Top Law Schools

Lonagan wrote:

crazycanuck wrote:I'm curious what the tiger face guy does for a living, and what he used to look like before he got all altered.

Also, what was he like as a child.

obvs

Renzo wrote:

thebunk wrote:not saying here that tattoos are liberating the masses like Ghandi. but remember that beethoven's music was considered self-indulgent and obscene, van gogh's paintings were initially seen in the same way, and that women wearing pants was once regarded as an outrageous example of moral dissolution (self-expression through style at its finest).

ultimately, why judge people over something as trivial as appearance? just leave them be.

That's the key-- appearance is always trivial. If someone actually produced some work or thought or social commentary that was meaningful, I would defend that person. But I am pretty sure no one cares what Van Gogh wore while he painted, and I'm equally as sure no one would have cared what Dr. King had to say if he'd have dressed like a circus clown with a big red fake nose and floppy shoes that squeaked.

People's appearance is an outward manifestation of how they want others to perceive them. If you want to be taken seriously, look the part. If your mohawk is more important to you, fine-- but expect there to be consequences.