment to "wearing a t-shirt to a formal event reeks of laziness," which even the most figuratively blue collar (pun intended) people agree with (yes, even manual laborers dress up to go to church). There are practicality issues that affect what people wear, and what is considered appropriate attire for social functions--such matters are taken into account by society when standards of dress are established, and partially explain the changes in standards of dress over time. This, though, does not invalidate the point that people do gather information from what others wear.

In short, yes, society attaches values to these. I just assert they're fuckin' dumb ones, and question whether there's any evidence anyone was warned they'd be thrown out for a t-shirt, regardless of the content.

You can agree with the standards or not, but in the end it doesn't especially matter. As to the question of whether they were warned ahead of time, from what I understand of the event Ms. Sheehan was asked to cover up/remove the t-shirt and refused. I don't think that's grounds for arrest, but I can easily see someone being asked to leave because of something like that.

[Master of Ossus]

To reject the premise that what you wear does provide information about you to others makes little sense to me.

The only really definitive information it can provide about you is that you are wearing those clothes at that time. People can try and draw inferences from that information to other things, but those, as we've already agreed, are generally shit.

Okay, I have to get some work done and I'll try to be back tomorrow evening.

Let me say, though, that this is bullshit. If I wear a Patrick Marleau sweater to a Mighty Ducks game, people would be perfectly reasonable in drawing the conclusion that I am a Sharks fan. If some young lawyer wears an expensive suit, people are reasonable in their assessment that this guy believes his future earnings will be very high. There is actually valuable information in personal atire, and while I won't defend ALL of society's judgements regarding dress codes I will say that what people wear in fact conveys information about their personalities.

[Elfdart]

Excuse me, but don't we have a similar rule here regarding sigs? I can't have a sig that says, "PRO-CHOICE POSTERS ON THIS BOARD ARE BABY KILLING MOTHERFUCKERS" and then go post on "Pure Star Wars" and act like I'm not demonstrating an opinion. Now, how would this be similar to the Sheehan case? Why, if I told one of the mods warning me about sigs like this to "fuck off, I ain't changing it!!" I see no difference.

Why are so many people ignoring the fact Sheehan refused to compy with covering up her shirt as the reason why she was arrested?

Because the court ruled that the Capitol Police have no say in what kind of T-shirts people can wear. The ruling is clear: Congress can pass rules and restrictions on dress and conduct, but only those that prevent Congress from being disrupted.

[jegs2]

I have respect for my country's institutions; when Bush is gone I don't want to see the State of the Union becoming the traditional spot for asswipes to get their message out.

I'm tempted to sig that.

[Plekhanov]

T-Shirts aren't formal becaus they're essentially a cheap form of clothing intended for relaxation, physical work, or as underwear. They convey an attitude of unconcern.

Bullshit t-shirts can be perfectly smart especially on women and because unlike you I can actually back up my statements here's proof:



Unless of course you think the woman recently voted by listeners of radio 4 as the 10th most influential person in Britain is “conveying an attitude of unconcern” in this headshot on her organisations web site.

[jegs2]

Unless of course you think the woman recently voted by listeners of radio 4 as the 10th most influential person in Britain is “conveying an attitude of unconcern” in this headshot on her organisations web site.

If her t-shirt clearly conveyed something inflamatory, completely changing the tone indicated in the photograph, I'd say it might.

[SVPD]

T-Shirts aren't formal becaus they're essentially a cheap form of clothing intended for relaxation, physical work, or as underwear. They convey an attitude of unconcern.

Bullshit t-shirts can be perfectly smart especially on women and because unlike you I can actually back up my statements here's proof:



Unless of course you think the woman recently voted by listeners of radio 4 as the 10th most influential person in Britain is “conveying an attitude of unconcern” in this headshot on her organisations web site.

A) That could be a regular shirt with a V-neck style collar
B) She's wearing it in combination with a more sophisticated jacket

I didn't think I needed to explain that it was "a T-Shirt as the sole upper body garment other than coats removed when indoors" but apparently I need to make that clear for the comprehension-impaired.

[SVPD]

No, you perceive an attitude of unconcern. Your personal perceptions do not amount for shit.

And so does anyone else with half a fucking brain. T-Shirts are functional clothing (Substance, maybe you remember that?) They're designed to be light, unconstraining, and not much else. They're designed to be worn in situations where appearance is not a concern. Society has established this as a norm.

That you hallucinate speeches onto clothing does not mean they are there, you ignorant peice of crap.

Ahhh, so in other words if you just ignore that fact that people wear certain pieces of clothing for certain reasons and call it hallucination it'll go away? You're trying to refute my argument with the "They're not there because I don't acknowledge them" line? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Go on, throw another strawman fallacy out, kid. See what happens. Please, it'd get this pathetic argument of yours in the place where it belongs. Or you could try growing up.[/] But I'm doubting that.

Maybe you'd like to explain how that's a strawman? You're the one claiming that clothing is style over substance. By that logic, nudity is also style, since it's just another form of dress, i.e. none. Or maybe just a thong; that'd do nicely. Furthermore, I see you've decided argumentum ad bacculum is an acceptable form of attack.

argumentum ad bacculum

'But he was wrong first' I don't give a shit, you ignorant retard.

Oh, so you don't give a shit if he's wrong, but you're going to be all up in my ass when you think I'm wrong? You hypocritical little fuck, you were the one bellyaching about level playing fields.

You are the one who said 'I don't have to prove anything, prove your opinion'.

A) He stated it as fact, not opinion:

Pretty much, you've decided to define t-shirts as unpresentable...what if it had been printed on a cummerbund, would that have been better?

What is inherently unpresentable about a t-shirt?

Formal dress codes are frankly one of the stupidest concepts it's been my misfortune to ever encounter.

and didn't qualify it as opinion until AFTER you started your screaming ranting hissy fit. You started yelling and screaming about how I thought I didn't have to prove my opinion and he did have to prove his BEFORE he qualified his statement as opinion. Up until then I was demanding that he show something he was stating without qualifiying it as opinion.

B) He continued to demand proof and justification after I'd requalified it as an opinion.

Read the fucking thread in order before you get your hormones in an uproar, you immature retard.

You are the one who hallucinates that T-shirts are informal in order to declare them not formal wear.

Apparently the rest of society (as Master of Ossus pointed out) is also hallucinating since it also disagrees with you.

Let's look up the word "formal" shall we?

formal

adj 1: being in accord with established forms and conventions and requirements (as e.g. of formal dress); "pay one's formal respects"; "formal dress"; "a formal ball"; "the requirement was only formal and often ignored"; "a formal education" [ant: informal] 2: characteristic of or befitting a person in authority; "formal duties"; "an official banquet" 3: (of spoken and written language) adhering to traditional standards of correctness and without casual, contracted, and colloquial forms; "the paper was written in formal English" [ant: informal] 4: represented in simplified or symbolic form [syn: conventional, schematic] 5: logically deductive; "formal proof" 6: refined or imposing in manner or appearance; befitting a royal court; "a courtly gentleman" [syn: courtly, elegant, stately]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

If you think a T-Shirt is refined or imposing, you need your eyes examined.

You are the one who thinks style over substance doesn't apply when it comes to messages you project.

And you are the one manipulating fallacies that don't apply so you can make your stupid arguments appear strong.

Now justify your blatant stupidity and fallacies against me, kid.

Here's a better idea: stop inventing fallacies. Here's a better idea: stop fabricating rules that only apply to me, and stop fabricating claims I supposedly made that he needed to prove his opinion after he qualified it as such.

[weemadando]

Just so I understand:

She come in wearing something covering the T-shirt.

She sits down, takes teh over-coat (or whatever) off exposing the allegedly inflammatory T-shirt.

Someone has a shit fit and the police ask her to leave.

She ignores the police and is arrested.


Just wondering, if that is the correct series of events, why the fuck did no one at any time ask her to cover the T-shirt with the coat or whatever she was wearing over it in the first place?

[SirNitram]

[Here's a better idea: stop inventing fallacies. Here's a better idea: stop fabricating rules that only apply to me, and stop fabricating claims I supposedly made that he needed to prove his opinion after he qualified it as such.

Oh look, the whiny little shithead has decided he's going to tough it out and declare I'm 'inventing' fallacies. You turn 'Clothes don't make statements' into 'It's perfectly okay to stand around naked!!!!!', you screech and whine about style over and over and over. You further bullshit and claim Keevan stated his opinion was fact, and use a quote where he never once uses the word.

You're a fucking liar. And to top it off, you claim I'm threatening you to win the argument. No, you fucking dumbass. I was taunting your idiotic ass to keep strawmanning and lying. And look, you did. You even accuse me of 'manipulating' fallacies by understanding the logic behind them.

[weemadando]

Just so I understand:

She come in wearing something covering the T-shirt.

She sits down, takes teh over-coat (or whatever) off exposing the allegedly inflammatory T-shirt.

Someone has a shit fit and the police ask her to leave.

She ignores the police and is arrested.


Just wondering, if that is the correct series of events, why the fuck did no one at any time ask her to cover the T-shirt with the coat or whatever she was wearing over it in the first place?

[weemadando]

Err? Mod? How the fuck did that happen?

[jegs2]

Story:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Call it the tale of two different shirts worn by two very different women: a well-known peace activist who has agitated the White House and a lawmaker's wife who has staunchly supported the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan wore a shirt with the message, "2,245 Dead. How many more?" -- a reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq.

Beverly Young, the wife of 18-term Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Young of Florida, wore a shirt that read, "Support the Troops."

Both women's shirts resulted in their owners being ejected from the House chamber before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Sheehan, an invited guest of Democrat Lynn Woolsey, was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail, U.S. Capitol Police said.

"She was asked to cover it up. She did not," said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman.

Young was asked to leave, but was not arrested.

House rules bar demonstrations in the galleries.

[SirNitram]

Just wondering, if that is the correct series of events, why the fuck did no one at any time ask her to cover the T-shirt with the coat or whatever she was wearing over it in the first place?

The police say they did. Those on her side claim otherwise. There's one big whiff of BS that makes me think the police are lying. Can you guess it?

A congressman's wife was not told to 'cover up' her t-shirt, but was shown the door.

[SVPD]

[Oh look, the whiny little shithead has decided he's going to tough it out and declare I'm 'inventing' fallacies. You turn 'Clothes don't make statements' into 'It's perfectly okay to stand around naked!!!!!'

Ok, then so exactly how little clothing IS ok then? You're saying a T-Shirt is ok but nude is not; where's the fucking line, and WHY THE FUCK does your opinion of where that line is carry any weight whatsoever?

you screech and whine about style over and over and over.

You keep trying to pretend that clothing is only about style, when both Master of Ossus and I demonstrated it's not. Logic might serve you better than a hissy fit.

You further bullshit and claim Keevan stated his opinion was fact, and use a quote where he never once uses the word.

He didn't explicitly say "This is fact" but he did not qualify it as opinion. That makes it a statement of fact unless otherwise qualified.

Funny, I had to reexplain to you that my statement was opinion even though it was clearly labelled as such, but his statement you just fucking assumed was opinion without him saying it at all.

You're a fucking liar. And to top it off, you claim I'm threatening you to win the argument.

I'm telling the fucking truth. It's right there in plain English, you stupid fucker. I've been watching this board long enouygh to know what happens to liars. You're fabricating claims of lying to distract from the debate, or maybe you just think anyone who contradicts your almighty position is a liar.

Oh, and your little comment about "where this thread ends up" or words to that effect ARE argumentum ad bacculum.

No, you fucking dumbass. I was taunting your idiotic ass to keep strawmanning and lying.

Which are figments of your imagination in which any of what you claim I did actually occured.

And look, you did. You even accuse me of 'manipulating' fallacies by understanding the logic behind them.

Except that, apparently you don't. You claim "style over substance" despite the obvious fact that we're talking about what society considers formal (a matter of style) and that substantial information is conveyed through dress, which both I and Master of Ossus have shown.

You apparently don't understand the strawman either you stupid little fuck, since something that logically follows from your argument is a strawman, but is NOT A FALLACY

[urlhttp://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man]strawman[/url]

The best straw man is not, in fact, a fallacy at all, but simply a logical extension or amplification of an argument your opponent has made.

So: Since you claim that "It's perfectly ok to go nude to a formal setting" is a strawman of "It's ok to wear a t shirt in a formal setting" explain just where the fuck the line of acceptable dress begins and I won't have to point out just how stupid your reasoning is.

[Gaidin]

The police say they did. Those on her side claim otherwise. There's one big whiff of BS that makes me think the police are lying. Can you guess it?

A congressman's wife was not told to 'cover up' her t-shirt, but was shown the door.

I don't know...if I were running security for something like this I'd have done the same, especially in the middle of Political Ground Zero.

Cindy raised the ante from 'cover it up'(assuming the above turn of events is true) to 'please leave or be arrested'. The man running security probably gave an order along the lines of "OK, everybody from here on out is to get the same." The, proverbial, hand isn't over until the night is over, and the ante is the grand ultimatum.

[jegs2]

Cindy raised the ante from 'cover it up'(assuming the above turn of events is true) to 'please leave or be arrested'. The man running security probably gave an order along the lines of "OK, everybody from here on out is to get the same." The, proverbial, hand isn't over until the night is over, and the ante is the grand ultimatum.

I concur. The police have nothing to gain by trumping up false charges against such a high-visibility target, and everything to lose. Sheehan behaved like a twit and got treated as one, so far as I can tell.