Face tattoos

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, they are not. They were declarative sentences, not questions. Had they been questions, they would have been phrased as such, and had a question mark (?) at the end, rather than a period.

No charge for the lesson in remedial grammar.
 
Any way , just my personal opinion is I do not like tattoos , period . Having them done on your face , to me , is dumber than a rock .

But do as you please , as long as I do not have to look at them .

Ironic . If you just outright caused some one that much pain , I bet the ACLU would scream torture ! And accuse GW of thinking it up and authorizing it .
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'm not judging them as people, unlike yourself.


No, you just don't like their looks. So you'll insult them by sticking them, "in the back", so none of your intolerant customers who's money you like, won't have their appetites diminished. Would you seat burn victims in the back as well?



Again with your ridiculous leaps of "logic"...it's neither sensible, relevent, or...well even logic, but am quite familiar with your abilities in that sphere.

I quite like tattoos, and like tasteful tattoos on serving staff at the places I go to, up to and including full sleeves and the like...I don't consider any person with a tattoo to be "stupid", or have any sort of mental defect...am designing my first tattoo over the last few years, which I WILL be getting at some stage.
 
BTW, having a 48 year old sister with Spina Bifida, wheelchair bound since birth, I'm quite familiar with discrimination and how people think that one thing leads automatically to another.

Not giving her a table waiting job isn't discrimination, it's a physical impossibility. Asking someone to wear long sleeves, or put a bandaid over their piercings isn't discrimination either.
 
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
No, they are not. They were declarative sentences, not questions. Had they been questions, they would have been phrased as such, and had a question mark (?) at the end, rather than a period.


I'll ask it again.... Just for you. I don't even have to retype it. I'll just cut and paste it from your above quote. Including the question mark. Here you go...... Now the only question that needs to be asked, is what type of personality wants, or feels the need to provoke that kind of reaction from nearly everyone who first lays eyes on them? Who out there, young or old, actually thinks disfigurement is "in"?

Now, can you answer it? Or do you just want to keep whining?
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
I don't consider any person with a tattoo to be "stupid", or have any sort of mental defect...am designing my first tattoo over the last few years, which I WILL be getting at some stage.


That is where we differ. If someone spends hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to willfully and purposefully disfigure their face and body with ink, along with metal studs in their nose, lips, tongue, and ears. All of which will make it far more difficult, if not impossible for them to get good paying employment, they easily could have gotten without all that stupid nonsense, then YES, that easily fits into my definition of committing a stupid act. And smart people do not purposefully commit stupid acts. And in the process handicap themselves, and make their lives more difficult to live both socially and economically by doing it.

That said, they have every right to do what they want in that regard. It's not a crime to commit stupid acts. Even if you have to pay someone to have them done to you. People do it all the time. I like most people, could care less. But I have zero sympathy for them. And would question their mental state, like most employers do, for having done it in the first place.

And for the record, there is a difference between a small tattoo on an inconspicuous part of the body, that can be easily covered up with clothing, and what I have just described. Back to sex, drugs, and alcohol. Just because a little is good, doesn't mean more is better, and too much is just enough. But like most everything that is done in excess, there are usually negative consequences for doing it. And the fact is they are the one's who will be forced to live with those consequences. Regardless if they like it or not. And agree or not, that is a very large price to pay for being stupid.
 
When you complete your study involving 1,750 people over a 2 year period, and come to a different conclusion, then perhaps you can post your results. We'll be waiting. In the meantime ink up if you think it will help improve your parental skills.
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
No, they are not. They were declarative sentences, not questions. Had they been questions, they would have been phrased as such, and had a question mark (?) at the end, rather than a period.


I'll ask it again.... Just for you. I don't even have to retype it. I'll just cut and paste it from your above quote. Including the question mark. Here you go...... Now the only question that needs to be asked, is what type of personality wants, or feels the need to provoke that kind of reaction from nearly everyone who first lays eyes on them? Who out there, young or old, actually thinks disfigurement is "in"?

Now, can you answer it? Or do you just want to keep whining?

And now, we go from remedial grammar to remedial logic. Your question is based on a false premise, and therefore meaningless.

And garnished, of course, with a personal attack.
 
Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Your question is based on a false premise, and therefore meaningless.


So now you admit it is a question after all. One you are incapable of answering because at first you didn't see it. Then when it is pointed out to you a second time, you don't like it, or the obvious answer. So instead you attempt to run interference with complete B.S. Aside from your total lack of comprehension, (or else bad vision), why did I already know that?
 
Originally Posted by billt460
When you complete your study involving 1,750 people over a 2 year period, and come to a different conclusion, then perhaps you can post your results. We'll be waiting. In the meantime ink up if you think it will help improve your parental skills.


Not getting ink obviously didn't improve your behavior at all. A buddy of mine is in his 40s, inked everywhere on his back, and full sleeve, has a family, and manages multi-million dollar projects. You want to tell him how he's a failure? You can also go tell my military buddies who have the fallen soldier cross on them with their dead friend's name how stupid that tattoo is too.
 
Frequently people seek my services either for free, or for a reduced cost, because they say they have no money to pay for the services. Since I get nothing free, and sometimes have to pay more because it is perceived I can, I have to be "judgmental" about who I can help and who I cannot under those terms.

Craphouse homemade tattoos are not a factor, but expensive professional ones are. If you can pay for a tat, you can pay me, and this is an almost, but not quite 100%, disqualifying factor in my judgment calls.

What really irks me is when I have taken something on, and the person comes in later with fresh tattoos, that don't look like the junk you get for free.
 
Originally Posted by Pew
A buddy of mine is in his 40s, inked everywhere on his back, and full sleeve, has a family, and manages multi-million dollar projects.


Which you can't see any of when he wears a shirt. Or are you going to tell me he works bare chested? Jesus, what part of facial tattoo are you having trouble with? I'll try to help you understand what everyone else on this thread already does.
 
Originally Posted by Pew
Not getting ink obviously didn't improve your behavior at all. A buddy of mine is in his 40s, inked everywhere on his back, and full sleeve, has a family, and manages multi-million dollar projects. You want to tell him how he's a failure? You can also go tell my military buddies who have the fallen soldier cross on them with their dead friend's name how stupid that tattoo is too.


Well now we're into tattoos instead of face tattoos. But there's a difference between because of and in spite of.

It's still a free country so people can do whatever they want include getting tattoos wherever they like. But the flip side is that people are also free to judge them. There aren't too many fortune 500 CEO's who have face tattoos. Can't think of any off hand actually. I don't think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Steve Jobs etc ever had them. I guess in certain fields like entertainment or sports, those guys are basically set for life so they can do whatever they like.

Basically there's a reason that defendants in court still wear a suit. Doesn't affect their guilt or innocence, but impressions still count. Tattoos, face tattoos are all still part of the first impression people get. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
 
Originally Posted by Wolf359
There aren't too many fortune 500 CEO's who have face tattoos. Can't think of any off hand actually. I don't think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Steve Jobs etc ever had them. Tattoos, face tattoos are all still part of the first impression people get. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.


How about this clown? Do you think Sun Microsystems is pounding his door down for that six figure position?

Tattooed Idiot.webp
 
Originally Posted by billt460
Which you can't see any of when he wears a shirt. Or are you going to tell me he works bare chested? Jesus, what part of facial tattoo are you having trouble with? I'll try to help you understand what everyone else on this thread already does.


Then I would suggest you find links and studies regarding only face tattoos.

Originally Posted by billt460
Tattoos, especially facial tattoos, immediately provoke a negative reaction from most any person who sees them. And that reaction usually is, "Oh My God!".... Or thoughts to that effect. Now the only question that needs to be asked, is what type of personality wants, or feels the need to provoke that kind of reaction from nearly everyone who first lays eyes on them? Who out there, young or old, actually thinks disfigurement is "in"?


Anyways, in this statement of yours saying that tattoos and face tattoos provokes negative reactions, and then assuming that you know "most any person's" reactions.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by billt460
Originally Posted by Wolf359
There aren't too many fortune 500 CEO's who have face tattoos. Can't think of any off hand actually. I don't think Warren Buffet, Bill Gates Steve Jobs etc ever had them. Tattoos, face tattoos are all still part of the first impression people get. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.


How about this clown? Do you think Sun Microsystems is pounding his door down for that six figure position?



If there's a shortage of people with that skill, they'd hire anyone who had it. Once there's no shortage, probably one of the first to be let go. It might still be doable today, pick up a book in a hot field, read it and get a job in tech. Lots of people without college degrees sometimes got started that way. In the downturn though, when they got laid off, they couldn't get another job just because they didn't have a degree although their job experience made them better than those that had a degree.

I really wonder about that nose ring though, it's so big, can he even breathe through his nose?
 
Originally Posted by Pew
Anyways, in this statement of yours saying that tattoos and face tattoos provokes negative reactions, and then assuming that you know "most any person's" reactions.


A certain percentage will love it, a certain percentage will hate it. My guess is that there's probably more that hate it than like it as opposed to someone that doesn't have any.

That's sorta why off white is a popular color. Not really a well loved color, but also one not really hated. You don't see too many places painted black because that would provoke a more like a love it/hate it reaction. So neutral is actually better than something where you might get a bunch of people that hate it too. It just limits the audience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom