Thread: Slept through 55 tattoos???? - The plot thickens

Originally Posted by gregs656

That pretty bad sex anaology directed to me: I'm not even sure where the prejudice in that is. I have nothing against people who do S&M - every one likes to get their rocks off and if that works for them, what ever - I would object to them doing it in the street, but I would try very hard not to judge them on that action alone.

The prejuduce would depend on how you reacted and, specifically, whether you used their actions as a basis for judging other things about them.

Would you feel OK if you found out one of those people was a school teacher or nursery worker? Admittedly it's an extreme example as what they did would be breaking a law. But there's a difference between what is right and what is legal. Society says such things are unacceptable, they might disagree.

Does that make them unsuitable for jobs like teaching? They might be perfectly capable of being great teachers, following all the rules at work, passing on all the "approved" morals and ethical values and so on. There is a clear divide in how you behave at work and in your personal life. Is it fair to use one to judge the other? That would be prejudice. And I think most people would be concerned in this example.

Sometimes prejudice is just making use of the limited information available to you, and is a reasonable thing to do.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Short of him actually walking up to you and telling you he wants to be an outsider, what sort of action could a fellow take that would indicate this to you? Or would it really be impossible because you choose not to understand non-verbal communication?

I don't think this is a relevant question. The answer (off the top of my head) would be if he chose to be a criminal.

The relevant question is: are his tattoos a sufficient indication he doesn't want to be a part of society? Answer, no.

1. Let me ask you this, does it suprise you that his facial tattoos and peircings would make some people uncomfortable?

I don't understand why something being unsurprising makes it acceptable.

I don't have to feel uncomfortable to know when someone's trying to make me feel uncomfortable. Just like I don't have to take umbrage when someone insults my mother to my face for me to know that they are trying to offend me.

I agree. But that doesn't mean mean that everytime you have a hunch that someone is trying to make you feel uncomfortable that you are correct. Unlike the guy insulting your mother, Tattooman here isn't challenging you.

Better still, if you see a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot", do you say to yourself "I'm not a mind reader, maybe someone just likes the color of that sign and the shape of the letters and they have no desire to keep people off of their property. After all, they haven't really done anything to tell me so"

Another analogy that isn't an analogy. I don't understand what it is you think this guy is communicating to you. He doesn't like looking normal? He thinks tattoos are cool? I don't understand how these things deserve negative prejudgment.

2. You don't see people walking around with sandwitch boards that say "F#@K YOU A$$-#)!E" either do you?

No. Again with the signs...

And this whole "negative consequences thing, what do you mean by that? Are people here suggesting that we persecute the guy? No, the negative consequences this guy faces is that people think he's either starved for attention or trying to frighten others. I think less of him because of that, and I question his maturity and character. There's going to be some jobs that he won't be hired for and rightfully so.

I understand you're not advocating lynching the guy. The things you listed, the "insights" you have into this guys mind, his motivation, his character. Those are the things I'm objecting to.

I'm not suggesting that they [tribalism etc] are the only reasons for it [tattooing], I'm pointing our that it is not the norm in western culture and everyone here knows it. When in Rome, as they say, do as the Romans, especially if doing otherwise takes so much effort and has obvious social consequences.

The obvious social consequences you mention are the fault of the normal Romans, not the person who chose to be different.

4. Seriously? Is that the only conclusion a rational person could draw? You really expect me to believe this?

Yes. He likes tattoos and peircings. Everything else you think you know about him is just speculation.

5. Yes, we've established that you're not a mind reader, but I'm also beginning to think you've either got Aspergers Syndrome or you're being disingenuous. I suspect the latter, though not being mind reader, I don't know for sure.

I see. Because I disagree, I must have a mental condition. Or I must be a liar. It would be kind of you to give me the same benefit of doubt I am giving you.

6. First of all, I am wondering what said "negative reaction" is other than people thinking less of him. No one here is suggesting having the guy flogged or jailed. A few years back, young guys here in the States took to dressing like gang members and thugs thinking it would make them look tough and dangerous. Surprise of all surprises, the police often treated them as such. It's not really surprising, is it. I mean, after all, people treat men in police uniforms as police, right?

I answered the "negative reaction" point above somewhere.

As to the people wearing police uniforms acting like police, yeah, that's a valid "prejudice" to assume. That doesn't make all prejudices valid.

If you think it's irrelevant, then you clearly don't understand the distinction. We can only judge a person based on their actions. Taking on the appearance as he has done is clearly an action.

No really, I do understand.

If a guy walks down a busy street swinging a roaring chainsaw, he is committing an action. This guy deserves a wide berth at the least. This is an appropriate reaction.

What you are saying is that Tattooman has also committed an action, and you are justified in reacting.

Well what do you think, do I understand the distiction after all?

What I am saying is that all the criticisms of judging him by his looks still apply, and that is why it is an irrelevent distinction.

I still don't see why 3 stars is that much better than 56. IT STILL ON THE FACE. I'm glad the truth has come out. good publicity for this guy at least.

Red

Ok here is the next update

Kimberley is suing the tat artist because she thinks that some of the tattoos have been put on incorrectly. Word is she admitted to having asked for the 56 stars, but now she wants to get rid of a number of them and is trying to find a way to get to pay him for removing some of them this way.

Except... (and this is grand)... she doesn't make a real claim, she has filed suit to ask the judge to appoint a dermatologist to look at her tats, so that she knows if there are tats that are not ok. :roflma Sue first, find a reason later, it seems.

Meanwhile, her uncle has mooned the press to show his dissatisfaction.

The tat artist has not yet gotten a public apology for the lies, so now he says he will file suit as well (with much better chances).

Originally Posted by Rajagra

So if you were out for a walk with your kids and a bunch of people stripped off and started a sado-masochist sex session in front of your kids you'd be cool about it?

Or would you have a perfectly reasonable prejudice against the way they'd chosen to behave?

Oh the irony. Someone has given me negative rep for this post.
On a shaving forum, they have left bad feedback on a thread that has nothing to do with shaving, thus encouraging prejudice against me (creating a reputation based on matters not related to the forum's main purpose.)

What a glorious example of hypocrisy!!!!

Originally Posted by Rajagra

The prejuduce would depend on how you reacted and, specifically, whether you used their actions as a basis for judging other things about them.

Well, I think I answered that, and no I wouldn't.

I seem to remember a story about a nurse or a teacher who was on a sex tape doing her thing, and there were question marks over whether she would be allowed to keep her job.

I would be perfectly comfortable with that.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Oh the irony. Someone has given me negative rep for this post.
On a shaving forum, they have left bad feedback on a thread that has nothing to do with shaving, thus encouraging prejudice against me (creating a reputation based on matters not related to the forum's main purpose.)

What a glorious example of hypocrisy!!!!

I did not leave you negative rep, but, who ever did isn't nessercerily being hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Oh the irony. Someone has given me negative rep for this post.
On a shaving forum, they have left bad feedback on a thread that has nothing to do with shaving, thus encouraging prejudice against me (creating a reputation based on matters not related to the forum's main purpose.)

What a glorious example of hypocrisy!!!!

wow and you are a nice guy....

maybe they are into S&M and disapprove of your disapproval

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

wow and you are a nice guy....

maybe they are into S&M and disapprove of your disapproval

he should consider it as a "spanking"????

I know I haven't been accused, but I just want to say I haven't left anyone negative rep, and can't imagine a situation where I would.

I reckon reputations shouldn't apply in the converstaion forum anyway.


(although I have been given anonymous positive reps for posts in this thread...so err lol)