You're absolutely right. I make assumptions about people all the time. It's one of my favorite things to do.
Getting tattoos, are they addictive?
- Thread starter Mr. Ed
- Start date
oscash
Senior Member
- Location
- Sydney - Australia
It's coming up for Australia Day on January 26th so I bought what I thought was the Australian flag to put on the car, it was a tattoo, i will have to take it back to get a refund.
papa tiger
Well-known Member
Is it stupid? "Stupid is Fo-evah!"
Maybe most of it is a Camoflage to blend in!
Who cares what some do to themselves
to make it "beautiful," they know! Haha
Maybe most of it is a Camoflage to blend in!
Who cares what some do to themselves
to make it "beautiful," they know! Haha
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Breast augmentation saddens me. Unless someone is deformed (i.e. one breast failed to develop or had to be removed) I think that there is nothing wrong with small natural breasts.
For some women, this procedure is as addictive as tattooing can be for men and women. Enough is never enough.
it is something I try not to do - not to let my own personal preferences prejudice me against people
dilettante
Well-known Member
- Location
- Michigan
I know a little mother;
She's 86 years old.
She lectures other people,
To make them in her mold.
She croaks and shrieks and chatters;
As vacuous as hell.
Relatives avoid her,
And her awful smell.
She's 86 years old.
She lectures other people,
To make them in her mold.
She croaks and shrieks and chatters;
As vacuous as hell.
Relatives avoid her,
And her awful smell.
papa tiger
Well-known Member
When a Man
Meets a boobie
as hard as a peach
will he remember it
all the rest of his life or
will he sigh, say good by!
Anyone know all about that?
Meets a boobie
as hard as a peach
will he remember it
all the rest of his life or
will he sigh, say good by!
Anyone know all about that?
To me tattoos are like a physical deformity and a big turnoff and I think any woman who either has them or wants them needs to have her head examined. Mind you, I'm a strong believer in freedom of the press, so I will defend the right of any consenting adult to have tattoos.
why should anyone (men or women) need their head examined just because they do something you do not like?
I did a temporary factory job years ago and worked with a guy who had a 'sleeve' of tattoos, extending to cover his hands as well. He had the equivalent on his lower leg -- is that still a sleeve or would it be a sock? 
We met by chance outside work, going different directions through the local town centre. Said a quick hello. He had a small cut on the back of one hand. Looked as if it was probably healing, but surrounded by all the tattoo colours it also looked like a real mess.
We met by chance outside work, going different directions through the local town centre. Said a quick hello. He had a small cut on the back of one hand. Looked as if it was probably healing, but surrounded by all the tattoo colours it also looked like a real mess.
January, you’ve constructed a straw man argument here. I never claimed men or women need their heads examined simply for doing something I dislike. My comment was specifically about women with tattoos or those wanting them. So, if you're going to to respond, then address what I actually said, not your distorted version of it.
So if you see a big old American with a MAGA tattoo you don't have any prejudice against him? I salute your open-mindedness.
Paco Dennis
SF VIP
- Location
- Mid-Missouri
Well I will confess I am prejudice when I see someone with a tattoo. I think to myself " I bet that person likes tattoos".
MACKTEXAS
Well-known Member
I should work toward that goal. I've read and admired many of your posts.
you don't like tattoos and then you said any woman (not sure why not men too) who get them or want them need their head examined - so, no - not a strawman argument or any distortion - you did say women need their head examined because they are doing something you do not like
well I am in Australia so I doubt I would see that.
But clearly that isnt what I said - of course if anyone has a tattoo or a flag or a sticker or anything advertising something I would judge on that - but what I responded t o was the poster making assumptions about anyone with a tattoo, any tattoo, not one that said something political or affiliated with KKK or whatever.
dilettante
Well-known Member
- Location
- Michigan
I just read a magazine article on tattoos. Scary. It seems that a significant number of people who get lots of large tattoos are trying to cover up self-harm scars, especially on women. Usually around wrists and ankles but even necks!
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Sad, but there are less permanent remedies - scarves, wristbands? I can understand this reason for tattoos though.
I have a granddaughter who has a tattoo that indicates a genetic condition. Not a bad idea at all.
I have a niece who was a drummer in a rock band. She has some fairly extensive pictorial work done. If she wears a scoop neckline we can see the head of an American Indian Chief with full feathered headdress. Her partner is a walking art gallery. Both lovely people.
I had my first baby, a health 9 pounder, when I was only twenty and was left with stretch marks from Whoa to Go. If I could have got rid of them or camouflaged them in some way I would have jumped at it back then, so I make no judgments on people with extensive tattoos. Their body, their choice.
When my children were teens I was very much against them getting tattooed. My reason was that HIV was a risk because of poor sterilisation practices. For this same reason I objected to ear, nose and body piercings.
January, I understand where you're coming from, but I think there's still a misunderstanding here. My comment about women with tattoos needing their heads examined wasn’t a blanket statement about disliking something and applying that judgment universally. It was an opinion rooted in my own perception and preferences, however bluntly expressed.
I specifically addressed women because that’s where my personal aversion lies, but I also acknowledged the right of adults to make their own choices, even if I find them unappealing. You’re interpreting my words as saying 'anyone who does something I dislike needs their head examined,' but that’s not an accurate representation of my stance.
So, yes, your initial reply did construct a straw man argument. You framed my position as a broad judgment about any behavior I dislike, which distorted my specific point about women with tattoos or those wanting them.
No that isnt what I meant - I didn't say you thought women who do anything you dislike need their heads examined.
But you did say women who did this thing you dislike should get their heads examined - which isn't the same as just saying it is your personal aversion.
But you did say women who did this thing you dislike should get their heads examined - which isn't the same as just saying it is your personal aversion.
January, you’re still misrepresenting my stance. My comment about women with tattoos needing their heads examined was a blunt opinion, specific to my personal aversion. It wasn’t a universal judgment about anyone doing something I dislike. Your interpretation—that I apply this sentiment broadly—is a distortion of my words and does qualify as a straw man argument.
I’ve been clear that my aversion is personal, and while I may find tattoos unappealing, I fully acknowledge that adults have the right to make their own choices. Mischaracterizing my words as a blanket condemnation is inaccurate and detracts from a constructive discussion.
No I dont think so - I took your words as meaning what they said - if that isnt what you meant I think you misrepresented your own view
A strawman is where you are arguing against something nobody said - not something you in fact did say - if you said something you don't mean, that isn't on me.
A strawman is where you are arguing against something nobody said - not something you in fact did say - if you said something you don't mean, that isn't on me.
January, let me be crystal clear: my comment was about my personal aversion to tattoos, not some universal judgment. If you took it as something else, that’s on you, not me. Twisting my words into a broad condemnation fits the definition of a straw man—misrepresenting my stance to argue against something I didn’t actually say.
If you're determined to argue against an interpretation I’ve explicitly clarified as incorrect, then we're not having a discussion; you're just putting words in my mouth. That’s not productive, and frankly, it’s exhausting.
no twisting of your words or putting them in your mouth- you said something and are now backtracking on it. Saying other people need their heads examined isnt just about your personal aversion - it is about them needing their heads examined.
if it is so exhausting just stop responding. Too easy. Move on.
if it is so exhausting just stop responding. Too easy. Move on.