Unfathomable... Tattooing a Swastika on your Face

Tombstone said:
That would equally be an indication of the ignorance of the person viewing who thinks that every swastika is Nazi or that they invented it. Having said that, regardless of whether it was the religious reason or not, I wouldn't have a tattoo of any sort on my face. (actually I wouldn't have a tattoo of any sort any where on me :) )
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, Their are people who know of it's origins and their are people that don't, Getting anything tattoo'd on your face is silly but any sign slightly relating to Nazi's seems wrong.
 
steve-h said:
Having a skinhead, being unshaven and being scruffy means they can't possibly do the job?

Shaving, wearing a suit or smarth clothes and not shaving your hair somehow makes you better?
Click to expand...
At the job, maybe not. As a person, definitely. When you go to an interview you're being judged on far more than whether or not you're fit for the job - you wouldn't get an interview if you weren't.

What you're actually being judged on is whether you "fit in" with your employer. Here, being presentable matters ;)
 
Sinny said:
Doesn't matter, Their are people who know of it's origins and their are people that don't, Getting anything tattoo'd on your face is silly but any sign slightly relating to Nazi's seems wrong.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree about getting anything tattooed on your face being daft, but if we assume that the swastika in question was actually the reversed Hindu one then it isnt related to Nazi's at all and its only the ignorance of the viewer who can't tell the difference and thinks that all swastikas are Nazi that thinks its related. Otherwise we would have to declare that all the millions of religious swastikas in temples and homes around the world are related to the Nazi's , which would be a sure way to annoy vast numbers of folks. :)

It does present an interesting philosophical question though on the difference between what an image actually is and what a person perceives an image to be. If I wear a shirt into a church that says FCUK on it and someone takes offense because I am wearing a shirt with the F word on it. Am I as the wearer solely at fault for wearing the shirt or is the viewer also at fault because what they think they are looking at is not actually what they are looking at. Its just that they don't know the difference.
 
Tombstone said:
I certainly agree about getting anything tattooed on your face being daft, but if we assume that the swastika in question was actually the reversed Hindu one then it isnt related to Nazi's at all and its only the ignorance of the viewer who can't tell the difference and thinks that all swastikas are Nazi that thinks its related. Otherwise we would have to declare that all the millions of religious swastikas in temples and homes around the world are related to the Nazi's , which would be a sure way to annoy vast numbers of folks. :)

It does present an interesting philosophical question though on the difference between what an image actually is and what a person perceives an image to be. If I wear a shirt into a church that says FCUK on it and someone takes offense because I am wearing a shirt with the F word on it. Am I as the wearer solely at fault for wearing the shirt or is the viewer also at fault because what they think they are looking at is not actually what they are looking at. Its just that they don't know the difference.
Click to expand...

I can definitely agree on what you're saying, but religious or not their are people that who are genuinely stupid and will want to cause trouble. If the symbol was tattoo'd on an upper arm where you could show people who are either genuinely interested or know of it's value then it's I'd say it's completely fine.

but the symbols misuse, with it's resemblance to Nazi swastika will only cause the person harm.

Maybe, if you lived in India or somewhere where the symbol was widely known for it's true value it would be perfectly acceptable, but in the western world it's entirely different.
 
Why are people talking about job interviews?

Maybe she doesn't have or want a job. Life isn't defined by employment.
 
Killerkebab said:
At the job, maybe not. As a person, definitely.
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm sorry but having a skinhead and an unshaven beard and not caring what clothes you wear does not make you less of a person in any way, shape or form.

Jambo said:
Why are people talking about job interviews?

Maybe she doesn't have or want a job. Life isn't defined by employment.
Click to expand...

DO YOU THINK JOBS ARE BLASÉ?? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom