Thank you. I might love her dearly. She will not be responsible for my children, because she exercises poor judgement and cannot be responisble for her own face. I might do my best to help her in her completely (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ruined life, due to poor decisions she made before evolving as a person... She will not be in charge of my children.
Bling? It is jewellery, what do you think it is? African Kings would adorn themselves with it the same way a white person adorns themselves with tattoos for prestige. It's like a tacky version of bling.
It is a more radical version of tattooing. Most get something in a less conspicuous place, where clothing can cover it at a job.
I guess my point is either it is expression... either it is art... or it is something else. I am never ashamed of my self-expression... nor am I ashamed of my art. I am ashamed of my ideation of it when I was 17, though it marks me still at 40... even though it is a "cool tat". It is an artists impression of an artists surrealist expression... and hardly unique. I was a kid. I didn't get it. My tat is the equivelant of a tribute band. How many tribute band CD/mp3s have you bought? I actually give credit to people who do their OWN work on their bodies by their own hand. I pay homage to military tattoos of their designation, as that is an experience of service which has traditionally demonstrated their sacrifice. In THIS way, I am a hypocrite... sort of. I see difference between an MS13 tat and a USMC tat. I am willing to live with the stigma.
Having a tattoo is useless, ego-centric and pointless... Most people who have tattoos other than the 12 out of millions of scientists you posted Wolverine are low life degenerates who will never be remembered. Most English chavs, red necks and working class people have tattoos, wonder why... Or all them major porn stars have tattoos, I wonder why. Or most prisoners have tattoos I wonder why. But when do you ever really see a man of honour, or an enlightened gentlemen have tattoos? Very rarely. what are you going to do now Wolverine? Post another link proving only 5 out of millions of philosophers have tattoos to try and prove a point? Accept it, the majority of people who have tattoos are working class low life ignorant sheeples with no insight.
My thoughts on the subject of tattoos in general: * Fads and fashion (i.e.; clothing and shoes) are a fleeting and fickle proposition. But fads and fashion are a temporary state of affairs. Tattoos, on the other hand, are forever. * Don't get one because everybody else has one. Get one because there is some symbol that tells the world something about you that you are unable to articulate in conversation, and you will likely die if you don't anoint your body with it forever. * Unless you hail from Samoa or the deepest jungles of South America, don’t try to sell anyone on the significance of your ‘tribal arm band’ tattoo. * Sailors, Marines, and genuine hard-core bikers have the street-cred to wear the body art convincingly. Pampered upper-middle-class mall-rats named Brittney, LoQuisha, Conner, or Chad, with colorful cell phones glued the side of their faces 23 hours a day, do not. * Tough guys who have spent serious time in prison wear the ink with convincing credibility. Lost-boys and/or lost-girls going through a Goth stage do not. and lastly, * THE SIX MONTH RULE: If you have thought long and hard (six months or more) about the tattoo you plan to have inked into your flesh forever and always, and that symbol carries profound significance to you, then you probably have thought long enough about it. If on the other hand, you show up at the tattoo parlor with the intention of getting a tat because it’s the cool thing to do, and you have to peruse through the books of sample tattoos in order to pick one out on the spot? You are a dumb ass, and you will likely regret that tattoo in, oh, about six months.
The decision will not be made based on those 2 factors alone. The face tattoo would not keep me from interviewing her. I don't have any tattoos and never will. I'm thinking it is ignorant non-sense as well. The reason being is because you made a statement saying people with tattoos are non-contributing louts. When it was pointed out to you that many people with tattoos actually are intelligent you dismiss the given examples as though they are the only examples in existence. The statement was made in ignorance to the facts. It is an ignorant statement.
Tattoo's are the ultimate form of insult.The idea that to mark one's body or desecrate what God gave them is immature at best and outright near insanity at worst. The very notion that a Tattoo means anything is just Insane.They do absolutely NOTHING whatever in making one Smarter,Funnier,or Wise.Nor stronger,Healthier or athletic.At least a Bodybuilder who lives to vainly chisel out muscles is healthier. It's an addiction now.Kinda like somethin to do.Which kes having or getting a Tattoo even more insane. What's the harm in a few Tattoo ,one might explain. Well maybe that one's body doesn't belong exclusively to one.Attempt a suicide and some jurisdictions have it as a criminal charge. I was always taught that a Tattoo is a form of body mutiliation. Especially someone who does a self-mutiliation or their own tattoo in a crude method via a sharp object.
First of all I never dismissed it, I actually replied with what I will tell you next.... Many? You count 12 as many? Wolverine provided a link that proved 12 scientists from a pool of millions of scientists had tattoos, twelve out of millions! The point is the majority of people who have tattoos are basic human beings. There are more criminals, red necks and chavs with tattoos than 12 scientists. Now, the real ignorant person is the one that claims 12 is many.
That you can't think of anyone is proof of your case? Perhaps it's more a lack of thinking capacity. Have you ever thought of using Google? It's fairly simple, but could be a strain for some. Anyway, I used it. First link is about Carl Zimmer, who has written a book on the subject of scientists and tattoos. Now, it could be that in the past, fewer people of more cultured tastes got tattoos. There were good reasons for that. One, they were extremely difficult to move. That has changed with ruby lasers, and the process is now abundant, nearly painless, and becomes less expensive by the year. Two, the quality of the work was rarely that high. Inks weren't made to last forever, had fewer available pigments, and the needles, being thick, made for messy artwork. That has changed. Now there is a vast array of available pigments and the machinery to put ink to skin allows for very detailed work. So, young people, ever the trendsetters while others complain that what they do is "ignorant" or "distasteful", are getting these high quality tattoos, and many of them are in the sciences, creating new technologies, and expanding on philosophy. Many of them will go on to make names for themselves while you fade into oblivion, leaving behind only a few remarks on a message board, forever cached in the Google database, whinging about how egotistical those young whippersnappers are. It seems to me that a sure sign of ego-orientation is complaining about what others do. Perhaps you should look to yourself if ego-orientation is such a sin in your mind.
Anyone with a bit of intellectual capacity would first question how many scientists were polled about the possibility of them having tattoos. Out of the thousands likely polled, then what is the number that replied in the affirmative? How many of them were then willing to have a picture taken for an article (or Carl Zimmer's book, which likely includes more than 12 scientists). How many of those were actually selected as subjects given the quality and uniqueness of the work and availability of their time? The answer is 12. However, 12 could be just a small sample, and having those other numbers, one could extrapolate how many, out of "millions of scientists", actually have tattoos.
The link was not suppossed to detail every intelligent person who has ever received a tattoo, the link was posted to dismiss the silly notion that intelligent people don't get tattoos. That should have been easily understood. But instead you move the goal posts and fall into yet another logical fallacy. Fail.
I think it manifestly obvious that the lowest socio-economic groups of society are the ones where Tattoo's are most in demand and even lauded. I doubt many Docotrs,Lawyers,Financiers and CEO's are too concerned about having a Tattoo. Meaning it's virtually an exercise in being a knucklehead.
The charge was that MOST, the VAST MAJORITY, MORE than 90% of: Scientists dont. Prisoners do. This remains unchallenged. Sparta kick to the face.
