--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of shempmcgurk > Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:05 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Tattoos, body modifications, and the inner you > > > I recently had an online discussion about tattoos and body modifications. My > contention was that it is okay to prejudge people by virtue of their tattoos > and body modifications. > > Skin color and beauty are things we have no control over and we should not, > of course, judge a person on those bases. But tattoos and body modifications > are done out of free choice and not only is it natural for us to make > judgements about people based on this visual observation, it is acceptable. > Why? Because these things are an expression of one's inner person. > > When I made this observation it was suggested that I was being unfairly > discriminating. What set this reaction off was that I said I would never do > business with someone who had those god-awful round earrings, popular with > some young men, that are embedded into ear lobes -- about the size of > nickels -- with holes in them where the ear lobe is supposed to be. Just > looking at those things make me VERY uncomfortable and if someone who had > that done to them were to try to sell me, say, a financial product like an > IRA I would not do business with them solely on that basis...even if it > turned out to be the greatest financial product there is. > > And that really set people off. > > But then I countered with: if someone had a big, fat swaztika tattooed on > their cheek, would YOU do business with them? > > The response? Silence. > > Now, studs in lips or ear lobe modifications are a far cry from swaztikas, > certainly, but I contend they are on the same spectrum and that I am with > the realm of reason to use these things as a basis to discriminate. Both > ends of the spectrum are done of free choice and both are expressions of the > inner person...and if I am made uncomfortable by them, why not discriminate > against that person on that basis? > Are you suggesting that society should discriminate against such people, by > not letting them eat in certain restaurants, for instance, or that you > should be free to discriminate by not doing business with them (which you > already are)? >
The latter. I don't know what you mean by "society". By law? No, of course not. They're not hurting anyone by having tattoos or modifications. But if you mean by society via conventions or traditions that groups of individuals create or develope then I have no objection to that at all, as long as it isn't codified by law.
