• 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Demoskinos (14574 posts) -

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

#52 Posted by MideooonNVisceraaa (9 posts) -

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

Well there's a lot of you who feel that way, but you shouldn't be surprised plenty of us don't. To me flawlessness is beauty, and I see tattoos and piercings as flaws on the level of acne or some other skin condition. Except slightly less gross.

#53 Posted by MikkaQ (10268 posts) -

Well now people will just drive to a neighbouring state and have the procedure done. And they get a nice trip to boot. One of America's nicest legal features that also encourages interstate tourism. Abortion road trip, y'all!

#54 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6288 posts) -
@splodge said:

It always amazes me that the red states and states with a lot of Tea Party influence who HATE any kind of evil government interference in their daily lives, are the ones who legislate to allow the government to interfere in their daily lives.

This.

#55 Posted by TruthTellah (8552 posts) -

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

I'm referring to a manner of design, not just arbitrary desires of those who happen to be in the government. I'm saying, as far as having a government goes, it makes sense for that government to regulate procedures done on people. That isn't strange; that's just the reality of having a government. I want the government to be interested in regulating procedures, whether done in a hospital or in a parlor. Making sure people are licensed to perform procedures is good, and making sure people can't just do whatever they want to someone else is good, as well.

I don't think this particular vague bill is a good idea, but I'm responding to the suggestion that this is only a personal decision when it is a decision involving someone else doing something to you. The government(as in, as designed and supported by the people) should regulate procedures done on people. We can disagree with what regulations and restrictions they may choose to enact, but it's in our interests to have the government attempt to regulate procedures done on people.

#56 Posted by Hunter5024 (5546 posts) -

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

I like tattooed ladies on occasion, but having a butterfly tattoo is like wearing a sign that says "I'm probably ditzy."

#57 Posted by smokeyd123 (326 posts) -

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

This. My state man... I just don't get it sometimes.

#58 Posted by Demoskinos (14574 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

I like tattooed ladies on occasion, but having a butterfly tattoo is like wearing a sign that says "I'm probably ditzy."

I think that's really judgmental and prejudice but hey...

#59 Posted by Quarters (1633 posts) -

@splodge said:

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

OK I actually agree now, ban this shit.

I had a roommate once that had gauged ears. He said they smelled awful. I never got close enough to check. I don't like gauged ears. Also, as someone who lives in Arkansas...man, this is weird. I didn't even know this was a thing.

#60 Posted by Hunter5024 (5546 posts) -

@hunter5024 said:

@demoskinos said:

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

I like tattooed ladies on occasion, but having a butterfly tattoo is like wearing a sign that says "I'm probably ditzy."

I think that's really judgmental and prejudice but hey...

I said probably.

#61 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3755 posts) -

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

When people take them out and have those floppy lobes I really almost can't help but laugh right at them it's unbelievable.

#62 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3755 posts) -

@demoskinos said:

Man, surprised at some of the hate for this stuff. Personally, I think tattooed ladies are fucking gorgeous.

Tattoos have ruined many women for me :(. And girls are all tatted these days. Oh well.

#63 Edited by jakob187 (21644 posts) -

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

To some people, they are. To others, they are not.

#64 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

I saw a dude who has one of those hook things that's grafted onto your forearm bones so you can move to open and close it when you don't have a hand. Missing/fucked up body parts I don't have a problem with, but that weirded me out. This is my contribution to the thread.

#65 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3755 posts) -

I saw a dude who has one of those hook things that's grafted onto your forearm bones so you can move to open and close it when you don't have a hand. Missing/fucked up body parts I don't have a problem with, but that weirded me out. This is my contribution to the thread.

Sounds like some Deus Ex type business.

#66 Edited by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@example1013 said:

I saw a dude who has one of those hook things that's grafted onto your forearm bones so you can move to open and close it when you don't have a hand. Missing/fucked up body parts I don't have a problem with, but that weirded me out. This is my contribution to the thread.

Sounds like some Deus Ex type business.

Pretty much. You think it's great to have these kinds of prosthetics and stuff, then you see it and it's just too fucking unnatural.

#67 Edited by Levio (1784 posts) -

This website's background image is a post-apocalyptic city. Do people really expect a website like that to report objectively and truthfully on a story like this?

#68 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -
#69 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3755 posts) -

@levio said:

This website's background image is a post-apocalyptic city. Do people really expect a website like that to report objectively and truthfully on a story like this?

I like to get my news from people who know where we are headed.

#70 Posted by Lydian_Sel (2480 posts) -

It's actually kind of nice to read this stuff whenever I feel bad about the political state here in Australia. Sorry Arkansas. But how exactly do you enforce and regulate this stuff? Are the cops going to bust you when they see how heavily gauged your ears are?

#71 Edited by Hunter5024 (5546 posts) -

So... are there no legal regulations on tattoos already? Like could I just get FUCK tattooed on my forehead in big bold letters if I wanted to? Cause if so, I know what I'm asking Santa for this year.

#72 Posted by GreggD (4478 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

@greggd said:

@dallas_raines said:

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

They are seriously dumb looking.

To some people, they are. To others, they are not.

Okay. Thanks for pointing out the obvious. It's true of all things, but that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion.

#73 Edited by joshwent (2123 posts) -

I've known 2 people in my life that were heavily 'modded' and tattooed. Entire sleeves, legs, backs, gauged ears and lips, scarification and some sub-dermal implants. They were also a joy to be around, perpetually warm, and welcoming to to friends and strangers in any walk of life.

The vague superiority and dismissal of 'people like that' in this thread is something that they would have never done to anyone.

#74 Edited by DaddyCabinet (178 posts) -

Gauged ears creep me out, guys.

I always want to just put a padlock on them and bolt.

#75 Posted by DaddyCabinet (178 posts) -

Dont you guys cram your states close enough together, that you could just drive to somewhere it is legal.

#76 Posted by Demoskinos (14574 posts) -

@joshwent said:

I've known 2 people in my life that were heavily 'modded' and tattooed. Entire sleeves, legs, backs, gauged ears and lips, scarification and some sub-dermal implants. They were also a joy to be around, perpetually warm, and welcoming to to friends and strangers in any walk of life.

The vague superiority and dismissal of 'people like that' in this thread is something that they would have never done to anyone.

Wholeheartedly agree.

#77 Edited by Hunter5024 (5546 posts) -

@joshwent said:

I've known 2 people in my life that were heavily 'modded' and tattooed. Entire sleeves, legs, backs, gauged ears and lips, scarification and some sub-dermal implants. They were also a joy to be around, perpetually warm, and welcoming to to friends and strangers in any walk of life.

The vague superiority and dismissal of 'people like that' in this thread is something that they would have never done to anyone.

Personally I was just kidding, though I can't speak for anyone else. I may think butterfly tattoos are super overdone, but I'm sure there are some intelligent girls that have gorgeous examples of those tattoos. Gauges do creep me out though, not in a "I'm going to judge this person negatively" sort of way but in a "I'm going to instinctively feel my earlobe to make sure its okay" sort of way.

#78 Posted by TruthTellah (8552 posts) -

So... are there no legal regulations on tattoos already? Like could I just get FUCK tattooed on my forehead in big bold letters if I wanted to? Cause if so, I know what I'm asking Santa for this year.

There are already legal regulations on giving people tattoos and piercing. This appears to be a bill trying to put more restrictions on things like dermal implants; though, it's relatively vague at this point.

You likely could get "FUCK" tattooed on your forehead though. It just seems like an ill-advised thing to do.

It's actually kind of nice to read this stuff whenever I feel bad about the political state here in Australia. Sorry Arkansas. But how exactly do you enforce and regulate this stuff? Are the cops going to bust you when they see how heavily gauged your ears are?

It doesn't appear to make it illegal to have these types of tattoos or piercing, as this just has to do with who does them. They're trying to stop tattoo artists in the state from selling or advertising these kinds of procedures. So, if you were found to have done one of these things, you could lose your license.

As far as this bill goes, no one is going to be arrested for having one of these tattoos or piercings if it actually passes.

#79 Edited by Nasar7 (2606 posts) -

Passing laws that will immediately get stricken down as being in violation of the first amendment as soon as there's a legal challenge is a great use of government resources.

The only thing they hate more than tattoos is freedom.

#80 Posted by TruthTellah (8552 posts) -

Dont you guys cram your states close enough together, that you could just drive to somewhere it is legal.

Wait, what country do you live in that the states are bigger? Canada? Russia? A lot of US states are bigger than entire countries. Greece could fit inside Arkansas.

#81 Edited by DaddyCabinet (178 posts) -

@daddycabinet said:

Dont you guys cram your states close enough together, that you could just drive to somewhere it is legal.

Wait, what country do you live in that the states are bigger? Canada? Russia? A lot of US states are bigger than entire countries. Greece could fit inside Arkansas.

Canada

#82 Posted by TruthTellah (8552 posts) -

@truthtellah said:
@daddycabinet said:

Dont you guys cram your states close enough together, that you could just drive to somewhere it is legal.

Wait, what country do you live in that the states are bigger? Canada? Russia? A lot of US states are bigger than entire countries. Greece could fit inside Arkansas.

Canada

Ah. Well, the US states generally have higher population density than the average Canadian state; so, they're definitely a bit more condensed. Arkansas is about the population of Alberta in that smaller size; so, it makes some sense for that population size to be its own state.

Someone could feasibly go to another state for this; so, that's true. :)

#83 Posted by Intro (1206 posts) -

I think it's bullshit that they have a law like this. I don't have any tattoos or piercings, but if adults want to get them, let them.

#84 Posted by joshwent (2123 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

I'm referring to a manner of design, not just arbitrary desires of those who happen to be in the government. I'm saying, as far as having a government goes, it makes sense for that government to regulate procedures done on people. That isn't strange; that's just the reality of having a government. I want the government to be interested in regulating procedures, whether done in a hospital or in a parlor. Making sure people are licensed to perform procedures is good, and making sure people can't just do whatever they want to someone else is good, as well.

I don't think this particular vague bill is a good idea, but I'm responding to the suggestion that this is only a personal decision when it is a decision involving someone else doing something to you. The government(as in, as designed and supported by the people) should regulate procedures done on people. We can disagree with what regulations and restrictions they may choose to enact, but it's in our interests to have the government attempt to regulate procedures done on people.

Having a group that assures that people are good at their jobs seems like an obviously good idea, as you say. In practice, however, licensure and specifically government licensure just doesn't provide that benefit. And there are a wealth of negative attributes about licensure in medicine that could vastly improve services, especially for the poor, if done away with.

#85 Posted by PillClinton (3290 posts) -

@brodehouse said:

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

I'm referring to a manner of design, not just arbitrary desires of those who happen to be in the government. I'm saying, as far as having a government goes, it makes sense for that government to regulate procedures done on people. That isn't strange; that's just the reality of having a government. I want the government to be interested in regulating procedures, whether done in a hospital or in a parlor. Making sure people are licensed to perform procedures is good, and making sure people can't just do whatever they want to someone else is good, as well.

I don't think this particular vague bill is a good idea, but I'm responding to the suggestion that this is only a personal decision when it is a decision involving someone else doing something to you. The government(as in, as designed and supported by the people) should regulate procedures done on people. We can disagree with what regulations and restrictions they may choose to enact, but it's in our interests to have the government attempt to regulate procedures done on people.

What you're proposing here is precisely what malpractice suits are for. If the care a doctor provides a patient falls below the standards agreed upon in a voluntary contract, then the patient has every right to file a malpractice suit. But instituting regulations on these "what ifs," before malpractice even occurs, is just making things more difficult and expensive for both contract-abiding doctors, and patients who want some specific procedure (but may now have to buy a plane ticket, book hotel reservations, etc. to have it). It's a bunch of unnecessary, further-government-empowering nonsense (because you can't just pass a new regulation without hiring people to enforce it, meaning more money spent by gov't, and more taxation) for contractual standards that already exist.

#86 Posted by RandomHero666 (3181 posts) -

Land of the Free for sure.

#87 Posted by TruthTellah (8552 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@brodehouse said:

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

I'm referring to a manner of design, not just arbitrary desires of those who happen to be in the government. I'm saying, as far as having a government goes, it makes sense for that government to regulate procedures done on people. That isn't strange; that's just the reality of having a government. I want the government to be interested in regulating procedures, whether done in a hospital or in a parlor. Making sure people are licensed to perform procedures is good, and making sure people can't just do whatever they want to someone else is good, as well.

I don't think this particular vague bill is a good idea, but I'm responding to the suggestion that this is only a personal decision when it is a decision involving someone else doing something to you. The government(as in, as designed and supported by the people) should regulate procedures done on people. We can disagree with what regulations and restrictions they may choose to enact, but it's in our interests to have the government attempt to regulate procedures done on people.

What you're proposing here is precisely what malpractice suits are for. If the care a doctor provides a patient falls below the standards agreed upon in a voluntary contract, then the patient has every right to file a malpractice suit. But instituting regulations on these "what ifs," before malpractice even occurs, is just making things more difficult and expensive for both contract-abiding doctors, and patients who want some specific procedure (but may now have to buy a plane ticket, book hotel reservations, etc. to have it). It's a bunch of unnecessary, further-government-empowering nonsense (because you can't just pass a new regulation without hiring people to enforce it, meaning more money spent by gov't, and more taxation) for contractual standards that already exist.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm explaining why regulation as a concept is a good thing. The government should attempt to protect people from dangerous foods, dangerous products, and potentially dangerous procedures. There are a lot of bad regulations, and it's important to strike and maintain a good balance with regulations.

It's nothing new that some medical procedures can't be performed by a licensed physician, or that tattoo artists can't just do anything they want to someone. This isn't a proposal; this is the reality of how things are. And even with serious issues in government regulations, it's good that some things are allowed and some are not.

In this case, I think it seems like a bad bill, and I hope it is either greatly changed or never passed.

#88 Edited by 2HeadedNinja (1550 posts) -

hilarious

#89 Edited by PillClinton (3290 posts) -

@pillclinton said:

@truthtellah said:

@brodehouse said:

You and I and everyone else do not exist for the purposes, interests or pleasure of our governments, the governments exist for our purposes, interests and pleasure. I've noticed more and more as the years go on, people refer to the government as having its own interests that run contradictory to the interests of the people. At that point, why not just call them the nobility and forget about this whole representative republican thing?

Like all irrational, overbearing, grasping government decrees, this will either be completely ignored by the populace, who will continue to act in now illegal ways to the point where the rare times when people actually get arrested will seem completely arbitrary. Or, people will get angry and simply go elsewhere. All they've managed to do is turn a simple tattoo down at a parlor to a plane ticket. Hope they like all that American money being spent abroad to escape their odious regulations and taxes. Never could have imagined it would go down this way.

I'm referring to a manner of design, not just arbitrary desires of those who happen to be in the government. I'm saying, as far as having a government goes, it makes sense for that government to regulate procedures done on people. That isn't strange; that's just the reality of having a government. I want the government to be interested in regulating procedures, whether done in a hospital or in a parlor. Making sure people are licensed to perform procedures is good, and making sure people can't just do whatever they want to someone else is good, as well.

I don't think this particular vague bill is a good idea, but I'm responding to the suggestion that this is only a personal decision when it is a decision involving someone else doing something to you. The government(as in, as designed and supported by the people) should regulate procedures done on people. We can disagree with what regulations and restrictions they may choose to enact, but it's in our interests to have the government attempt to regulate procedures done on people.

What you're proposing here is precisely what malpractice suits are for. If the care a doctor provides a patient falls below the standards agreed upon in a voluntary contract, then the patient has every right to file a malpractice suit. But instituting regulations on these "what ifs," before malpractice even occurs, is just making things more difficult and expensive for both contract-abiding doctors, and patients who want some specific procedure (but may now have to buy a plane ticket, book hotel reservations, etc. to have it). It's a bunch of unnecessary, further-government-empowering nonsense (because you can't just pass a new regulation without hiring people to enforce it, meaning more money spent by gov't, and more taxation) for contractual standards that already exist.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm explaining why regulation as a concept is a good thing. The government should attempt to protect people from dangerous foods, dangerous products, and potentially dangerous procedures. There are a lot of bad regulations, and it's important to strike and maintain a good balance with regulations.

It's nothing new that some medical procedures can't be performed by a licensed physician, or that tattoo artists can't just do anything they want to someone. This isn't a proposal; this is the reality of how things are. And even with serious issues in government regulations, it's good that some things are allowed and some are not.

In this case, I think it seems like a bad bill, and I hope it is either greatly changed or never passed.

In theory, I completely agree, but the reality of how things are is that, in practice, these regulations so rarely do just what they were designed to do in an efficient manner without imposing further difficulties on all parties involved (I mean really, just look at nearly anything the gov't gets its hands on). Also, as an aside, I simply can't shake the idea that putting a bunch of people with little to no experience in anything outside of law in charge of overseeing specialized fields isn't going to yield the best results. And I keep coming back to two things: personal responsibility (the ability, and expectation, of a customer to research, read and understand what they're getting into, etc.) and insurance (either literal, or what malpractice suits effectively act as).

The government "declaring war," as it were, on these amorphous possibilities, though, does almost nothing to actually stop them from occurring, and instead drives things into the black market, where things really are unsafe.

And as far as this Arkansas bill goes, c'mon, just look at where it's being proposed and who it's targeting. I think we all know this likely has little to do "safety" and a lot to do with "those dirty, tattooed hippie folk."

#90 Posted by MikeJFlick (438 posts) -

Meanwhile child pageantry A.O.K.