On Tattoos

[Una_Persson]

@XJETGIRLX

I’m not saying that there aren’t people out there (like Una) who have this prejudice.

From this very thread:

@Una Persson

and while I personally don’t let it impact my decision (you’d be surprised at what doesn’t impact my decision to hire)

@Una Persson

Note that I said that it didn’t impact my decision to hire. In fact, I typically find most tattoos on women to be either interesting or attractive.

@Una Persson

I’m on your side on this subject from a moral standpoint.

You are misrepresenting my position and what I’ve written in this very thread right here. And given that no new facts have entered the thread, that’s all I have to say at this juncture.

[bibliophage]

@MOIDALIZE

Only a drunken harlot would believe such a thing

I suspect this is an attempt at humor, so I won’t warn you. But as a friendly reminder, recall that insults directed at your fellow posters are not permitted outside the BBQ Pit. In the future, please be more careful about abiding by this rule.

@XJETGIRLX

But hey, if it makes you feel better about your own irrational prejudice, go ahead and bask in it

Una twice denied being prejudiced in hiring decisions. To avoid driving this thread off the rails, please do not continue to mischaracterize your fellow posters’ statements. The issue is not the personal prejudice of any poster here, but of hiring managers in general. If you have a problem with another poster, you can always take it to the BBQ Pit.

bibliophage
moderator CCC

[Critical1]

@dropzone

I don’t see the appeal. I mean, it’s an identifiable mark for the police, and who knows when you might need to not have any?

I dont know if this is serious but really? with dna and finger printing and surveillance video and all that you are concerned about getting identified by a tat? only a dumbshit criminal would commit a crime with an obvious visible tat if that were the only way to be identified and if you properly covered it up that would be even more “proof” that you didnt commit the crime down the road.

[chazjonz]

I’m 53 and I have two tats and I plan on getting more. You need to be careful about what you get. Be sure that the tatoo you get will still be appropriate later in life.
A tat of a liquor bottle with a sexy lady might be nice in your twentys but at my age I think that it would be inappropriate unless you want to grow up to be a lifetime alcoholic.

[SeanArenas]

@Critical1

I dont know if this is serious but really? with dna and finger printing and surveillance video and all that you are concerned about getting identified by a tat? only a dumbshit criminal would commit a crime with an obvious visible tat if that were the only way to be identified and if you properly covered it up that would be even more “proof” that you didnt commit the crime down the road.

But if you planned your crime carefully, robbed a liquor store with no camera, left no DNA or fingerprints, wore a mask, and the person behind the register (whom you just robbed) was able to see a tattoo of Winnie the Pooh on your forearm, that’s what he’s going to tell the police.

“The guy had a ski mask on his head.”
“Were there any identifiable marks?”
“Nope. Oh, wait … he had a gigantic Winnie the Pooh tattoo on his right arm. It was yellow and red.”

The officer might remember dealing with a criminal in the past who had a similar tattoo and go find you. Now, don’t you feel silly for having gotten that visible, unique tattoo?

[Savannah]

@Critical1

I dont know if this is serious but really? with dna and finger printing and surveillance video and all that you are concerned about getting identified by a tat? only a dumbshit criminal would commit a crime with an obvious visible tat

Like thisdude?

[Critical1]

@Savannah

Like thisdude?

like I said,
anyone that dumb isnt smart enough to get away with the crime in the first place

[BigT]

@Critical1

like I said,

anyone that dumb isnt smart enough to get away with the crime in the first place

In other words, the True Scotsman fallacy?