ssethrati's page

Grandlounge wrote:

I would say the number one problem with the class is that it is hard to get people to remember all the stuff your giving them.

I find this a problem with any buffing class. I frequently have to remind people of what all they get from haste.

** WARNING : SHAMELESS PLUG FOR PAIZO PRODUCT AHAED **

That is what the buff deck is all about. I love it!!! And I really use it a lot as a skald. I play him in PFS and I have yet to find a party that didn't have at least one player who would always take the rage.

Shared rage alone is huge when used correctly.

ssethrati wrote:

^
|
|
|
This
So This
Very well said rinjin.

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.

Well if the business is a corporation, it has most of the same rights as a person.

And that's pretty much garbage and I can't wait until we get rid of that ruling. The decision is always made by a person, an actual living sentient person, not a legal fiction.

Whatever your personal opinion, it is the law, and they do have rights under the law.

There was a time when tattoos were a bad-ass rejection of authority, and the domain of bikers, navy tough-guys, and Japanese mafia. But nowadays they are about as "tough" as most of the other things you get at the mall. I would say his tattoos are about as exciting as the fact that he isn't wearing a tie, and probably has Levi's on.

The thing I do have to snicker at, is that like most fashion, tattoos become dated very quickly. I see lots of tribal barbed wire, and it is like having a pair of Oakley Blades you can't remove.

That's why my tattoo is a memorial to my dad, 30 year Navy man, 21 active, 9 reserves.

Anchor and rope, not the globes, I was never in the Navy, never earned those......

^
|
|
|
This
So This
Very well said rinjin.

As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations.

Well if the business is a corporation, it has most of the same rights as a person.

ssethrati wrote:

|dvh| wrote:

Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.

You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.

You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.

You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?

Oh, I understand some people don't like tattoos and that businesses cater to them because business is business. I just don't like other people's attitudes indirectly affect ownership of my own body if I want to do things like pay rent.

Edit: if one don't like tattoos, fine, don't get them. But someone else's opinion shouldn't affect what I can do with my body so long as I'm not hurting anybody.

A few points:

1) If you want a job, you must realize that the business has rights as well. When two rights collide, who's must give way? The other person's rights because you feel they affect your rights?

2) There is a difference between no tattoos and no "visible" tattoos. I am a high school teacher, I have tattoos, I have them in places that are not visible to the students I teach in everyday life.

3) It doesn't impact your right to work. There are many jobs where tattos are allowed. You are free to express yourself on your body however you want, it is you that must balance you right to freedom to tattoo with a company's right to project an image. You are the one making the limiting choice.

edit:

4) If your tattoo's impact customer's perceptions of your employer's business, are you not hurting your employer?

Fun with social mores. I don't get the whole anti-tattoo thing, but I am presently working somewhere where you're not allowed to have any visible.

You don't get the fact that you are a representative of the company while you are on the job.

You don't get the fact that the company just might have an "image" that they want to project to the world at large.

You don't get that some people's attitude towards tattoo's might be different that others?