RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees

RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 1:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Stupid question, but aren't gold caps on the teeth the "cheap" version of properly capped teeth where they use enamel to make it look like other teeth? Why would anybody want to have a gold tooth unless they can't afford the enamel version? Gold is over $1300 an ounce. So it is not cheaper... not the real thing. How about you do your research just ONCE? For those of us who are too stupid to figure it out, you don't need an ounce of gold to cap a tooth, gold is easy to work with, ceramic is a lot harder to work with and needs to be burned.... Do you think dentists or dental laboratories are cheap? Crown - FULL Porcelain (Zirconium) £800.00 Crown - Porcelain Fused To Gold £700.00 Crown - Full Cast Metal Crown £200.00 Copy and paste from a dental website... Can you read the figures? So a gold crown is cheaper? Ooops, I forgot, yeah, you think education is useless because you don't need education to flip a burger... Tell you what, you go for your "expensive" gold crowns, the rest of us might not want to look like thugs from the hood and are possibly willing to pay a bit more... I just had 2 teeth capped. And if the gold was cheaper I would have gotten it.

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 2:35:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail How many your own teefuses you still gots? I have all but three. One bottom wisdom tooth was removed (I did not have one on the other side, go figure). And two other teeth were removed before they put braces on me. How about you? And how many tattoos? You see, I have a theory about teeth to tattoo ratios.

mnottertail -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 2:40:42 PM)
Zero tattoos. scars I got. 6 gone, all 4 wisdoms and one other back one and one dracula tooth when I was a kid to make another one come down, even dentists assistants go.....uh, what the fuck? one, two, three ...when they get over there. Then they say, did you know you are missing L7-645H (or whatever) behind your canine tooth on the anterior side......mumbo jumbo............... Why? You thinkin on gettin me a grille?

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 3:12:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Zero tattoos. scars I got. 6 gone, all 4 wisdoms and one other back one and one dracula tooth when I was a kid to make another one come down, even dentists assistants go.....uh, what the fuck? one, two, three ...when they get over there. Then they say, did you know you are missing L7-645H (or whatever) behind your canine tooth on the anterior side......mumbo jumbo............... Why? You thinkin on gettin me a grille? No. I was just sure that it was the reason that you never hit on me. I only get the guys who are missing one visible tooth for each tattoo that they have. (Especially in Florida this seems to happen.) It is a rather horrid thing to have to deal with.

VioletGray -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 4:38:55 PM)
Hm. I can't make up my mind on this issue. Just a few questions.. 1.) So will officers who already have visible tattoos have to get them removed? Same with gold teeth? 2.) Will people with visible tattoos (on their wrists or hands) Not be eligible for hiring? 3.) I think piercings can be a detriment, only because they are things one can grab. Using that logic, no one should have earrings. But can anyone think of any situation where a gold tooth will prove harmful? I dont' know which way to go. On the one hand, anyone who hires has the right to decide (to an extent) how their hirees are going to represent them, but on the other hand, tattoos and piercings pose no danger to the officer or civilians, so I can't help but have the nagging feeling that this is meant to target certain types of person. That's just a gut feeling, mind you.

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 10:25:10 PM)
1. No, they will have to cover them. On the gold teeth thing, it is the DECORATIVE ones that are the problem. Not the ones there for dental health. 2. Yes. 3. Yes. The decorative metal in the mouth leads to more cavities, gingivitis, dental issue things. They are actually a health hazard. Which explains why my orthodontist was so adamant about the brushing and flossing and getting a new toothbrush every month.

WyldHrt -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 11:05:12 PM)
quote: 1. No, they will have to cover them. I already posted my objection to long sleeves and turtlenecks to cover tats in the summer months, so I will take on the 'bandage' thing now. Um... really? Can't say that I fancy a cop, someone who is supposed to protect me and make me feel safe, showing up after I've been violently assaulted yet looking like someone who lost a fight with a pissed off cat. While I can understand the use of bandages in correctional settings, for police that interact with the public.... just, no. quote: On the gold teeth thing, it is the DECORATIVE ones that are the problem. Not the ones there for dental health. Just have to ask.... how do you tell the difference by looking? That said, at least one poster on this thread has stated that an enamel cap/ tooth costs much more than a gold one. Is someone who can't afford an enamel cap not qualified to be a police officer? On the piercing issue, I don't think that any piercing jewelry should be allowed on duty, no matter how 'normal'. As several folks have said, it is something that can be grabbed and ripped out in a struggle. I don't care who you are, having your earlobe ripped in half during a fight is not a good thing. quote: I can't help but have the nagging feeling that this is meant to target certain types of person. That's just a gut feeling, mind you. I'm kinda right there with you Violet.

WyldHrt -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/28/2011 11:22:33 PM)
quote: A woman has just been raped by gold-toothed gangbangers. Another one in a blue shirt shows up. Yeah, that's healthy for her. Missed this on the first go, but just have to ask... are you really that stupid??? [8\|] quote: A man is pulled over on the side of the highway by a police car. He digs through his glove box, turns around to see the lizard man at his door. Surprised, and in fight or flight mode, he hits the gas and causes a 10 car pile-up, killing several people. Given this, the answer is obviously 'yes'.

pahunkboy -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/29/2011 7:40:26 AM)
Maybe I would have to see the gold teeth "fashion" in person- to make sense of it. I can picture that some of this fashion stuff is- slothful. Sagging pants for instance.

LaTigresse -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/29/2011 8:03:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Sorry, but if you can't see why its dumb, then there's no point trying to explain it...what the fuck does having a tattoo or a gold tooth have to do with being a good cop? Seriously? You don't see why people who carry guns and are in charge of upholding the laws and protecting us need to be professionals AND look the part of professionals? In almost any scenario of a cop's daily duties, his appearance plays a role. A woman has just been raped by gold-toothed gangbangers. Another one in a blue shirt shows up. Yeah, that's healthy for her. A man is pulled over on the side of the highway by a police car. He digs through his glove box, turns around to see the lizard man at his door. Surprised, and in fight or flight mode, he hits the gas and causes a 10 car pile-up, killing several people. Or how about the fact that since private companies get to decide what corporate image they wish to project, police departments should have the same latitude? Or that piercings can get snagged and cause harm to the officer in the course of their duties? I dislike the items, the whole tattooed, gold teeth, gangsta look that has become so popular. To ME, it is physically unattractive. Similarly, multiple piercings. I do however, make a concentrated effort to look beyond what I find esthetically unattractive, to see the human being and their worth (or not) rather than what I find ugly in appearance. I have a huge predjudice against stupidity and zero feelings of shame for it. The tragic part of this is how very many people from the state of Texas fit into my very predjudiced category of narrow mindedly stupid. Even if they haven't a single tattoo or a spare penny for even a brass and cubic zirconia grille.

AquaticSub -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 6:13:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TexasRogue quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Sorry, but if you can't see why its dumb, then there's no point trying to explain it...what the fuck does having a tattoo or a gold tooth have to do with being a good cop? Seriously? You don't see why people who carry guns and are in charge of upholding the laws and protecting us need to be professionals AND look the part of professionals? In almost any scenario of a cop's daily duties, his appearance plays a role. A woman has just been raped by gold-toothed gangbangers. Another one in a blue shirt shows up. Yeah, that's healthy for her. A man is pulled over on the side of the highway by a police car. He digs through his glove box, turns around to see the lizard man at his door. Surprised, and in fight or flight mode, he hits the gas and causes a 10 car pile-up, killing several people. Or how about the fact that since private companies get to decide what corporate image they wish to project, police departments should have the same latitude? Or that piercings can get snagged and cause harm to the officer in the course of their duties? I find men with tattoos comforting. Why are you assuming that all raped women don't want to be helped by a cop with tats? Why are you speaking for all women? You certainly aren't speaking for me. For that matter, as woman with piercings under her clothing, I assure you that body mods do not get snagged any more than the 'normal' ear lobe piercings. In fact, less in my experience provided I wear a covering bra as any police officer should just to keep her breasts from bouncing uncomfortably. So all the points you just made don't have any weight with me. If I've just been raped, I don't give a shit about the cop's image, I give a shit about him taking care of me. And, frankly, if he happens to have tats and piercings too, that's kinda fucking comforting!

AquaticSub -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 6:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But as to why those things are a bad idea. If a LEO arrests someone and has a visible tat, piercing, or gold teeth things, and the law breaker ends up going up the river for 20 years, it is far easier for the bad guy to identify that officer to his buddies for retaliation. (wow, that was a run on sentence.) Aylee, I just don't buy that all. By that logic, they should get rid of any distinguishing characteristics like gapped teeth, unusual features, moles, etc. Tattoos are not the only easy to spot things and, in fact, tattoos can be removed or covered very easily so... I'm sorry, that point holds no water. Of course they have the right to their own dress code. I never disputed that. I can, however, think it's idiotic, pointless and doesn't take into account that a growing amount of the population has tattoos and body mods and would like to see law enforcement 'like them', preforming their jobs well. This policy blatantly ignores the growing population of people who enjoy body mods and caters to those who are still afraid of the big, bad, tattooed guy. And it's all well and good to say "well you don't want people to be scared of us so shouldn't have our officers doing this and that" but then what if they were saying "Well, we don't to want to hire any more insert race here officers because most of our little old ladies are scared of them"? This reeks of discrimination and misunderstanding of people who enjoy something that is perfectly legal.

Moonhead -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 8:07:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt On the piercing issue, I don't think that any piercing jewelry should be allowed on duty, no matter how 'normal'. As several folks have said, it is something that can be grabbed and ripped out in a struggle. I don't care who you are, having your earlobe ripped in half during a fight is not a good thing. Yep. It's not a good idea in a job where you stand a chance of indulging in fisticuffs, is it? As for the "certain type of person" thing, gold inlays do seem to be a gangstah thing, so you and Violet could well be right that there's a racial element at work here. Even hilariously wigger twats like Eminem and Fred Durst tend not to get their teeth done, I've noticed. (Presumably so they won't need to get a new set of fangs after they've stopped the Jolson-style minstrel routine...)

Arpig -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 10:20:14 AM)
quote: A woman has just been raped by gold-toothed gangbangers. Another one in a blue shirt shows up. Yeah, that's healthy for her. What if she was raped by gangbangers without gold teeth, and another non-gold-toothed man in a blue shirt shows up....same issue

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 3:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee But as to why those things are a bad idea. If a LEO arrests someone and has a visible tat, piercing, or gold teeth things, and the law breaker ends up going up the river for 20 years, it is far easier for the bad guy to identify that officer to his buddies for retaliation. (wow, that was a run on sentence.) Aylee, I just don't buy that all. By that logic, they should get rid of any distinguishing characteristics like gapped teeth, unusual features, moles, etc. Tattoos are not the only easy to spot things and, in fact, tattoos can be removed or covered very easily so... I'm sorry, that point holds no water. Of course they have the right to their own dress code. I never disputed that. I can, however, think it's idiotic, pointless and doesn't take into account that a growing amount of the population has tattoos and body mods and would like to see law enforcement 'like them', preforming their jobs well. This policy blatantly ignores the growing population of people who enjoy body mods and caters to those who are still afraid of the big, bad, tattooed guy. And it's all well and good to say "well you don't want people to be scared of us so shouldn't have our officers doing this and that" but then what if they were saying "Well, we don't to want to hire any more insert race here officers because most of our little old ladies are scared of them"? This reeks of discrimination and misunderstanding of people who enjoy something that is perfectly legal. What a minute here. I don't think I said anything about people being scared of people with tattoos. I have commented on the safety and health of the LEOs. And where I thought the grillz came from. Oh, and keeping lawsuits away.

AquaticSub -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 3:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee What a minute here. I don't think I said anything about people being scared of people with tattoos. I have commented on the safety and health of the LEOs. And where I thought the grillz came from. Oh, and keeping lawsuits away. You didn't. However, I don't buy any of the things the things that people have pointed out in defense of this. I truly believe it boils down to people being scared of the big baddies with tattoos and don't want them for their cops. I was adding my personal views. Though I don't see where you commented on their health and safety - just that you think the tats will make them easier to be hurt. Which I think is incredibly flimsy logic due to the reasons I pointed out.

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 4:43:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub Though I don't see where you commented on their health and safety - just that you think the tats will make them easier to be hurt. Which I think is incredibly flimsy logic due to the reasons I pointed out. I meant that the tats would make them easier to identify to a third party. Tattoos are usually more personalized than gap teeth. 6'1", blond, brown eyes, with a snake-skull (there is probably a technical term for it) on his left inner fore-arm is easier to identify as the correct person to "pop a cap" than 6'1", blond, brown eyes, with a 1.5 cm gap in upper front teeth. (yeah, like they are gonna measure.) Anyway, that is how I understand it. Probably the best thing to be done if you want to know why they have enacted such codes is to ask one of the sheriffs or police department heads that have done such, and ask them. And if you do, I would love to know their reasoning or what they say. I linked a couple of articles for someone about the grillz. The articles talked about the dental problems. Dental problems often lead to other health issues. (And here is me being sexist ~ especially in males because they want to be all tough and not go to the doctor/dentist.)

AquaticSub -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 4:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee I meant that the tats would make them easier to identify to a third party. Tattoos are usually more personalized than gap teeth. 6'1", blond, brown eyes, with a snake-skull (there is probably a technical term for it) on his left inner fore-arm is easier to identify as the correct person to "pop a cap" than 6'1", blond, brown eyes, with a 1.5 cm gap in upper front teeth. (yeah, like they are gonna measure.) That is what I thought you meant. And I, no offense to you personally, think it's very flimsy. Whenever I've had any encounters with law enforcement, I was able to get business cards and names. The arresting officer is part of the records. If someone wants to do harm to the officer that arrested them, the information is easy to get. Being public officers, all one needs is a name, a description (approx. height and hair color). For that matter, tattoos do change and the ability to get mods will change people's appearance, making them harder to ID. A cop who didn't have a visable tattoo at the time of the arrest may acquire one. Piercings, gold teeth and even stretched lobes (under a certain size) can be added and removed - I used to have eight very visible ear piercings - now no one would ever guess I had them unless they grabbed my ear and inspected the back top cartilage. So anyone trying to find me based on those would be shit out of luck. Tattoos that a person had at the time of an arrest may be gone or altered. It's not at all uncommon in the slightest - due to time, money and pain tolerance constraints -to get tattoos in stages so a black and white may become color, a single person may become a crowd piece or the tattoo itself may be covered up so a rose may now be a ying-yang. Is it something that a person can be IDed by? Sure. But like hair: color, length, style and even it's presence on the body is subject to change. Hence my position that the logic is illogical and not a reason to support law enforcement officers having a ban on visible body mods.

Aylee -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 5:13:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub That is what I thought you meant. And I, no offense to you personally, think it's very flimsy. Too be honest I am not sure if it is or is not. Say, 100 LEOs are shot in a year by an associate of someone they put in prison. How many had visible piercings, tats, or grillz? I think that answer looked at over a span of time could tell you. You would also need to know the prevalence over a span of time for LEOs that had those things. You would want to make sure it was a causation and not just a correlation thing. It could be an interesting study. Shall we apply for a grant?

AquaticSub -> RE: gold teeth might be banned for employees (1/30/2011 6:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee It could be an interesting study. Shall we apply for a grant? Sure. As long as we make sure to take into context officer behavior, areas where officers where assigned, weigh if the officers were killed related to offenses in "bad" areas over those without. Though, to be blunt, I doubt the study will come up with anything remarkable. I think we might as well study how many were bald vs. had long hair or who had A cups vs. H cups - a bountiful bosom is certainly noticeable, easy to ID and much less likely to change than a tattoo or piercing. Oh I think we should study who paints their nails red vs. a neutral color as well - those eye catching colors, fake nails, and airbrushing are - without a question - a way to ID a female officer as most women tend to pick a nail style and stick with it for at least a few months in my experience. The theory itself seems that pointless to me. If we are going to make rules regarding their appearance in the attempt to keep them safe from such things, then everyone has to look the same. No one can have any outstanding features. Before the reduction, my chest really made me stand out yet I'm pretty sure most women would be pissed if the law enforcement codes mandated breast size - even if it was for the LEO own protection.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.222656E-02