Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Georgia Mom Arrested for Allowing 10-Year-Old to Get Tattoo





http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/georgia-mom-arrested-for-allowing-10-year-old-to-get-tattoo/

What laws have been broken, I'm not defending her but is there a specific law that covers this stuff?

Originally posted by Major_Lexington
What laws have been broken, I'm not defending her but is there a specific law that covers this stuff?


Georgia

Prohibits the tattooing of anyone under age 18 by anyone other than a licensed osteopath or technician acting under the direct supervision of a licensed physician or osteopath.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_the_United_States

Had a feeling the under 18 part might be the issue, too lazy to Google/wiki it!

My problem with this is that culturally and religious exceptions have been made with what is illegal for certain groups of people.

So I kinda have an issue with this law which would prohibit certain people from practicing their beliefs and seems to be imposing european western views on people who dont share them and shouldnt have to.

I am referring to amerindian tattoo practices.

Originally posted by Nietzschean

I am referring to amerindian tattoo practices.

The US government gives Native Indians a massive leeway, likely due to the US Government's past of enforcing near-genocide and ass****ing the native tribes out of lands their fore-bearers had settled centuries before..

Malak died from a car crash? I thought he died when Revan slew him? 313

But this situation is iffy. However, tattoos can be removed these days with out ugly scaring like in the past. I would say that a parent should not be able to put tattoos on their children's more private areas but an arm or shoulder tat should be okay. It's hard to say...

Maybe limit the age to a test on the child or something?

I don't see why you'd allow a ten year-old to make that decision in the first place.

Originally posted by Astner
I don't see why you'd allow a ten year-old to make that decision in the first place. b/c it can be a cultural or spiritual belief and right of passage.

ask yourself this, why is this being prohibited but not circumcision?

Originally posted by Nietzschean

ask yourself this, why is this being prohibited but not circumcision?

Because one doesn't make millions a year for the medical industry and another does.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because one doesn't make millions a year for the medical industry and another does.

Is it really millions or is it billions?




Originally posted by Astner
I don't see why you'd allow a ten year-old to make that decision in the first place.

Seems like an easy decisions for most 10 year olds to make.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it really millions or is it billions?


Billions seems high, but it's likely in the upper millions. I don't know for certain.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
ask yourself this, why is this being prohibited but not circumcision?
I'm not for child circumcision either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seems like an easy decisions for most 10 year olds to make.
Yes, but they're not mature enough to make such a decision. If the child still wants a tattoo when he turns 18, then he can go through with getting one at the age of 18.

Just imagine if your parents allowed you to tattoo the name of your fourth grade crush on your wrist when you were around that age, because you wanted it then. Wouldn't you hold them accountable for bad parenting?

Originally posted by Astner
Yes, but they're not mature enough to make such a decision.

Because a tattoo is a serious decision?


This isn't Congo or the jungles of Columbia.

DADUDEMon which dish is this which you make your sight picture..??

The dish? It is called "Orange Danish Rolls".

If you are 10, do NOT get a tattoo of Orange Danish Rolls: they look much better, fresh, than in a tattoo version.

Apart from the mother's stupid decision in allowing her 10 yr old to get tattooed...the BIGGER ISSUE is what PROFESSIONAL STUDIO or ARTIST would tattoo a 10 yr old?

Here in Australia it's around a $17000 fine if a tattooist tattoos a minor & we're talking about if the client's around 16 or 17 & either submitted a fake ID or the tattooist didn't care.

A professional tattooist would've known that the most logical reason NOT to tattoo a 10 yr old is that as he grows older & his body develops muscle tone, that tattoo would be stretched & distorted beyond recognition.

what a stupid law.

I have changed my mind. A person should be 18 before they can get a tattoo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because a tattoo is a serious decision?
Yes it is. You'll cary that tattoo for the rest of your life. Even if you decide to spend the ridiculous amount of money to bleach the ink away with a laser operation it will still be there.

Besides, as Esau Cairn said. The child grows, and an image like a face might be stretched out and become unrecognizable as the child grows.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes it is. You'll cary that tattoo for the rest of your life.


But...they can be easily removed, these days, with no scarring.


Originally posted by Astner
Even if you decide to spend the ridiculous amount of money to bleach the ink away with a laser operation it will still be there.

Like...how much is ridiculous? Because I do not consider "up to $500" to be ridiculous for "cosmetic laser surgery".

Originally posted by Astner
Besides, as Esau Cairn said. The child grows, and an image like a face might be stretched out and become unrecognizable as the child grows.

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.

So laws should be changed because the boy lost a brother?
Cmon!

The Mum lacks judgment and the kid does too. She should get punished.

Originally posted by the ninjak
So laws should be changed because the boy lost a brother?
Cmon!

The Mum lacks judgment and the kid does too. She should get punished.

Nah. I disagree with both of your points.


The law should be removed.

The kid should be allowed to have a tattoo of his brother.

Regardless of it being of his brother has no barring. The law is the law.

If they change the law then fine he can get it. But it isn't.

Kid can lose his brother then get his whole body covered in images of his brother and by your opinion it would be fine.

A mother should know better to at least research the laws pertaining to matter at hand. But she didn't. Her excuse was. "How do I say no to my boy".

A person gets arrested for taking Heroin and their excuse is "I needed it deal with the loss of my brother". The law can't just say. Poor person. He just lost his brother so let him off.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Regardless of it being of his brother has no barring. The law is the law.


If they change the law then fine he can get it. But it isn't.

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.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Kid can lose his brother then get his whole body covered in images of his brother and by your opinion it would be fine.

Yeah, pretty much.

Originally posted by the ninjak
A mother should know better to at least research the laws pertaining to matter at hand. But she didn't. Her excuse was. "How do I say no to my boy".

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?

Originally posted by the ninjak
person gets arrested for taking Heroin and their excuse is "I needed it deal with the loss of my brother".

Heroin:

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.


Tattoos:

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.


Originally posted by the ninjak
The law can't just say. Poor person. He just lost his brother so let him off.

Good point. Remove the law like a bad tattoo.

Problem solved.

You're a funny guy dudemon.

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."

But no.
"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.

Originally posted by the ninjak
You're a funny guy dudemon.

I am but probably not in the way you meant it.

Originally posted by the ninjak
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."

That is a savage and negative way to approach life. I think you know that, though. Right?

Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.

Originally posted by the ninjak
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."

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.

Originally posted by the ninjak
But no.
"My kid want's a tattoo, how can I say no". Screw That!


"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."

Originally posted by the ninjak
Lock her up for a few days. No skin off her back. Make an example of the moron. And put it on the news.

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.....!

3WfQ-hV3WtA

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."

Originally posted by Robtard
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 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.

Originally posted by Robtard
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."

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?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am but probably not in the way you meant it.

Nah I meant it in the sincere good way. You're a funny guy!



Originally posted by dadudemon
That is a savage and negative way to approach life. I think you know that, though. Right?

Call me the Xtreme Savage Ninjak.


Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's hardly being lazy. That's not being aware of every single petty law on the books.

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"?


Originally posted by dadudemon
"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."

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.



Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Lolz. You wish. You're talking about the United States. Land of the crazy.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Nah I meant it in the sincere good way. You're a funny guy!

You bet your sweet ass you did. uhuh





Originally posted by the ninjak
Call me the Xtreme Savage Ninjak.

Has a nice ring to it, actually.




Originally posted by the 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.

With modern technology, your point is rather moot. They can remove and re-add if they are worried about the diminished appearance.



Originally posted by the ninjak
Dude. Piecing your child's body with imprints is a pretty heavy decision.

Not really. Mostly because it is by no means permanent.

Originally posted by the ninjak
I would instantly think of the ramifications culturally, socially and legally.

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.


Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.



Originally posted by the ninjak
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"?

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.




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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).

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2493&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google. com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dexamples%2520of
%2520ignorance%2520of%2520the%2520law%26source%3Dw
eb%26cd%3D10%26ved%3D0CGMQFjAJ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%2
52F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent. cgi%253Farticle%253D2493%2526context%253Dwmlr%26ei
%3DakjWT5n2JYmw2QXnu6GrDw%26usg%3DAFQjCNGTZCnMhCIo
FgppvcEcnkk2Kieeag#search=%22examples%20ignorance%
20law%22




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

So you propose we do not educate each other and fight to remove excessive legislation? Complacency and apathy will do nothing to get rid of this nanny state that we have become.

And, yes, I saw thevideo to which you are referring. Sad stuff.





Originally posted by the ninjak
Lolz. You wish. You're talking about the United States. Land of the crazy.


I do wish. I plan to do something about it post-35 years of age.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I do wish. I plan to do something about it post-35 years of age.

This the DDM for president thing?

Cos I've been keeping many a post as political blackmail, just an FYI.

Originally posted by Robtard
This the DDM for president thing?

Cos I've been keeping many a post as political blackmail, just an FYI.

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!".

Originally posted by dadudemon
You bet your sweet ass you did. uhuh
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.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Has a nice ring to it, actually.

Of course it does. I'm the fricken Ninjak!

Originally posted by dadudemon
With modern technology, your point is rather moot. They can remove and re-add if they are worried about the diminished appearance.

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.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Not really. Mostly because it is by no means permanent.

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.


Originally posted by dadudemon
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.


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.


Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.


Originally posted by dadudemon
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."

Lolz.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you propose we do not educate each other and fight to remove excessive legislation? Complacency and apathy will do nothing to get rid of this nanny state that we have become.

And, yes, I saw thevideo to which you are referring. Sad stuff.

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.








Originally posted by dadudemon
I do wish. I plan to do something about it post-35 years of age.

Yay Dudemon. All hail the Donut King!

Originally posted by dadudemon
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 recall you mentioning the act of someone inserting their testicles into another person's anus and then that person farting said testicles out.

Not sure if this act as a proper name; it should, imo.

Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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. estahuh




Originally posted by the ninjak
Of course it does. I'm the fricken Ninjak!

It's settled: I'll start tooting my weenie whistle in your honor.



Originally posted by the 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.

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?




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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."



Originally posted by the ninjak
Lolz.

Red Derp, standing by:

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/192459/Derp%20Leader%20standing%20by...-700x511.jpg


haermm

Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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."



Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.




Originally posted by the ninjak
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.

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.


Originally posted by Robtard
I recall you mentioning the act of someone inserting their testicles into another person's anus and then that person farting said testicles out.

Not sure if this act as a proper name; it should, imo.

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:

Barting
Fartsack
Farticles
Scrotoflatus
Buttball

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Yeah people are fat and all that jazz.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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."

I'm drunk sue me Vodka always gets me into trouble.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Yeah times are a changing. New blood are taking the mantle. I'll be a responsible human being one day..............probably not.

Thanks for the chat.

And good luck with the election Donut King.

Originally posted by the ninjak
And good luck with the election Donut King.

Feel free to shorten that to "'nut King". Just sayin'...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Feel free to shorten that to "'nut King". Just sayin'...

Just shorten it more: Nut.

Originally posted by dadudemon

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:

Barting
Fartsack
Farticles
Scrotoflatus
Buttball

Correct and it was, as you said immediately after: "that could be the greatest sentence I ever wrote."

All good choices, hard to pick; I'm inclined towards "Scrotoflatus".

Originally posted by Robtard
Correct and it was, as you said immediately after: "that could be the greatest sentence I ever wrote."

K.

Originally posted by Robtard
All good choices, hard to pick; I'm inclined towards "Scrotoflatus".

Sounds too official, really.


Go make an urban dictionary entry, stat.

Got my first tattoo at 16

Originally posted by diegocala
Got my first tattoo at 16 me too.

Originally posted by Astner

Just imagine if your parents allowed you to tattoo the name of your fourth grade crush on your wrist when you were around that age, because you wanted it then. Wouldn't you hold them accountable for bad parenting?

No. I don't see what's wrong with it when it can be removed. And besides, I would probably resent my parents for telling me that I'm too immature to do something to myself that affects no one but me.

SgeGJstYfRY

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
No. I don't see what's wrong with it when it can be removed. And besides, I would probably resent my parents for telling me that I'm too immature to do something to myself that affects no one but me.

Tattoos CAN be removed by laser.
However take into account, a tattoo design the size of a business card may set you back $150. To have it removed by laser would probably take at least 6 sessions over 8 months at the cost of about $180-$200 a session. Let's also take in account that not all colours can be removed effectively & that the laser also destroys your own skin pigment in the process leaving scar tissue that can take years to settle.

So yeah, go act immature, go get that Pokemon back piece you've always wanted as a child. And then when you go up & become a parent yourself, your kids can make all the same dumb mistakes themselves because deep down you'll truly understand what it was like resenting your parents.