Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 yes, a very good point. In fact, it was so good that I made it two hours ago. Don't feel bad, the article did too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 yes, a very good point. In fact, it was so good that I made it two hours ago. Sorry I was too caught up trying to distinguish libertarianism from anarchism. It is quite conceivable that a parent wouldn't know it was against the law, particularly since the artist followed through with the request.... The artist should absolutely be held to a higher standard. In fact, this question actually came up in the republican debate last night, where Paul said he would not prosecute those who've hired illegal immigrants, because it's not supposed to be their job to enforce who's legal and who isn't... I know that issue isn't that simple, but point being, it's up for the professionals to do their job the way they're supposed to, not for the people asking for their services to know what's legal, proper procedure, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It seems we are developing a new form for government with issues like this that keep coming to the forefront: The Idiocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 well, rajn is taller, so there's that. wiegie keeps denying my firend request on facebook so with the information I have available to me, rajn is also better looking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What an idiot. So by her reasoning, if she gets her child involved in drug or prostitution ring, as long as it has parental blessing, it should be OK? yes and according to this kind of slippery slope absurdity, if we allow ghey marriage next it will be man on dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted January 20, 2012 Author Share Posted January 20, 2012 Well, on the plus side, when he robs the kwik-e-mart at 14 the cashier will be able to say... "Yeah, the guy had the #3 and some dudes name tattooed on his arm"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 yes, a very good point. In fact, it was so good that I made it two hours ago. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 wiegie keeps denying my firend request on facebook so with the information I have available to me, rajn is also better looking. I am? Not intentionally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I am? Not intentionally. I was just teasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I guess your definition of "harm" is relegated to actual physical or mental abuse....which is sad, and a huge part of what is wrong with much of our youth today. Suppose this was a baby...would you still be OK with it? is it because the child was ten-years-old, and the gesture was touching, make it seem OK to you? Thats pretty pathetic. Almost every law in our country is established to ensure the very small minority act in a way that serves society. Most people don't rape, murder, steal, speed, shoot heroin, endanger kids....but there are laws that are in place to make those acts illegal so that those that do wish to do these things pay a price. That's not "Sally"...that's common sense. The reason you don't see many elementary school kids with tats is pretty simple....almost all parents would restrict their kids from making this decision so early in life. The fact that this lady made this horrendous call is the exact reason why some states need a law in place to prevent it. If you don't have the kahunas to say to your kid "I think the thought behind what you want to do is a wonderful gesture, but you need to wait until you are a little older to so something to yourself that will be on your skin forever. Maybe you can wear your brother's necklace, or carry something of his, as a reminder of how much he meant to you. Mommy is an adult, which is why I have a tattoo...when you are an adult, you can make that decision yourself."....then, IMO, you've pretty much proven your parenting skills and decision-making are worthy of a look. The role of government should not be to ensure everyone is acting within the same box or by the ideals of a few. But that's exactly what laws like this are aiming to accomplish - it forces everyone to live by a set of parameters deemed logical by a few lawmakers. Different strokes for different folks. The issue here isn't whether or not the mom made a good decision - the issue is who decideds what the right decision is. I'd rather the government stay out of my life and let me decide what's best for me and my family. You can't control billions of peole with a set of ideals decided by a few. Different governments/countries have different standards and norms that seem bizarre to those on the outside. That's because those on the inside and outside are being influenced by their own governments and most people can't help but be influenced when propoganda is rampant on all levels (education, media, jobs). I laugh at so many of you who think you're open minded but yet the same people preach what they've been taught without an ability to segregate implanted ideas from their own natural ideas. But sure, keep thinking you're open minded as you throw stones at people who may act differently than you while not harming anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 yes and according to this kind of slippery slope absurdity, if we allow ghey marriage next it will be man on dog. Ok, I took it to a greater length to accentuate a point...sorry you didn't get that. But the reality of the Mom's excuse for doing tattooing her 10-year old was "Hey, its my kid...I can make any decision I deem right in regard to his welfare". Sadly, some here actually believe that should be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But sure, keep thinking you're open minded as you throw stones at people who may act differently than you while not harming anyone else. other than, potentially, an innocent child? Know the risks Tattoos breach the skin, which means that skin infections and other complications are possible. Specific risks include: Allergic reactions. Tattoo dyes — especially red dye — can cause allergic skin reactions, resulting in an itchy rash at the tattoo site. This may occur even years after you get the tattoo. Skin infections. Tattoos can lead to local bacterial infections, characterized by redness, swelling, pain and a pus-like drainage. Other skin problems. Sometimes bumps called granulomas form around tattoo ink — especially red ink. Tattooing can also lead to raised areas caused by an overgrowth of scar tissue (keloids). Bloodborne diseases. If the equipment used to create your tattoo is contaminated with infected blood, you can contract various bloodborne diseases, including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, tetanus and HIV — the virus that causes AIDS. MRI complications. Rarely, tattoos or permanent makeup may cause swelling or burning in the affected areas during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams. In some cases — such as when a person with permanent eyeliner has an MRI of the eye — tattoo pigments may interfere with the quality of the image. .....but I am sure this wonderful mom explained all the potential health and social ramifications of getting a tattoo to her 10-year old...who, as was pointed out earlier, is older than a baby so should be able to make his own decisions. Maybe you "every child for themselves " guys should go for a group hug under a tree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Risks from tattoos I don't understand why anyone thinks that its ok for a parent to expose his or her child to a painful, cosmetic procedure with those risks. Edited January 20, 2012 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I guess your definition of "harm" is relegated to actual physical or mental abuse....which is sad, and a huge part of what is wrong with much of our youth today. Suppose this was a baby...would you still be OK with it? is it because the child was ten-years-old, and the gesture was touching, make it seem OK to you? Thats pretty pathetic. Almost every law in our country is established to ensure the very small minority act in a way that serves society. Most people don't rape, murder, steal, speed, shoot heroin, endanger kids....but there are laws that are in place to make those acts illegal so that those that do wish to do these things pay a price. That's not "Sally"...that's common sense. The reason you don't see many elementary school kids with tats is pretty simple....almost all parents would restrict their kids from making this decision so early in life. The fact that this lady made this horrendous call is the exact reason why some states need a law in place to prevent it. If you don't have the kahunas to say to your kid "I think the thought behind what you want to do is a wonderful gesture, but you need to wait until you are a little older to so something to yourself that will be on your skin forever. Maybe you can wear your brother's necklace, or carry something of his, as a reminder of how much he meant to you. Mommy is an adult, which is why I have a tattoo...when you are an adult, you can make that decision yourself."....then, IMO, you've pretty much proven your parenting skills and decision-making are worthy of a look. Exactly. What if the kid wanted a football team tat? Would that be OK? Clearly the law is there to prevent kids being tatted by idiot parents. I'd like to know why the tattooist who should clearly have refused to do this did not do so. You guys conflating this nonsense with an assault on "freedom" need your heads examined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 If you are willing to let your 10 year old get a tatoo, I think you've proven you need someone to intervene and do the thinking for you. Freedumb isn't free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Ok, I took it to a greater length to accentuate a point...sorry you didn't get that. But the reality of the Mom's excuse for doing tattooing her 10-year old was "Hey, its my kid...I can make any decision I deem right in regard to his welfare". Sadly, some here actually believe that should be the case. People need to understand that not every parent is going to parent perfectly. In fact, it's probably safe to say NO parent is perfect. You can't police the whole world and you certainly can't write laws that force people to live their lives based on a democracy and that's where we've been headed with every new law that attempts to define parameters on how we should behave. There's no accurate place to draw the line except for when you cross the line in harming others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 ...Almost every law in our country is established to ensure the very small minority act in a way that serves society. ... And here is the crux of the issue. There is no law, nor should there be, that says any individual should or must "serve" society. The laws are such that no individual will encroach on another person's rights. This is not a small distinction - it's a mammoth one. This tattoo is not something that will harm the child, unless you want to cook up something about some perceived emotional abuse. And if you want to go there then know there's not a human alive who hasn't met that definition at one time or another, and the only way to stop it completely is to watch everything everyone says to everyone else in life. So if it does no harm to the child, why can't the mother have this say so? It harms no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But sure, keep thinking you're open minded as you throw stones at people who may act differently than you while not harming anyone else. You could argue that the woman is harming the kid, by making a decision on his behalf that he, not she, has to live with permanently.... As I said, I agree that it's the tattoo artist, not the parent who should have been prosecuted here, but I don't think it's an infringement of liberty to have statutes that set age requirements on things like smoking, driving, drinking, etc., that are not to be taken lightly by some lax parent and a begging child. I assume this is a state issue as it should be, but I think it falls under common decency that someone should not be able to put permanent marks on their body until a time in which they're old enough to comprehend the permanent decision and choice of art... So according to the law, this is one of the few things that parents should not be left to decide for their children, because common decency tells us that a parent does not hold the right to use their kid as a permanent canvas, which is what you're allowing them to do if you believe it should be up to the parent.... As for the kid, it's clear they're incapable of making sound rational decisions, and so that creates a special category where there have to be restrictions on what parents can do on their behalf. That has to do with the kid's liberty just as much, of not being subjected of looking down at 20 and wondering how the hell your stupid parents let you get that absurd tattoo you begged them for... When you turn 18, then I agree that you should be able to make whatever dumb choice you want if it doesn't harm others, but I think it's wrong to give parents complete reign in any irresponsible decision they subject their children to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 This tattoo is not something that will harm the child, unless you want to cook up something about some perceived emotional abuse. You can not possibly know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 There's no accurate place to draw the line except for when you cross the line in harming others. Permanently disfiguring the skin of a 10 year old is, at the least, debatable to whether it crosses the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 other than, potentially, an innocent child? .....but I am sure this wonderful mom explained all the potential health and social ramifications of getting a tattoo to her 10-year old...who, as was pointed out earlier, is older than a baby so should be able to make his own decisions. Maybe you "every child for themselves " guys should go for a group hug under a tree? There's potential harm in everything. "Intended" harm is the term I should have used. There's potential harm in what you say to your kids. Your ideas about race, religion and a whole bevy of other topics are potentially harmful. You can't police every action, thought or idea made by people. INTENDED harm should be the only line drawn and with that you must accept there will be a bunch of different people who do things differently than you and differently from mainstream ideas. But that's how the world should be experienced - by your own decisions and actions. If you intentionally harm someone, you must be punished accordingly and if not, more power to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 You can not possibly know this. Riding a bicycle could harm a child. There are risks in walking across the street. There are risks in eating chicken fingers. Life is full fo risks. WV's point is that there is no implicit harm in getting a tattoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) There's potential harm in everything. "Intended" harm is the term I should have used. There's potential harm in what you say to your kids. Your ideas about race, religion and a whole bevy of other topics are potentially harmful. You can't police every action, thought or idea made by people. INTENDED harm should be the only line drawn and with that you must accept there will be a bunch of different people who do things differently than you and differently from mainstream ideas. But that's how the world should be experienced - by your own decisions and actions. If you intentionally harm someone, you must be punished accordingly and if not, more power to you. Dude, there are oodles of examples where harm is not intended, but that even libertarians will agree infringe other's rights.... In this case, I think the right of a kid to be a kid, and not be subjected to needless permanent decisions like this, is completely reasonable... Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It harms no one. how do you know that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Riding a bicycle could harm a child. There are risks in walking across the street. There are risks in eating chicken fingers. Life is full fo risks. WV's point is that there is no implicit harm in getting a tattoo. I disagree. That tat could well change the kid's employment prospects for a start. The kneejerk libertarian reaction against laws such as this isn't always correct. In most cases, these laws are reactive, not proactive. They are a consequence of someone doing something really stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.