Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"well, getting a tattoo period is a stupid decision." (implying: if you chose to get a tattoo, you made a stupid decision, period.) You honestly cannot find the flaws in your argument?
I think you would agree that almost all tattoos give far more dis-utility than utility. Where we disagree is the line between good, neutral, unbeneficial, unwise, and stupid.
I assume that you are willing to place "face tattoo" in the "stupid" category. Are you also willing to place "sleeve tattoo" in the stupid category? Why is a sleeve tattoo less-stupid than a face tattoo?
The same logic used there, can be used everywhere.
The entire thrust of your argument is that, you don't consider a small tattoo in a place that is easily or always covered to properly qualify as "stupid".
But that is less a disagreement on principle, as it is degree. We are only debating where the stupid line is. Which I concede is "subjective".
I probably lump more into the stupid category than I should. To me everything north of neutral is stupid. To you, only the most-harmful or ridiculous is stupid.
I had joked to my friend once that, the only tattoo I would ever get, was "DNR" on my chest.
I probably lump more into the stupid category than I should. To me everything north of neutral is stupid. To you, only the most-harmful or ridiculous is stupid.
Please only speak for yourself.
To me, Stupid decisions are decisions with very small gains and huge potential damage. Generally speaking, getting a tattoo impulsively is a stupid decision. For people who decided to get a tattoo on their back to remember their long lost friend, I can hardly see the HUGE potential damage associated with that decision. It is an individual decision harms no one short term or long term.
Painting the entire group of people with one broad brush is generally speaking, unwise.
For the most part, I agree with you that people should make good choices in life. No matter where you start, with time good choices lead to a better life and bad choices lead to a low quality of life. You make choices constantly, consciously and unconsciously, and they have a great impact on your life.
All these being said, a small memorial tattoo is no where near a bad stupid decision could ruin a person's life potentially. I think the Exaggerated Thinking Can Create Unnecessary Drama LOL
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 10-12-2018 at 12:58 PM..
I have never seen a tattoo that is so awesome I want it on my body for the rest of my life. But that's just me. Who is PJW and why does anyone care what he thinks?
I can hardly see what HUGE potential damage associated with that decision.
Again, we are only debating on where to draw the line. And your term "huge" can mean almost anything.
In the case of the face tattoo, or neck tattoo, or sleeve tattoo, can you define what the huge potential damage is?
I assume you are referring "lost opportunities"(such as jobs, relationships, etc). But how many jobs do you have to lose before the damage is "huge"?
You would lose out on most modeling contracts if you have any tattoos at all. Even porn overwhelmingly doesn't want you. The military won't let you if you have a sleeve tattoo. Many jobs won't hire you if you have any visible tattoos(and they have various other requirements for piercings, and even facial hair). And many people won't date you, or even associate with you, if you have tattoos/piercings.
I don't have much interest in debating you on where the stupid line should be. Which is why I said, to me, anything north of neutral is stupid. Everything else is arbitrary and subjective.
And furthermore, it isn't like a face tattoo is always detrimental. There are circumstances where it might be beneficial. So we cannot focus only on specific/subjective circumstances, we must take the whole into account.
My entire point can really be summed up as, the benefits of getting a tattoo are almost always outweighed by the costs. So unless you're an athlete, a musician, or a member of a gang, you probably shouldn't get one.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-12-2018 at 01:34 PM..
I don't have much interest in debating you on where the stupid line should be. Which is why I said, to me, anything north of neutral is stupid. Everything else is arbitrary and subjective.
okay
shrug
Again, bold is your personal opinion, my mistake for debating a personal opinion. My bad.
Again, we are only debating on where to draw the line. And your term "huge" can mean almost anything.
In the case of the face tattoo, or neck tattoo, or sleeve tattoo, can you define what the huge potential damage is?
I assume you are referring "lost opportunities"(such as jobs, relationships, etc). But how many jobs do you have to lose before the damage is "huge"?
You would lose out on most modeling contracts if you have any tattoos at all. Even porn overwhelmingly doesn't want you. The military won't let you if you have a sleeve tattoo. Many jobs won't hire you if you have any visible tattoos(and they have various other requirements for piercings, and even facial hair). And many people won't date you, or even associate with you, if you have tattoos/piercings.
I don't have much interest in debating you on where the stupid line should be. Which is why I said, to me, anything north of neutral is stupid. Everything else is arbitrary and subjective.
Personally I don't care if someone is covered in tats from head to toe. But I don't want to see tats on law enforcement officers (cops). I don't want to see my local cops tatted up like outlaw bikers and presenting a threatening appearance. Cops should be prohibited from having tats unless they can be covered by normal clothing, i.e. shirt sleeves. Definitely no face or neck tats. Not in my town.
Personally I don't care if someone is covered in tats from head to toe. But I don't want to see tats on law enforcement officers (cops). I don't want to see my local cops tatted up like outlaw bikers and presenting a threatening appearance. Cops should be prohibited from having tats unless they can be covered by normal clothing, i.e. shirt sleeves. Definitely no face or neck tats. Not in my town.
Careful about having "opinions". Lilyflower will call you a bigot who paints everyone with a broad brush.
Careful about having "opinions". Lilyflower will call you a bigot who paints everyone with a broad brush.
That is really low
i have never called anybody bigot, (telling lies about me does not help your argument, just sayin') I only said don't paint the entire group of people with one broad brush. You don't know the reasons why people get their tattoos, so you do not need to make an assumption for people you don't even know.
You are the one who said "tattooing is a stupid decision, period", I said, "Is that your opinion or universal truth" If that is your opinion, I don't want to debate an opinion. I don't think it (tattooing is a stupid decision, period, or tattoos are for stupid people) is an universal truth.
Tattoo is not for you, I get it. It is not for me either. But I certainly won't say tattoos are for stupid people. I think it is unwise to pain the entire group of people with one broad brush.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
