This one is actually pretty funny, but I’m not entirely sure I understand the thought process that begins “I have a mildly funny idea” and ends “I’m going to permanently tattoo this joke on my face.”
One of this guy’s comments reads “Good afternoon sir. Are you hiring?”
SCENE: Shot From Guns, alone at home. A knock on the door. It’s this guy in a City Gas outfit. Does she let him in, or betray her ideals and lock the door?
STAY TUNED FOR THE EXCITING CONCLUSION TO “BAD CHOICE, GIRL”
Finally, are there any clues in this picture that might lead you to believe it’s a mug shot?
The content of the thread certainly puts lie to THAT thought.
If anyone’d actually said that, I must have missed it. I know I have stated more than once caveats including “tasteful”, “well-executed”, “well-cared-for”, and “not obscene”.
As I mentioned previously, I’ve hired candidates with visible tattoos, selecting them over candidates without visible tattoos and I don’t think I would hire someone with a tattoo on their face. This is because I’ve never seen one that displayed anything other than a deplorable lack of judgment.
Here’s the thing with tattoos - if I’m hiring someone I want to know about their credentials - if I can’t listen to them answer the questions I’m asking because my gaze is completely transfixed on their face full of stars it’s not going to happen. If someone had something very subtle and non-distracting it wouldn’t affect my choice.
Not old enough to drink, but old enough to get herself permanently disfigured after a moment of bad judgement. Hope the tattoo removal process works for her.
Why doesn’t it work better? I mean, why has science not come up with easy tattoo removal yet? Cause I want to put on a tattoo for the weekend or a nice party and then take it off come Monday, and I do know about temporary tattoos, but you can’t just get them in any old style, can you? I understand body paint but that’s not really what I mean. Come to think of it, where is my fingernail-polish gun I was promised back in BLADE RUNNER? This whole nailpolish thing is messy!
BTW, I meant to add before, if I was going to discriminate against people who had any tattoo, I’d, uh, have to discriminate against myself. Like, not give myself a job or something.
Facial tattoos are rot, though, and that is my opinion and I am sticking to it.
ETA: I remember that star story and am not surprised she retracted.
Tattoos are a pretty interesting thing, actually. The pigment has to be located at a pretty specific depth to ‘take’. Too shallow and it’ll slough off with the dead skin, too deep and the body’s defenses will break it down and carry it away.
Yes, they are. When i got mine done I was totally fascinated, and watched every step of the healing process very closely. I am still sometimes completely blown away by it. Look at this! Ink, under my skin! And it won’t go away!
I think I’m going to stick around this thread to see how many more stupid equivalences **EE **can come up with. Apparently people not only have a right to work, but they also have a right to date me and enter my apartment.
I said that given a choice, you wouldn’t hire someone with a visible tattoo. I.e., if there were someone else equally qualified who didn’t have any tattoos that you could see, you would pick them every time. Was I wrong? Sorry if I phrased your explicitly stated position in a way that made you uncomfortable.
You do realize that most of his posts after a certain point were written solely to amuse himself, right? So if you met this person at a mixer, and after mentioning you were looking for some investing advice, he (?) gave you his card and told you he was a financial advisor, would you seek his services?
Oh, entirely. It’s just great watching him jack off while he looks around with a big grin, expecting everyone else to be impressed, and missing that we’re mostly just embarassed on his behalf.
Nice way to avoid the question, so let’s ask it again: You’re home alone when this guy shows up at your house dressed in a City Gas uniform. “Hello, I need to be let in to check the gas lines.” Do you ignore his appearance and let him in? Yes or no?
As I re-read my post(s), I’m think I may have to concede your point. At the very least, I’m not expressing myself as well as I could. I was trying to say I don’t believe that tattoos ensure that people will be ne’er-do-wells, but that they may cause other folks to associate them with that set. I’ll try to put more thought into it next time (and not be hurrying off to work).:smack:
::searches for old statistics book::
You’re looking for Bayesian statistics: The probability that a person with a face tattoo [P(F)] is a criminal [P(C|F)] is equal to P(F|C)P(C)/[P(F|C)P(C)+P(F|~C)P(~C)]
For instance, make some estimates, e.g., 1 in 10,000 people is a criminal, 1 in 100,000 people has a face tattoo, 1 in 1,000 criminals has a face tattoo (a higher share of criminals get face tattoos than regular people, that is, face tattoos and criminal behavior are positively correlated), then a face tattoo is a very good indicator of criminal behavior: that is, people with face tattoos are 100 times more likely to be criminals than are people without face tattoos. (ETA: Even though the majority of people with face tattoos are not criminals!)
Obviously I made up the numbers so the reality may be different.
And you can ignore the objection that correlation =/= causation. Statistics can’t–and isn’t expected to–test causation, so it’s a silly argument.
Causation comes only from your hypothesis, and statistics tests hypotheses, so you start with a reasonable hypothesis and use statistics to test it. If you start with the hypothesis that face tattoos are a sign of criminal behavior, then a statistical test showing a correlation between face tattoos and criminal behavior supports your hypothesis.
