Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve Smith said:
Imply - a suggestion.
Infer - a conclusion based on evidence.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Not quite that cut and dried.

Love this explanation.

Quoted from it:

Same event, different perspectives
Imply and infer can be used to describe the same event, but that they present this event from different points of view. Take a look at the following two sentences:

He implied that the General had been a traitor.
[presented from the writer’s or speaker’s perspective]

I inferred from his words that the General had been a traitor.
[presented from the listener’s perspective]

In the first sentence, the writer or speaker doesn’t actually claim that the General had betrayed his country, but his words (or even his tone) have suggested that this is the case.
In the second sentence, whatever was said about the General has enabled the listener to deduce that he was in fact a traitor (without the writer or speaker having risked a charge or libel or slander).
 
There has been several mentions of "Normal" people in this thread, I do not see how we can classify people as normal or not when discussing tattoos, I know several police officers a few of nurses and one Crown court Judge who have tattoos, most can be covered some cannot are these highly educated professionals abnormal?
I have several tattoos and work for an Asian company whose traditional views mean they are intolerant of tattoos however they understand that that is there culture not a global one and simply request tattoos are not on show, to me this is no problem, I wear shirt and tie and all are out of site.
Someone asked why have names, for me it was personal, I have my children’s names on my chest, and have a plan of one on my leg for a child that was not to be, I have seen some beautiful tattoos of hand or foot prints and the name of a lost child, it is the way these people wish to express themselves and remember moments that are significant to them, it does not make them or I criminal minded, abnormal or abhorrent.
If I decided to tattoo my face (personally I would not) , I would accept that I would not be able to work where I do and would have to seek other employment, I would also accept that I may be discriminated against and prejudged by some, that would not change who I am!
I will admit I see some tattoos, (normally those done by a mate) and think “not a good choice” however it was their choice, I do not like all body art in the same way I do not like all art I am not a fan of Picasso but I do like Monet, Warhol does nothing for me but I love Lowery, but whilst I don't like it I can still appreciate their art, whilst I understand to a point the argument about employment, I find the labeling and distain by some to be odd on what should after all be an art friendly forum .
To the question should discrimination against tattoos be illegal? I don't think so employers should be free to employ who they like, if there company suffers due to them employing a less suitable person because of the way another candidate looks, that is there loss, if a person decides to tattoo their face then they have to accept that some positions may not be offered.
Red
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
I used normal in the context of getting your face tatoo'd. 'Normal' people do not consider this (unless you're mauri)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
WelshNoob said:
I used normal in the context of getting your face tatoo'd. 'Normal' people do not consider this (unless you're mauri)
Click to expand...

What is your considered definition of normal?
 
WelshNoob said:
With regards to facial tatoos? People without them.
Click to expand...

So every single person who has a facial tattoo is abnormal.
Wow, those years of charm school are really paying off for you! :rolleyes:
 
viv1969 said:
What is your considered definition of normal?
Click to expand...

WelshNoob said:
With regards to facial tatoos? People without them.
Click to expand...

I asked a question.
Your own answer was made of your own words not mine.
If people without facial tattos are normal, that means by you own definition that those with them are abnormal.
I don't make the rules, the English language does.
 
Wow, you seem to be intentionally, annoying taking things to almost a child like level. Very funny. If you want to say that I think they are abnormal then so beit. I called them morons earlier in the thread. I'll stick by that view aswell.
 
viv1969 said:
I asked a question.
Click to expand...

Well you didn't as questions usually have this thing called a question mark after them. You made a statement.

I don't make the rules, the English language does.

I have to ask the question though. Do you think it's normal to have facial tatoos?
 
Last edited:
Well its a normal thing for those that have them. I agree that in what is probably universally understood to be considered normal these days, then no, it is not the norm. However, tattoos (or at least the artwork from which the tattoo is taken) generally have special/individual meaning for those that have them, and those people are maybe wanting to make some kind of personal statement. Im guessing that most on here will have their own ideas on what that statement is (probably something of the narrow minded variety, like 'im a moron') but that statement might just be a big f*** you to the people that look down their noses at them.
 
Are people that have facial tattoo's the majority of people or a very small minority of people.

How many people with body tatoo's, you know arms, back, legs (bits that are covered by clothing) actually have the facial ones.

The way these questions are answered will assess whether something is normal or not?

The comments re personal statements etc are maybe at odds with the statement/image many companies wish to project, hence their reluctance to take folk on with artwork all over their face
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
Well.............
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up so you are saying they are abnormal aswell, that's fine.

Nikon_Nick said:
Just because something is a minority doesnt make it abnormal.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that's just not true. I have to follow Viv's amazing reasoning and refer you back to the English language.

Normal

ADJECTIVE

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Nikon_Nick said:
Just because something is a minority doesnt make it abnormal.
Click to expand...

So if something is a rare occurance, can it be considered normal? I cannot think of a person I've seen with tatoo's on their face, therefore it wouldn't be normal for me to see this and therefore unusual. PS. I am only working on appearance here, nothing else. But when appearance matters to project the image a company wants to project, people with visible body art will find it harder as their appearance (due to factors entirely of their own violation) became "unusual" or "different to the norm" and as such may have employers think, oh hang on a minuate

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal
 
Last edited:
Out come the dictionaries. Well done guys. Did you also look up narrow minded, old fashioned and intollerance?
 
When in doubt consult the dictionary.

Normal: adj:
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Let's try that out and see if it fits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Nikon_Nick said:
Out come the dictionaries. Well done guys. Did you also look up narrow minded, old fashioned and intollerance?
Click to expand...

I was quite happy with my views before viv tried pulling me up on them using the dictionary. He's the one that's effectively said that you think people with facial tattoos are abnormal. Don't blame me. And it's so not fashionable to have your face tattooed.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
So if something is a rare occurance, can it be considered normal? I cannot think of a person I've seen with tatoo's on their face, therefore it wouldn't be normal for me to see this and therefore unusual.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/normal
Click to expand...

Unusual for you yes. Its something ive seen personally countless times, but thats because of the sort of music festivals/events I attend. Abnormal for you? Indeed. Not for everyone.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Out come the dictionaries. Well done guys. Did you also look up narrow minded, old fashioned and intollerance?
Click to expand...

Rather than brandish names around, try answering the posts. Is it a rare occurance for someone to have body art on their face, and would the company thing that would project a positive image for a company if a person had that on their face representing them.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Unusual for you yes. Its something ive seen personally countless times, but thats because of the sort of music festivals/events I attend. Abnormal for you? Indeed. Not for everyone.
Click to expand...

And what sort of music/festivals/events is that. Are these quite specialised/minority interests, and perhaps most importantly, why should these music/festivals/events be a desired visible spill over for an employer in their work place.

In a large corporate place, what % of people have visible face art and what % attend such music/festivals/events. Is it a large % or small %
 
ST4 said:
Rather than brandish names around, try answering the posts. Is it a rare occurance for someone to have body art on their face, and would the company thing that would project a positive image for a company if a person had that on their face representing them.
Click to expand...

Who called anyone a name?

Ive never said that I think people hiring for jobs are in the wrong if they dont employ based on the candidate having tattoos.

Try reading.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Who called anyone a name?

Ive never said that I think people hiring for jobs are in the wrong if they dont employ based on the candidate having tattoos.

Try reading.
Click to expand...

So why exactly are you taking part in the thread? No-one has said that tatoo'd folk are a menace/danger so I don't see when I am sensing an out range. particularly as I agree with the bold bit?
 
Nikon_Nick said:
It was always going to Neil, as long as there people that cant accept anything outside of their own perfect bubble.
Click to expand...

Where has that come from? I've, and no one else has said tattooing should be banned/stopped. People can do what they want to themselves, IMHO, so long as they can live with the consequences I couldn't care less.
 
ST4 said:
So why exactly are you taking part in the thread? No-one has said that tatoo'd folk are a menace/danger so I don't see when I am sensing an out range. particularly as I agree with the bold bit?
Click to expand...

You are questioning how 'normal' something is, but as usual with limited experience.

I can take part in whatever thread I like thanks.
 
The only reason this thread deteriorated was because instead of polite discussions 'some' had to feel the need to start using words like abnormal and moronic...
 
Nikon_Nick said:
You are questioning how 'normal' something is, but as usual with limited experience.

I can take part in whatever thread I like thanks.
Click to expand...

I am can ask how normal or abnormal something is. I work in a massive office, with a huge number of people and am out in the public most days. Trust me, unless you mix in very "unique/alternative" circles, stretched ear loabs, massive face tatoo's are not the norm. Anyone who says they are is really talking rubbish.

I for example mix with people that see driving 3/4 5litre cars as normal, but trust me, it isn't. Most cars out there are not 5litre V8 german expresses, but if you turn up to an event which I attend, 3 litres is a small engine. DOesn't make that choice of car "normal" only normal to that group of people.

Same with face art.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I am can ask how normal or abnormal something is. I work in a massive office, with a huge number of people and am out in the public most days. Trust me, unless you mix in very "unique/alternative" circles, stretched ear loabs, massive face tatoo's are not the norm. Anyone who says they are is really talking rubbish.

I for example mix with people that see driving 3/4 5litre cars as normal, but trust me, it isn't. Most cars out there are not 5litre V8 german expresses, but if you turn up to an event which I attend, 3 litres is a small engine. DOesn't make that choice of car "normal" only normal to that group of people.

Same with face art.
Click to expand...

Man of the world obviously.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Did I say they werent? Please point me to the post where I said that.
Click to expand...

So why comment the thread went down hill when the word criminal was used? I don't get it.

Cg_Girl said:
The only reason this thread deteriorated was because instead of polite discussions 'some' had to feel the need to start using words like abnormal and moronic...
Click to expand...
Nikon_Nick said:
...and criminal
Click to expand...



Nikon_Nick said:
Man of the world obviously.
Click to expand...

Touche ;)
 
Last edited:
Nikon_Nick said:
It was always going to Neil, as long as there people that cant accept anything outside of their own perfect bubble.
Click to expand...

I accept it and I'm totally tolerate about it, I don't run a tattoo'd face hate campaign or lobby my MP about it you can do what you want to yourself. I expressed a view, my opinion on it and ever since I have been berated for my view on it with others thrusting their view on me trying to imply that I'm in the wrong for having my view.

Nikon_Nick said:
You are questioning how 'normal' something is, but as usual with limited experience.
Click to expand...


He hasn't got limited experience of seeing people with or without facial tatoos though has he, he sees people all day every day and I'm pretty sure he could spot something that's out of the 'norm'
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
WelshNoob said:
I was quite happy with my views before viv tried pulling me up on them using the dictionary. He's the one that's effectively said that you think people with facial tattoos are abnormal. And it's so not fashionable to have your face tattooed.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was wondering what had happened to Ruth since she tossed that grenade into the conversation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top