Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 this is what it boils down to for me. is it a bad idea for a kid to get a tattoo? probably, but I would hope the parents are in the best position to judge. How many? If you're limiting it, why? Where? Arm only? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 is anyone advocating that? By implication, yes. See below. on the one hand, we always (rightfully) bemoan the fact that there are so many chitty parents out there. parents who aren't accountable, aren't responsible, aren't trustworthy. well, when the government nanny just keeps siphoning off responsibility and accountability from parents, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The inescapable conclusion is that if "nanny" backed off, parenting would be better. Nanny can only back off by rescinding law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I say it's good for my kids to drink wine with their meals and smoke a cigar after. Who are you to judge? They can do that in Europe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 this is what it boils down to for me. is it a bad idea for a kid to get a tattoo? probably, but I would hope the parents are in the best position to judge. and here's the other thing. on the one hand, we always (rightfully) bemoan the fact that there are so many chitty parents out there. parents who aren't accountable, aren't responsible, aren't trustworthy. well, when the government nanny just keeps siphoning off responsibility and accountability from parents, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is an excellent post on the topic and sums up my feelings in a nutshell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama 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. I'd be shocked if anyone here actually approves of the kid's tattoo. Some merely oppose governmental intrusion into what is ultimately a parental judgment call. Edited January 20, 2012 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 How many? If you're limiting it, why? Where? Arm only? Why? Do we limit ear piercing? Do we limit the clothes they wear? Do we limit their haircuts/color? I see dumb little kids running around with mohawks all the time, and think bad things about their parents, but I don't think of calling social workers on them. Should I? Tattoos can be chalked up (or inked up, zing!) as purely generational and somewhat cultural at this point. I grant you that, just as people dress, stylize themselves, and behave, a tattoo can imply many things about a person. Hardly any of which scream "I care about a career in sales or in a corporate environment or in a traditional 'establishment' setting!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The inescapable conclusion is that if "nanny" backed off, parenting would be better. Nanny can only back off by rescinding law. I dunno if it works so well in reverse, if you can un-ring the bell, so to speak. which is one reason why the transfer of authority from individual to state continues apace in but one direction, steadily progressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Do we limit ear piercing? Do we limit the clothes they wear? Do we limit their haircuts/color? I see dumb little kids running around with mohawks all the time, and think bad things about their parents, but I don't think of calling social workers on them. Should I? Are any of those things permanent? All you're proving with that example is how lax parents might let their kid buy into a fad and get tatted up with a bunch of Ed-Hardy-ish tattoos, because well, "that's what Bobby " wanted.... As was mentioned earlier, the law is to save kids from dumb negligent parents letting them make potentially very regrettable permanent decisions. Or if that argument doesn't work, take the kid and parents out of the equation.... Age restrictions are to classify things as adult privileges, which I hope you can agree, this falls under... Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 are you saying that in this situation, the mom was dumb and negligent? No, as I've said several times, I think they should have used discretion in not charging her, and I hope justice prevails that this was an innocent and really honorable mistake on her part.... Fourther, as was mentioned on page 2, I agree that it should be only the tattoo artist, and not the woman who is charged. But the point is that the law doesn't exist for these rare contingencies. Notice I said "potentially", and so when you're talking about a privilege that is completely unnecessary to afford to a child (even with parental discretion), then I think it's completely reasonable to make everyone wait until they can make that decision for themself as an adult, rather than muddying it up with rare contingencies like this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 http://www.tattoodonkey.com/pics/m/o/mothe...odonkey.com.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 No, as I've said several times, I think they should have used discretion in not charging her, and I hope justice prevails that this was an innocent and really honorable mistake on her part.... Fourther, as was mentioned on page 2, I agree that it should be only the tattoo artist, and not the woman who is charged. But the point is that the law doesn't exist for these rare contingencies. Notice I said "potentially", and so when you're talking about a privilege that is completely unnecessary to afford to a child (even with parental discretion), then I think it's completely reasonable to make everyone wait until they can make that decision for themself as an adult, rather than muddying it up with rare contingencies like this... Agree 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huzz Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 http://www.tattoodonkey.com/pics/m/o/mothe...odonkey.com.jpg nice chin hair on that kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 nice chin hair on that kid. It's a tattoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Are any of those things permanent? All you're proving with that example is how lax parents might let their kid buy into a fad and get tatted up with a bunch of Ed-Hardy-ish tattoos, because well, "that's what Bobby " wanted.... As was mentioned earlier, the law is to save kids from dumb negligent parents letting them make potentially very regrettable permanent decisions. First off, tattoos aren't permanent. It isn't as cheap or easy to remove them as it is to put them on, but they can be removed. So quit with the permanent thing. Second, how else would you describe tattoing if not "fad"? Do you watch the NBA? Or if that argument doesn't work, take the kid and parents out of the equation.... Age restrictions are to classify things as adult privileges, which I hope you can agree, this falls under... I'm not against age restrictions, but then again I'm not Maori. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Whats remarkable to me is that a lot of you guys appear to be treating these things like they are stick on decals from a crackerjack box. Let's side aside the risks from the invasive procedure. (Quit complaining about the hepatitis Johnny, you wanted the tattoo, remember.) What if a parent wanted to punish a 10 year old child by repeatedly jabbing a needle into his or her arm so that it bled. Child is convinced that she deserved it. Is that cool? And what about the societal aspect. Let's say David Duke's 10 year old son Bobby digs swastikas and he wants one tattooed on his forehead. Is that cool?. I'm pretty sure that I dug GI Joe when I was 10. I'm pretty f*cking glad that I didn't have one tattooed on my arm back then. Edited January 20, 2012 by Furd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 First off, tattoos aren't permanent. It isn't as cheap or easy to remove them as it is to put them on, but they can be removed. So quit with the permanent thing. Unfortunately, not all tattoos can be removed completely, but the majority can be. Tattoos are meant to be permanent and with recent ink technology and professional tattoo artists improving their skills, tattoos imprinted in the last decade are very difficult to remove. Even with the best technique, some residual scarring remains in a few cases. Read more: http://www.tattoohealth.org/content/whatis...p#ixzz1k2T9fDq9 I'm not against age restrictions, but then again I'm not Maori. Wait, you're not against age restrictions, but you are against a law restricting parents from getting their kids tattooed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) First off, tattoos aren't permanent. It isn't as cheap or easy to remove them as it is to put them on, but they can be removed. So quit with the permanent thing. Second, how else would you describe tattoing if not "fad"? Do you watch the NBA? They are permanent if you can't afford to have it removed.... I know I don't have the cash lying around to get mine taken off, even if I wanted to... Second, yes many tattoos are faddish, which is why they should be left as an adult decision to make, when you're hopefully less prone to just getting the latest fad type of tattoo, and getting something meaningful... But that's not the point. Even if you do get a tat you regret, you're an adult and it's your body, go nuts. I just have serious reservations about saying the same for a kid with any old lax parents to determine what artwork goes on his/her body potentially permanently (see above for clarification, so I don't have to explain the permanent part for a 3rd time). Edited January 20, 2012 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Whats remarkable to me is that a lot of you guys appear to be treating these things like they are stick on decals from a crackerjack box. And a lot of you are acting like this is the same thing as beating your child or leaving them in a basement to rot for punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 This has got to be one of the most ridiculous threads I have ever read. Body piercing your newborn = ok Getting a tattoo of your deceased brother = jail time It is small wonder this country has fallen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Whats remarkable to me is that a lot of you guys appear to be treating these things like they are stick on decals from a crackerjack box. Let's side aside the risks from the invasive procedure. (Quit complaining about the hepatitis Johnny, you wanted the tattoo, remember.) What if a parent wanted to punish a 10 year old child by repeatedly jabbing a needle into his or her arm so that it bled. Child is convinced that she deserved it. Is that cool? And what about the societal aspect. Let's say David Duke's 10 year old son Bobby digs swastikas and he wants one tattooed on his forehead. Is that cool?. I'm pretty sure that I dug GI Joe when I was 10. I'm pretty f*cking glad that I didn't have one tattooed on my arm back then. All valid points to a degree. But this simply comes down to who you trust more to make judgment calls on child rearing - government or the parents - knowing that in either case some pretty f'd up decisions will be made along the way. Just out of curiosity, do you have children? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 What if a parent wanted to punish a 10 year old child by repeatedly jabbing a needle into his or her arm so that it bled. Child is convinced that she deserved it. Is that cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Time and money have already been expended criminalizing the act of a 10 year old getting tatted up by the predominantly Republican Georgia State Legislature. Justify the compelling need to use additional government time and money decriminalizing a 10 year old's right to get a tat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 They are permanent if you can't afford to have it removed.... I know I don't have the cash lying around to get mine taken off, even if I wanted to... I just googled it. A quick survey seems like it's about $80 to $500 per treatment, size and color and style of lasers being the factors. There may be cosmetic surgery issues also, but whatev's. It's possible, and doesn't cost a prohibitive amount of money to do it if you want to have it done. Second, yes many tattoos are faddish, which is why they should be left as an adult decision to make, when you're hopefully less prone to just getting the latest fad type of tattoo, and getting something meaningful... But that's not the point. Even if you do get a tat you regret, you're an adult and it's your body, go nuts. I just have serious reservations about saying the same for a kid with any old lax parents to determine what artwork goes on his/her body potentially permanently (see above for clarification, so I don't have to explain the permanent part for a 3rd time). Memorializing your dead brother seems like something meaningful to me, even for a 10 yr old. Something I doubt will be removed in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 All valid points to a degree. But this simply comes down to who you trust more to make judgment calls on child rearing - government or the parents - knowing that in either case some pretty f'd up decisions will be made along the way. I'm not sure that's valid. The way this particular law is set up mandates do nothing. It's not a decision that has to be made as it's been made. Decisions can only be made at adulthood, regardless of them being f'd up or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 All valid points to a degree. But this simply comes down to who you trust more to make judgment calls on child rearing - government or the parents - knowing that in either case some pretty f'd up decisions will be made along the way. Just out of curiosity, do you have children? One. He's eight weeks old, so I'm going to wait a few weeks before I take him down to the tattoo parlor. 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.