Your still seemingly oblivious to what Blade actually said, and Brian pointed out to you also.
Your needlessly offended and preachy. In spite of the facts ....and your still at it I may add.
Never said I was offended - I said that the whole prejudice is insane.
Since you're so convinced that I'm misreading this:
plus 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.
...please, enlighten me on how this does NOT imply that he feels tattoos indicate a bad person. Hell, not only does he point out that there's a longstanding prejudice that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, he straight up correllates tattoos with convicted criminals. And yet you both tell me he's not saying what he very explicitly said.
I am glad you don't judge by appearance - cos if your eye sight's as bad as your comprehension- your misapplication of logic could lead you to anywhere?
Yes, because I'm the one misunderstanding "tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form." and "95% of the jails in the US houses prisoners who have multiple tattoos and very few people who do not. Go Figure."
Blade's entire point, since you obviously are utterly incapable of understanding either it or me, is that tattoos drive away customers, and as 'proof' he points out that tattoos show you're a bad person.
He didn't say that that's the general conception, he said that tattoos indicate you're a bad person, and further correllated it with 'prisoners have tattoos, therefore tattoos are for bad people'.
I, in return, have not once disputed the 'drives away customers' portion of his post, only the 'tatoos show you're a bad person' part. Sorry that's too difficult for you to comprehend. I'm sure they offer remedial reading classes in your area that you could use to remedy that.
Edit: Since you are obviously incapable of determining the difference on your own, I'll break it down for you. Bladerunner's post started out by pointing out that visible tattoos can lose customers. That part I never argued. He then went on to explain that that was because tattoos have always marked you as a bad, dangerous person, then he bemoaned the fact that more people have them now. Then he pointed out that prisoners tend to have tattoos as a way to reinforce his 'bad people have tattoos' point.
He never said that Starbucks would lose customers because customers are put off by visible tattoos or because customers think tattoos indicate bad people. His point was that they would lose customers because tattoos DO indicate the tattood person is bad, dangerous, or a criminal.
There is a HUGE difference between "They would lose customers because customers think tattoos are for evil people" and "They would lose customers because tatoos are for evil people."
Edit 2: To get right down to it, had Bladerunner stopped with "plus the tattoos have been in the past a visual sign that you are a BAD boy, Probably Dangerous and one to stay away form.", I'd have had no issue with the statement, as he'd still just have been talking about what customers think. It was when he went on to try to prove tats definitely indicate lack of moral character with the next two sentences that I objected.
Edit 3: Let me just add that individually listing out 3000 missing log files for my boss thanks to a drive failure is incredibly tedious work.