But...they can be easily removed, these days, with no scarring.
Like...how much is ridiculous? Because I do not consider "up to $500" to be ridiculous for "cosmetic laser surgery".
I agree. He still has the option to get it removed with 3-5 sessions.
All of your objections, I do not see as being good enough to bar kids from getting tattoos. I would say most kids would need to be 8 or more before deciding to get a tattoo. "They" could also issue a test to see if they are truly aware of what they are getting into.
That's tautological: "They shouldn't get illegal tattoos because they are illegal."
That's not a legitimate way to argue politics. If the law, itself, is in question (as it is in this thread), the law being the law is not a coherent argument.
Yeah, pretty much.
Not really. There are thousands of laws. No layman has enough time to research laws. Something as harmless and innocuous as a tattoo (the one he wanted/got) should not spark an idea in the mind that one should check the laws regarding age.
To be honest, I thought it would be okay, myself, until I read this thread. I thought that it would only require a parent's written consent for a kid to get a tat (signing a waiver or something). I am pretty savvy on the various US Laws including state laws: so how could this lady be expected to know better?
Psychoactive substance. Highly addictive. Has many negative side-effects which includes a sadly common side-effect of "death". There is no 'safe way' to use heroin. The heroin itself, causes the death.
Risk of infection if done with dirty needles. Allergies. MRI Complications for some types of ink. Death has occurred from getting a tattoo: infections. The tattoo itself did not cause the death: it was the dirty needles.
I always think in extremes. Someone kills my brother. So I kill him. Cops say "Well I would've done the same thing son. But we gotta take you in."
Many cultures have gaining tattoos as a Rite of Passage. Maoris for instance. But even they have it as a passing into manhood. Gotta draw the line somewhere.
The woman was lazy and irresponsible.
"My kid wants a tattoo of his dead brother. Maybe I should do a quick internet search or visit the local library where the information services clerk will gladly supply me with the information needed."
"My kid want's a tattoo, how can I say no". Screw That!
Lock her up for a few days. No skin off her back. Make an example of the moron. And put it on the news.
That is a savage and negative way to approach life. I think you know that, though. Right?
Well, that would be an apples to oranges comparison. The young men can't have them because it signifies, in their cultural, the ascension into manhood. To get them early, before they complete the rites, would inappropriate. It would be like putting the eggs in the oven without completing the cake batter.
You assume that it would even cross her mind that it would be illegal for a minor to get a tattoo. As I pointed out, it didn't cross my mind that it would be illegal with a parent's consent.
That's hardly being lazy. That's not being aware of every single petty law on the books.
"My kid wants a tattoo for a good reason and it harmless. I'm his mother and I approve. Alright son, you can get one."
How about this:
The law is stupid and a fine example of over-legislation. Get rid of the law and pay this lady a recompense for causing her so much trouble and grief over something she should have allowed to approve for her child.
AKA: crawl out of our asses, government, and stop being our nanny.
It was about time someone did something.
That tune nearly ruined the album.....!
"Anyway, based on what we've seen, Van Zan, with five punches and a headbutt, couldn't even put down a malnourished dude (malnourished guy vigorous enough to be needed to be held back by 3 people). He's definitely not taking down McClane." - Lestov16
Young kids want to do a lot of things that aren't necessarily smart or good for them; as a parent, it's your job to say "no", even if they whine and cry.
I'm not exactly sure why it's against the law or if this woman should face charges, but she's a ****ing moron of the highest caliber for saying yes and not "why don't you wait until you're older and more sure about something like a tattoo."
I agree. And not all parents are the same. For instance, if my son wanted a tattoo (he will be 10 in 1.5 years), I would tell him no.
However, that should be the parent's decision, not the governments because it is a harmless cosmetic venture that can easily be undone.
Good point. But it is a personal choice for each person and family. Maybe tattoos are not nearly as stigmatized in her family as it is yours and mine? Maybe it is more like benign artistic expression? Because of that, I cannot say what she allowed her son to do was wrong.
Of course, I would think it should be illegal to allow a minor to get their genitals tattooed. Maybe that's the line?
Nah I meant it in the sincere good way. You're a funny guy!
Call me the Xtreme Savage Ninjak.
My point was even lets say modern cultures still routed in tribalism still wait till their bodies have grown enough for the tattoos to remain beautiful instead of giving it to a child still in development where their beloved tattoo will start to spread and become a twisted version of their original vision.
Dude. Piecing your child's body with imprints is a pretty heavy decision. I would instantly think of the ramifications culturally, socially and legally.
And would on the day my son told me he wanted to undertake such an endeavor would seek council as to what rules applied to such an action.
It's lazy. She only thought of her own instincts on the situation at hand. That's a selfish and ignorant conclusion. It's a kid getting a tattoo. How many TV shows have we watched growing up where the parent was "Oh I'm not going to let my child get a tattoo until he/she is old enough to legally make the choice themselves"?
Then pay the price. Whether a fine is involved or small prison time. America is a crazy place with crimes. You Americans should know better.
Heck a family had their house raided because of the rumor the had weed on their premises. The cops barged in shot their dog and held the entire family against the wall. And all they found was a small satchel of the stuff. I'm ranting but that's what this forum is for. Mother should've known better. The United States is not the place for fleeting assumptions.
Lolz. You wish. You're talking about the United States. Land of the crazy.
Last edited by the ninjak on Jun 11th, 2012 at 07:10 PM
With modern technology, your point is rather moot. They can remove and re-add if they are worried about the diminished appearance.
Not really. Mostly because it is by no means permanent.
Maybe we are very different in that I am not quick to judge a kid with a tattoo of a kid that says "RIP" on it. It seems, for me, quite obvious that it was a memorial to someone the kid loved. I can hardly get upset or angry at either the mother or the kid for getting it.
And the kid would be just fine getting the tattoo. I highly doubt his peers would make fun of him for getting a tattoo of his deceased brother. It would be far more socially unacceptable to poke fun of his tattoo than it would to get the tattoo itself. That's what is great about meaningful art: even if you disagree with the art-form, you will probably still respect it.
Even if it was just a flower, skull, or something else that's common, most people just do not care. The people who care most about this stuff are uptight religious people.
I think I understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that you would send your son to a counselor for wanting to get a tattoo?
What about being a kid and seeing people like "The Rock" having tattoos? Wouldn't that make a kid want to be like their idol? Hardly anything wrong, developmentally, with emulating idols when you're a child. But you would think they need counseling? You may be hard pressed to find a counselor, that isn't some sort of religious quack, that is willing to actually do anything for you. They'll tell you to GTFO and your son is normal.
No, if she were thinking about her instincts, she would have thought, "what's that noise? I'm hungry. Is he going to harm me? My arm itches. I should protect my son from that scary person until they walk past us."
And there is nothing selfish about allowing your offspring to do something they want. It would be selfish if she forced him to get it because it held some sort of ritualistic meaning for her or her family. But just saying, "Okay, son, I like your idea. Sure, you can get one."
And to your last point: you watched too many after-school specials, didn't you? That or you are 65 and grew up in the 60s and think tattoos signify gang memberships or something.
No we do not know better. Some people are genuinely ignorant of all of the International, US, State, and munipcal laws. I would wager, though it may be a bad one, that not a single person exists on this planet that is aware of all the laws that potentially govern them.
You subscribe to "nemo censetur ignorare legem". That's just not how the law works in all cases. It will probably work like that in this case, but not all end up being like that. One example I remember from class was Screws vs. US. Justice Douglas made it quite clear that intent is to be taken into consideration when determining the criminality of lawful violation. If you violated the law, intent may be the difference between "well...you may move along...but this is the law and don't violate it in the future" and "you willfully broke the law. Here's your punishment".
Intent is part of Mens Rea: guilty mind.
Pertaining to the case, I do not know if those law has a strict liability clause. If it does, that means intent/mens rea is irrelevant and she will get criminally charged, no matter her intentions/knowledge. She already has willingly admitted guilt so there is not much of a trial.
Anyway, here is a write-up I found on ignorance of the law (it was the best I could find in 2 minutes...I ain't looking any harder).
Not president, just political office. Maybe president is down the road.
And I have been making every post with an eye-single to the glory of political office, as well. I know you don't believe it but that's what I do. It's like a game. It's why I do not post things like, "Man, I'd t*tty **** them shits at the drop of a hat" and instead post things like, "man...dem bewbz!".
I see you lack confidence. Embrace the power and realise that you are shining star blazing through the heavens. Embrace the sky young man, become the legend.
Of course it does. I'm the fricken Ninjak!
Why would you remove such a personal heartfelt representation of your brother's memory? Peoples tattoos are a statement. A seal. A representation of a solid emotional, beautiful moment in their life. To erase it would be a desecration of that memory. Which is why they should be mature in body to hold such a totem.
It should be dammit. This ain't some stupid Ying Yang on an ankle. It's a reminder of your your brother's life. If it ain't special to you then why the hell are you getting it in the first place. A choice that your parent should advise you on. But this parent was an idiot. Many other ways to remember your dead brother than a tattoo.
Tattoos stretch as kids grow up. Turning the beautiful artwork into mess.
Religion has nothing to do with it. His tattoo was quite detailed. Not just a RIP or skull. lol.
Why the heck would anyone send their kid to a counselor? A parent should be able to make such a basic decision on their own. And yeah I give breeders way too much credit to think a majority could have the judgmental skills to comprehend the negative effects of allowing the children to get a tattoo. But cmon you raise the idea of a kid getting tatts like the Rock. Such fleeting idols are exactly that, fleeting. Laser removal doesn't factor in.
I grew up in the 80's. And I grew up pretty much raised by idols. Tatts on a kid personally is half-assed raising. People need to show some class.
America's lack of education is legendary. Most people in the West aren't aware of the ins and outs of their legal system. But certainly in this day and age information is readily available. I'm a librarian, and it sickens me that people aren't aware that information can be thrown at them if they seek the right advice.
But then. Libraries are closing down at a rapid rate. Having a qualified human relay information to the public is becoming extinct. Scary.
Education is key. And the United States cares not for it. It wants its population to remain enclosed in it's Capitalistic bubble fueling what remains of its cash cow. Whilst it's ancient and obsolete Constitution tragically reaps lives.
Yay Dudemon. All hail the Donut King!
Last edited by the ninjak on Jun 11th, 2012 at 08:29 PM
I raped the former legend and, lest I become the hypocrite, I raped myself once I became the legend. That'll teach me for being the legend.
It's settled: I'll start tooting my weenie whistle in your honor.
Nah. The vast majority of people get tired of their tattoos. Also, if you want to update a meaningful tattoo by touching it up, why not?
It could still be special...but he could get it removed for whatever reason he has in the future. Job? He could get it removed and then re-added later or something.
And, a memorial tattoo is more common than you think. There's nothing inherently wrong with it.
By your logic, almost all Americans should be banned from getting tattoos because the majority of them get fatter as they get older and their tats stretch. I don't think that line of reasoning, of yours, is good at all.
Your words were such a mess that I could not tell what you were trying to convey:
Read these words of yours out loud and tell me if it makes perfect sense:
"And would on the day my son told me he wanted to undertake such an endeavor would seek council as to what rules applied to such an action."
Red Derp, standing by:
Lemme show you how arbitrary that statement is:
"In my culture, it is classless to let your kids grow up without a tattoo. It shows that the parents do not care about the proper upbringing of their children."
I am glad you can get sick by it. It's a good thing. I find it legendarily weird that a dude like you is a librarian, though: you strike me as far too active to be a librarian.
You mean pretend capitalist bubble, right?
And the constitution is still quite good. It's neither ancient nor obsolete. It has provisions in there for making amendments for items that were missed or done wrong.
IIRC, that was something said in an IM at Marius' place. I don't believe I said that, either.
However, what you just described is quite hilarious.
As far as names:
Last edited by dadudemon on Jun 11th, 2012 at 08:47 PM