Actually, the way the fallacy works, I was accusing you of not calling me Scottish, but there's not important.

Except that I don't need be a parent. I had my own. I was a teenager.

I'll put my counter another way: your experience as a parent doesn't trump my parents' experience.

But you cannot enter your parents' experience into evidence because it's not YOUR experience. You cannot possibly account for every parenting decision they made and you have no idea what it was like for them to raise you. You cannot claim another person's experience as your own.

I'll put my counter another way: your experience as a parent doesn't trump my parents' experience.

But you cannot enter your parents' experience into evidence because it's not YOUR experience. You cannot possibly account for every parenting decision they made and you have no idea what it was like for them to raise you. You cannot claim another person's experience as your own.

Saying that I don't know what my parents experience was like is a little silly. You're either calling me a liar, my parents liars, or you're accusing me of being an incompetent listener. None of those options are appealing, nor do I have a reason to believe them.

And the fact that opportunites will be closed to any person based on appearance is a form of discrimination. While i understand that in today's society we need to ensure our children are aware of this, we also need to teach them to help stop the perpetuation of this and that a person should never not receive an opportunity because of their appearance.

This. People look at other people and draw conclusions based on appearance, right or wrong, all day, every day. At base, that's why most of us are here - we're tired of being judged as lesser beings for our physical weight/appearance and consequently perhaps being treated less well than others of more slender physique. How someone presents themselves to the world has an enormous effect on how others perceive them, for better or worse. The girl who turns up in a twinset and pearls is going to be judged to be just as out of place in some situations as the man with piercings and tattoos will be in others - that's human nature, and part of how we act, as a species, socially.

That leads me to discrimination then. Not only are people judged by their body modifications but employers are allowed to deny or even in my boyfriends case, terminate employment for piercings or tattoos. It guess it's their loss in the end though, when they terminate or decline an application of a person and hire a less qualified or less competent person, just because they look more "common".

Why the assumption that the person without the modifications is less qualified? If faced with two people of equal ability, most employers are likely to go for the person who is least likely to present any problems when it comes to dealing with customers, suppliers, other workers. There are certain associations, sadly mostly negative, that are a part of the collective public conscious when it comes to piercings, tattoos etc. The person who has chosen (key word!) to visibly alter their appearance in this way and does not/cannot cover them appropriately for certain environments triggers those associations in some of the people they will have to deal with, making the person without them a safer option for an employer. That's the reality of it.

The problem with calling this discrimination is that the issue is one of choice, not of nature. People are not born tattooed, or pierced as they are born asiatic, black or white, male or female, hetero- or homosexual (yes, I know this last is a subject of some debate, but let's try not to derail!:laugh: ). There is evidence that people's physical shape is in some part dictated by genetics. These are not choices, they are inescapable, unchangeable facts of an individual life, and therefore should not have negative consequences in a just society. Piercings, tattoos etc are not genetic or inherent - they represent a choice to go against a cultural norm, and as with all choices, there are consequences. (Of course there are some cultures where these modifications are the social/religious norm, and I believe most educated people outwith that culture are accommodating and understanding, within reason, where this is the case.)

The doctor in your picture has made situation-appropriate choices. His tattoos are easily covered up, and do not present a visual affront to those who ascribe negative associations to tattooed sleeves when he is at work. Presumably, he also covers them in other situations where visible tattoos would reflect poorly on him in the eyes of some parts of the population. Other modifications are not so easily disguised, and it is that which I would be wary of with a young person, whose life choices are unlilkely to have been solidified yet, and whose future options could be curtailed by unwise choices now, as with the poster whose son may wish to join the military. Does a 12 year old understand the consequences - long range and short - of his current choices? I would say no, no matter how bright the 12 year old. There are choices still to be made that he or she may have no inkling of at this stage in life.

Im cool with it. And the tide is changing in the work place,more and more people that do not see it as unprofessional are in management postions now,and more are coming with every gneration that enters the workforce.

Jeanette is a much cooler mom than I am. I've gone to her for parenting advice and she's given me some invaluable advice that helped me greatly. When you can respectfully dialogue with those who differ from you, you can learn from each other.

For my kid no! For someone else's kid, well that's their deal. My thing is just that I think a boy looks stupid with his ear pierced, just like my mom wouldn't let my brother shave a word into his head unless it was "stupid". Her house her rules, My house my rules..................*sigh*

And as macpatti said, "As a parent, though, we know how important appearances are. We realize opportunities will be closed to our children based on certain appearances." That is condoning and teaching your children that it's ok to judge others or be judge by your appearance.

How in the world am I "condoning" negative judgment of people because I want my children to know how important appearances are?

I would expect him to be respectful and dress appropriately

Wait......what do you mean by "dress appropriately"? Just because a female goes to a job interview with a miniskirt and tank top doesn't make her any less of a qualified employee; does it?

I beleive there is a difference between making a good appearance and being appropriate and judging someone's appearance, soley because it's not your own personal taste or style. Teaching kids that 'you shouldn't have you ears pierced because some people find it tabboo', not necessarily because it's wrong, isn't a solution to me. I would want mine to try to change the minds of others and show them that you can be pierced, have tattoos and still be a respectable person.

What is the difference between a male showing up to a job interview with pierced ears and tattoos and a female showing up to a job interview in a miniskirt, tube top, and heels? Isn't that her preference of dress? You're saying she should be seen as "not appropriate" but not the male?

Is that a fair comparison? Wouldn't we have to compare each gender in tattoos and piercings? Or we could compare a woman as you describe to a man showing up to an interview wearing...whatever the equivalent is? I'm not even sure. A skin tight t-shirt and some jeans that leave nothing to the imagination?

My point is that appearances matter, and that does not equal discrimination.