Starbucks is reviewing strict rule for no visible tatoos

[Frothingslosh]

Call a spade a spade - it's not 'home truths', it's 'personal opinion being provided as if it were credible fact.'

The statement you singled out doesn't say he can't make the link, it says that he makes the link but is sometimes incorrect. He even goes on to reinforce that by pointing out prisoners have tats, using 'go figure' to indicate a causal link.

It's the difference between these two sentences:

"Customers will leave because they feel only bad people wear tattoos."
"Customers will leave because only bad people wear tattoos."

His argument was the latter, which is why I called him on it.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Froth we are going to have to agree to disagree, I felt that the statement I quoted meant that Blade no longer was able to equate a tattoo to a bad guy, even if he felt that the majority of bad guys had tattoos.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Froth we are going to have to agree to disagree

Yeah, I don't see us coming to agreement.

Having gone back and reread the entire thread, please note that in my initial comment, I actually ONLY responded to his last two sentences - the part correlating tats with prisoners, and 'Go figure'. That was the ONLY part I attacked as a logical fallacy. I didn't even refer to the rest of the comment being dodgy until I came under attack for pointing out the fallacy of Bladerunner's "Prisoners have tats, prisoners are bad people, ergo people with tats are bad people" argument.

I can honestly see the "Nowdays, so many kids have them..." statement being read either way, although my feeling on the matter is that he's judging and just being wrong on occasion, but that can be argued either way. The thing is, though, I didn't attack that statement, even though I was subsequently attacked by Mr. Gerard as if I had. I reiterate - I ONLY attacked the prisoner statement, and then because it's a logical fallacy. Somehow the discussion got dragged to the 'so many kids' statement anyway.

Anyway, I guess I just don't see how you can read

Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure.

as being a valid, logical argument. That is, after all, the part where in your first reply to me you said I was incorrect. As I say it's a fallacious argument, and you say I'm wrong, then obviously you feel it's a valid argument, and I'd love to see why you think so. As I see THAT PARTICULAR STATEMENT, it is both a fallacy of an incorrect assumption (A > C, B > C, therefore A > B) and false association (Hitler was evil, hitler liked sugar, therefore people who like sugar are evil). That's really all my initial post was trying to say. Yes, I have an absurd example, but that was to show how absurd the argument was.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Yeah I've been back and reread your post, I think that if you had stopped at your first point 3 I might have realised what you were attacking but continuing on to talk of pirates distracted me and hence I thought you were attacking the whole post in an OTT way , but yes I see the point you were making, however I still stand by my last post which boils down to anybody can have a tattoo but bad guys normally do, or rather that is what Blade was saying.
Must go now my team is on the box, playing in Europe.

Bye

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Yeah I've been back and reread your post, I think that if you had stopped at your first point 3 I might have realised what you were attacking but continuing on to talk of pirates distracted me and hence I thought you were attacking the whole post in an OTT way , but yes I see the point you were making, however I still stand by my last post which boils down to anybody can have a tattoo but bad guys normally do, or rather that is what Blade was saying.

Yeah, I was mostly just attacking the logic. I disagree with the premise (only bad guys normally have tattoos), too, but that's another matter entirely, and without me digging up actual numbers, it's arguing opinion vs opinion. And that, as we all know, never gets resolved.

Must go now my team is on the box, playing in Europe.

Good luck!

 

[kevlray]

I am not against tattoos (but I never want one, personal preference). But some tattoos are (in my opinion) not suitable for general public viewing (nudity, violence, foul language, etc.).

 

[Bladerunner]

So your logic here is:

1) Convicted criminals tend to have tattoos.
2) Convicted criminals are bad people.
Ergo
3) Anyone with a tattoo is a bad person.

I'm sure the 20% to 30% of Americans with at least one tattoo (including, unsurprisingly, a MUCH higher percentage of the enlisted military) would object to that.

Logically, your argument is no more sound than this one:

1) Piracy has drastically decreased since the 17th century.
2) Average global temperature has gone up since the 17th century.
Ergo
3) Pirates prevent global warming.

"the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form. Nowdays, so many kids have them, it is hard to tell who is the bad guys. Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure."

What is wrong with you. What did I say? Lets see......"Have Been in the Past" but not these days. or "Bad Boy", the girls like them,,,,,,,then a seperate category of "Probably Dangerous". These are just some of the forms of opinions that different people see when they see tattoos. As far as the 95% of prisoners having tattoos.....well it is a fact. and of course "Go Figure" is an expression that for me means; 'it does not make any sense that one or more tattoos can elicit so much different forms of emotion from people.

Now did I say I was prejudice or anything like that!

Just chill out or go get yourself a tattoo, that is if it will make you feel better.

 

[Frothingslosh]

What is wrong with you. What did I say?

Will tell you this, 95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not.

That was the only part of your post which I addressed. Setting aside for a moment your arbitrary claim that 95% of prisoners have tattoos (as I will grant that a higher percentage than normal does, even if I find 95% unlikely), the ONLY point that sentence tries to make is that 'bad people have tattoos'. (Either that or you have a new habit of tossing utterly unrelated facts into conversations for no reason. Yes, I do like pizza!) The obvious implication from that is that you still think tattoos are mostly an indication of a bad person (else why would you have complained that younger people getting tattoos makes it harder to tell the bad people on sight?).

The only point I was making was that that is a ridiculous assumption to make. I will admit, however, that your explanation makes it seem you were trying for the fallacy of false association ("Prisoners are bad people. Prisoners have tattooes. Therefore people with tattoos must be bad people."), rather than incorrect conclusion like I thought.

Had you phrased your comment in such a way that it described what customers thought, I'd have likely agreed with you, but you didn't. You mentioned tatoos drove customers away, then went off about tattoos traditionally showing you're a bad person, then complained it's harder (not impossible, just harder) to tell a bad person just by looking at them, then 'proved' your point by associating prisoners with tattoos. I simply called you on the prisoner point.

I do find it interesting, however, that your first reaction to someone disagreeing with you is, once again, 'what is wrong with you?'. Not a rational argument, not an explanation, not a clarification (although those came after), but another assumption that someone who disagrees with you has something wrong with them.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

That was the only part of your post which I addressed. Setting aside for a moment your arbitrary claim that 95% of prisoners have tattoos (as I will grant that a higher percentage than normal does, even if I find 95% unlikely), the ONLY point that sentence tries to make is that 'bad people have tattoos'. (Either that or you have a new habit of tossing utterly unrelated facts into conversations for no reason. Yes, I do like pizza!) The obvious implication from that is that you still think tattoos are mostly an indication of a bad person (else why would you have complained that younger people getting tattoos makes it harder to tell the bad people on sight?).

The only point I was making was that that is a ridiculous assumption to make. I will admit, however, that your explanation makes it seem you were trying for the fallacy of false association ("Prisoners are bad people. Prisoners have tattooes. Therefore people with tattoos must be bad people."), rather than incorrect conclusion like I thought.

Had you phrased your comment in such a way that it described what customers thought, I'd have likely agreed with you, but you didn't. You mentioned tatoos drove customers away, then went off about tattoos traditionally showing you're a bad person, then complained it's harder (not impossible, just harder) to tell a bad person just by looking at them, then 'proved' your point by associating prisoners with tattoos. I simply called you on the prisoner point.

I do find it interesting, however, that your first reaction to someone disagreeing with you is, once again, 'what is wrong with you?'. Not a rational argument, not an explanation, not a clarification (although those came after), but another assumption that someone who disagrees with you has something wrong with them.

Being the only part you took exception to - you would think you would have noticed....
He said 95% of jails? Not prisoners. ?

 

[RainLover]

Just save a space on your forehead that simply reads.

6 6 6

Wasn't that link Yuck.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Being the only part you took exception to - you would think you would have noticed....
He said 95% of jails? Not prisoners. ?

I did, actually. I nearly pointed it out but decided that was being too picky even for me. If you look at his last post, it's apparent it was a typo - in the last post he says 95% of prisoners rather than 95% of jails.

...As far as the 95% of prisoners having tattoos.....well it is a fact. and of course...

As with the implication he was making, the meaning in the initial comment was pretty obvious.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Just save a space on your forehead that simply reads.

6 6 6

Wasn't that link Yuck.

Oh, man, I have the PERFECT avatar to use, assuming I can update mine here. I just have to wait until I get home.

 

[RainLover]

Oh, man, I have the PERFECT avatar to use, assuming I can update mine here. I just have to wait until I get home.

Sounds like you understand the meaning.

Look forward to seeing it.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Now I have Ave Satani stuck in my head. :-(

 

[Alc]

On a completely separate note.....

I just read the poll at the top of the thread and it says that, of the votes to date:
'By making more workers available - it keeps the pay low' got 33%
'This indicates a strong trend for accepting Tatoo (Culture Change)' got 50%
'The overall dress code is just too formal, expensive, or outdated' got 50%

Even given my flaky maths, something's not right there, surely?

 

[Frothingslosh]

If you look at the vote breakdown, two people voted twice.

 

[Alc]

If you look at the vote breakdown, two people voted twice.

How did they manage that? I voted once and now it says I can't vote again.

 

[Frothingslosh]

How did they manage that? I voted once and now it says I can't vote again.

First thing to come to mind is they deleted their cookies, and that it was tracked there.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It is a multiple choice poll but all choices have to be made at one go

Brian

 

[Alc]

It is a multiple choice poll but all choices have to be made at one go

Brian

Thank you, sir.
As my wife so often says, I don't pay attention to details.