Quote:
Originally Posted by AFireInside
Hahaha... What a ridiculous post, don't be so ignorant.
I have close to 100 hours of tattoo time, I just really like art etc.. Thats it..
Guess what I have 2 University degrees, an additional diploma from another University, I ride a motorcycle and not one of the assumptions you make about people with tattoos applies to me. Maybe you need to change your way of thinking.
What about my gf, deans list, masters degree, and likely a med student in the next year. She has sleeves and has been riding a motorcycle for over a decade.. Tattoos and ability aren't related.
There is likely an equal or greater number of those without tats who fit into your stereotype of tattooed people. You are just picking up on the tattoos
I'm sure you could find similar results among people who drive lifted trucks or another variable of your choosing.
That said, they aren't for everyone and I expect and am prepared for a less than favourable reaction.
I wear a shirt and tie to work and for years kept them completely covered and no one had any idea. These days I don't really care.
Get out of the 1950's.
|
Why did you keep your tattoos completely covered?
This thread seems to have shifted to whether getting a tattoo is a good idea, and would people you judge someone based on this?
This OP and article is asking about uncovered tattoos. Secondarily offensive uncovered tattoos.
Get a full sleeve, tattoo yourself blue like a Smurf if you want, as long as the tattoo is covered on a public servant who cares? If a police officer has a tattoo visible it shouldn't be of a swastica, a naked lady, a swear word, or a Van liver Canucks logo.
At the end of the day police officers have to testify in court, perhaps a non-offensive tattoo would negatively affect their testimony if it was visible to the court room. If it's not visible what difference does it make?
This thread isn't supposed to be about tattoos but visible tattoos on public servants and police officers.