Some SA Apartments Banning Tattoos

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Tattoos aren't found on people (like some sort of birthmark); they're a choice.

So what's your point?

Visible tattoos and multiple piercings do tend to be over-represented among populations who are likely to be involved in violence or illegal activities; ask any police officer or ER doctor. It's too bad for the hard-working, law-abiding tattooed and pierced population, but there it is.

Would that be because the average age of people in ER's etc would be in the same demographic that also now has embraced the idea of body art?  I guess I'll have to go ask a doctor or a police officer about that one.

The quoted article doesn't ban all piercings, just more than one nose ring, more than five earrings (presumably in one ear), and eyebrow and tongue piercings. Maybe there's a concern about gang markings. Maybe there are other concerns we don't know about.

So what's the difference between one piercing and five or where you choose to pierce?  I notice they haven't mentioned clitoral piercings or penises.  Maybe because they don't expect to be seeing them?

A cover for what? A conspiracy to prevent upscale tattooed and pierced people from living in a particular, privately owned upscale apartment building?

A cover for what is likely to be found discrimination

I'm guessing you don't have any piercings or tattoos?

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Visible tattoos and multiple piercings do tend to be over-represented among populations who are likely to be involved in violence or illegal activities; ask any police officer or ER doctor. It's too bad for the hard-working, law-abiding tattooed and pierced population, but there it is.

that doesn't quite wash, since they are not undressing the rest of the population. It's like doctors saying that most piercings get infected. Well, duh--that's what they see, so that's the way it seems. Incomplete data leads to erroneous conclusions.

So, the apartment owners get to say who lives there. Fine. It's not illegal, it's not discrimination. I still find it reprehensible behavior. People like that probably find some excuse not to rent to non-white people, people with children, etc. And no, I don't have any evidence of this, I'm just speculating.

I wouldn't want to live in a self-described "upscale" community, anyfuckingway.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I'm guessing you don't have any piercings or tattoos?

If I have none, does that disqualify my opinion? Why? If I have some, why should I have to give you that information? It's irrelevant. Regardless of my personal state of ink/non-ink and/or piercing/nonpiercing, my point - which is that piercings and tattoos are a choice, not a condition of birth - is valid. A private business can make the choice not to do business with people who have chosen to decorate themselves in this way. Obviously they'll have fewer customers.

I suspect the intention is to avoid gang problems. I really don't think there's a conspiracy to discriminate against body art.

(Yes, I have some.)

[Cloud]

Piercings are not related to gang activity, so why the ban on them?

They just don't want those kind of people in their apartments.

[Aliantha]

Well, I think it's probably owned by conservative snobs who live in the past and don't realize they're living in a fools paradise, if they're not very lucky, it's going to come back and bite them on the arse.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Cloud

that doesn't quite wash, since they are not undressing the rest of the population. It's like doctors saying that most piercings get infected. Well, duh--that's what they see, so that's the way it seems. Incomplete data leads to erroneous conclusions.

I said visible tattoos and multiple piercings tend to be over-represented. You know, the kind that don't require undressing to see. But doctors (in general) don't say that most piercings get infected. That's your erroneous speculation or anecdote.

People like that probably find some excuse not to rent to non-white people, people with children, etc. And no, I don't have any evidence of this, I'm just speculating.

So it's all right to make sweeping pejorative generalizations about 'people like that' with no evidence whatsoever, as long as 'they' are .. what? 'Other'? 'Not like you'?

I wouldn't want to live in a self-described "upscale" community, anyfuckingway.

Then it's a win-win situation.

[TheMercenary]

I must say that until we do a large scale study of all people with tats or piercings we cannot make comments about people who have them. There really is no imperical data to support such notions.

We can make comments about gangbangers and criminals and state that many of them have tats. But there is absolutely no way we can say that people who have tats are criminals and therefore I suspect some savy lawyer will come along and sue the hell out of that business.

[ZenGum]

[quote=TheMercenary;391577]I must say that until we do a large scale study of all people with tats or piercings we cannot make comments about people who have them. There really is no imperical data to support such notions.

True, but we need even more
We need to randomly select (say...) 10,000 people with tattoos and/or piercings, and 10,000 people without tattoos and or piercings, and compare the incidence of anti-social behavior between the two groups.
Then we will have empirical data ... but then what?

Suppose there is a difference, and that the tattooed group is more anti-social? Are we then allowed to exclude one INDIVIDUAL because of a resemblance to a group? What about (this is true) my 65-year-old, law abiding mother, who is a retired community nurse and active Justice of the Peace, with a lotus flower tattooed on her ankle? Yeah she's trouble, she is...

Suppose there is no difference. Are private groups allowed to limit the memberships of their groups to "people like us"? Or does the state have the right to force groups to admit members no one in the group likes? I find the former distasteful and the latter outrageous.
(A dangerous topic for my first post! Gee, I hope you guys like me! )

[glatt]

Welcome, ZenGum!

[Kitsune]

Oh, won't someone think of the property values?

[lookout123]

oh, won't someone think of the right of the property owner to be an idiot? if he wants to be a poor business person and limit his pool of clients to folks that haven't gotten tattoos or multiple piercings then so what? i think it is stupid, but what is the big deal?

[slang]

I don't have any tattoos or piercings.

Those people that have them kinda freak me out. It's not that I'll avoid them but that I'll put them into "that catagory" of people. At least until we have a chance to talk.

There have been some pretty cool people that I've met with tattoos and piercings. I'm cautious when talking with them because they are almost always left leaning "this and that is my right and I'll do whatever I God damned well please and you can fuck yourself " sort of person.

Normally they are that sort of person that is totally opposite of who I am.

Now, if this somehow sounds like you, we could still be friends. I know you don't need friends but generally speaking this is the case.

There was a guy I met in Florida that was a great photographer and web artist. He wore eyeliner which was a bit different but was a genuinely nice guy.

We didn't talk politics much.

[binky]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Jesus, how much business are they prepared to lose?

Unless of course they are in a very conservative neighbourhood I guess.

In Calabasas, CA there is a law being debated that would make it illegal to smoke in YOUR OWN apartment, even on your balcony. Landlords, upon a tenant moving out, would have to rent each apartment as a non-smoking unit. Now, I'm a non-smoker, but this seems pretty ridiculous, and seems to be punitive toward lower income people, who can't afford to buy (a $600,000 plus) house in this area

The days of separating people by tattoos is over.
It is like saying those who smoke are heroine addicts because most addicts smoke, you cannot make the concussion because the other end of the spectrum does not fit.
Doctors, lawyers and CEOs have tattoos on their forearms regularly.
It is an incorrect stereotype. I happen to know a VP and an owner of fortune 500 companies that both have visible tattoos, one is a war hero. Both are VERY conservative.
I would not want to live with those morons too... I think it is great, a big sign that says "IDIOTS LIVE HERE, STAY AWAY! ".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by slang

I don't have any tattoos or piercings.

Those people that have them kinda freak me out.

You mean the people that have them where you can see them... kinda freak you out. Don't you? Just imagine how many have them, and you can't see them, there are millions out there.