How do you feel about tattooed people?

LOL. Great scene.

Here are some under "ugliest tattoos". Some make me think those who cover themselves with tattoos are actually covering up earlier mistakes:

http://www.courtreporterschool.org/blog/2010/20-cases-of-terrible-tattoo-spelling-errors/

 

Can you imagine what such people are doing to the gene pool? I don't see how anyone can tolerate tattooed people unless they have one themselves.

 

The gene pool is what it is. Tattoos didn't cause it, but I think it's a symptom of what it is.

 

I watched that show about bad tattoos once. Pretty funny stuff and like the before & after pics show... takes a LOT of ink to cover a bad tat.

The son of a friend of got a huge confederate flag tattooed on his chest/belly for his 18th b'day. He's all ready for prison... all he needs is a sentence.

 

I'm guessing he's working on that right now! Meth lab, maybe?

 

Just like some gay men act like they invented sex, some tattoo lovers think self-mutilation is cutting edge & trendy.

They're both wrong.

 

He's actually a pretty stable young man. Just graduated from welding school and got a great paying job. Got a wife & baby... and living the good life.

Except he's got a huge rebel flag on his chest/belly and has to hide it from folks he doesn't want to insult.

Stupid decision @ 18 that will follow him the rest of his life... unless he has it removed... or disguised.

Maybe the tat-lovers would pony up a little donation for him? Surely they can't say he didn't screw up.

 

Good to hear he is doing well. I made mistakes at 18 too. The good news is that none were as permanent as a tattoo.

 

Agreed. It's ages old. Great in tribal societies though!

What's most amusing is that many think it's an act of rebellion against conformity, but like Emos, Goths and other groups, it's just people following the herd.

 

They don't realize that they're conforming.

There's nothing new under the sun.

 

I don't know that that is true. Many people are. Many people find the things that are the guiding principles and influences of their whole lives by the time they are 20. If they want to celebrate/commemorate that with a tattoo, that's their business, obviously.

 

Very possibly, but it's up to them to decide which particular herd they would like to follow, and not up to anyone else to treat them as somehow 'inferior' because of the choice they had made.

As I've said many times before, the price of freedom absolutely has to be tolerance (or acceptance, if you prefer) - the former cannot possibly exist without the latter. The freedom only to conform is no freedom at all (and yes, that does apply equally to how 'goths' and 'emos' treat people who aren't 'goths' and 'emos', or who choose to be or look somehow 'different' from other 'goths' and 'emos'!).

 

Two more trips:

 

Agreed it's their choice. Disagreed on how others must treat them.

 

People don't have to like the choices of other people personally, of course, but if people are allowed to actually be mistreated by others for making free choices that do not affect anybody else, then there is no freedom in society - there is only pressure to conform, and pressure to conform is not freedom. Indeed, it is directly anti-freedom. There is not freedom to make your own choices if you are, in practical terms, only able to go about your business without discrimination from others if you make the same choices that they do, or that they think 'appropriate'.

This is the obvious inherent problem with Conservatism especially, the world over - many Conservatives, even those who should most loudly about 'freedom', believe that people should only be allowed to make the choices that they, the Conservatives, define as 'permissible'. Often it's led by religion, of course, and it makes little difference whether the religious Conservatives in question are Christian (any denomination), Muslim, Jewish or any other faith - it's all the same. There's nothing wrong with religion, but there is something very wrong with using religion as an excuse to tell others what they can or can't do when their choices don't actually affect anything else. Likewise any other reason (it's not always religion, of course) - there is no freedom if it is really only 'freedom' to live only by someone else's choices made for you.

 

As a Christian conservative, let me share my perspective. People have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or appearance. That is their freedom. All freedom comes with responsibilities. If facial tattoos, split tongue, nose or facial piercing, and ear loops keep you from getting a good job, that is your responsibility to deal with this problem. A potential employer shouldn't be expected to carry your burden by hiring someone that they don't want to represent their company or displays values that do not agree with their own. Ear loops, facial piercings, and sometimes even facial hair are considered safety hazards in my line of work. I have had to shave my full beard several times to wear a respirator at off shore sulfur mines and chemical plants.

You have the freedom to make your own choices. You don't have the right to make me accept those choices or subsidize them with employment. I have my own freedom to make choices.

On the other hand, I have no right to penalize you because I think you look like an idiot. I cannot fine you or take your children because I think you might be ugly and don't represent my values or religious views, just like you cannot touch my kids because I don't share your political or religious views. As long as I am not supporting your children, they are none of my concern unless you are abusing their human rights.

 

So employers have to hire any slacker who comes along unshaven, unkempt and saggy pants because you think refusing to hire them is "mistreatment"?

 

That's a slightly different issue, of course. It still shouldn't mean that someone with a removable facial piercing should necessarily be barred from such employment, of course, but it does mean that they might have to remove it during working hours - no problem with that.

Similarly, I don't have a problem with consideration being given to how people present themselves in a 'public facing' job role. Of course, itcan make a real difference to a business,and anyone in such a role (in most public-facing environments) has to be prepared to make themselves 'presentable' as part of the job description. Tattoos, under those circumstances, are fine as long as they are able to be covered up for work. Nobody should be discriminated against simply for having tattoos, though - if they are covered, then they don't impair actual job performance. (an added note on that - there are obviously circumstances where some customers might be put off by skin colour, for example, but in those instances the customers are obviously definitively wrong, and such things should not be pandered to - that is not at all the same kind of thing as 'being presentable' in a public-facing role).

As for facial tattoos and the like, though, there are many jobs that are not 'public facing', so the presence of facial tattoos makes no difference to potential job performance at all. If someone works in a call centre, and never has to go out and meet customers, what difference does it make what they look like? None at all.It can make no difference to their actual performance in the job. It should therefore not be a consideration in employment, unless those tattoos are themselves depictions of offensive material (Nazi symbols and the like) that are are unacceptable in any workplace.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what I have said at all, nor is it remotely implied.

 

Many people get tattoos because they are young and on large amounts of booze and/or natcotics.

But usually most get tats to show they are sexually active.

 

So getting tattoos is a sign of immaturity or promiscuity? No wonder they have trouble getting jobs.

 

Disagreed it wasn't implied, but since I was asking a question, thanks for the reply.

So what do you consider to be mistreatment? Not hiring someone because their personal appearance, including the display of tattoos, is considered offensive or would put their company in a bad public light?

 

I thought it was against the law to tattoo anyone under the influence. Is
saying you're sober enough to get tatted?

I can't think of a reason for being tattooed. It certainly doesn't have
anything to do with individualism.

 

All freedom comes with responsibilities.
You have the freedom to make your own choices.

Good point. A big DUH is in order.

 

I couldn't either. That's why I never got one. Many of my "peers" in the Army got them. Had some friends that the Lynard Skynard tats with the skull cowboy hat and bandana. But I always asked myself---is this so cool that I want it on me the rest of my life?

 

Could someone explain how that is even remotely attractive?