Welcome to Gaia! ::

Was Legoland in the right or the wrong for kicking out this woman with a racy tattoo?

They were in the right. 0.65333333333333 65.3% [ 98 ]
They were in the wrong. 0.2 20.0% [ 30 ]
Indifferent/I don't know. 0.14666666666667 14.7% [ 22 ]
Total Votes:[ 150 ]
<< < 1 2 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 21 22 23 >
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

daChaosKitty
Mister George Kapland
I'm not quite sure what child you think would go "Hey Ma! Why's Tinkerbell shoving a lightswitch up her a*****e!?"

I picture, moreso, a child asking, "What is that fairy doing?" Or, in the case of 10 year-olds, they may well put two and two together on what the fairy is doing, which isn't really what a parent wants their ten year-old to be thinking about.


And you know what you do to.a child who asks that question?

Lie, if your a prude.


Explain if you're a responsible parent.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
Mister George Kapland
daChaosKitty
Mister George Kapland
I'm not quite sure what child you think would go "Hey Ma! Why's Tinkerbell shoving a lightswitch up her a*****e!?"

I picture, moreso, a child asking, "What is that fairy doing?" Or, in the case of 10 year-olds, they may well put two and two together on what the fairy is doing, which isn't really what a parent wants their ten year-old to be thinking about.


And you know what you do to.a child who asks that question?

Lie, if your a prude.


Explain if you're a responsible parent.

"Something that doesn't belong where you can see it." Neither a lie, nor a real explanation.
Kaiser Khorosho's avatar

Steadfast Loiterer

11,500 Points
  • Battle: Defender 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Citizen 200
Mister George Kapland
Wait, so we have to choose between believing a mother removed from the park... Or a billion dollar faceless.corporation that issued a statement via a PR firm.

Let's see... Lady on face book, or lady PAID to make companies look good.



Facebook lady.

Lady paid to make people look good.


Which sounds more credible.


And then you have to hall to suggest a titty tat is on the same level as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre. neutral . Something that can cause a panic, a stampede and deaths... And comparing it to a tattoo....


it's like you we're born retarded.

What SOUNDS credible? It doesn't matter what SOUNDS credible. We just don't know. Everybody lies. All billion dollar companies aren't corrupt or don't care about situations like this. And the fact that they issued a statement saying that the offer still stands that the mom can come back with the tattoo covered up means that they're the "bigger man" in this situation. THEY apologized publicly. Not much more that CAN do.

Everyone is discriminated against everyday. Why should she get special treatment? She chose to get a racy tattoo and is shocked when something like this happened? It was bound to happen eventually. And I seriously doubt she's been to "thousands" of places; exaggeration is lying.

And why does everything devolve into being retarded? That's just...lame. How come your preconceived notion that a company doesn't really care less likely than the mother being a stupid overreacting b***h? Have you ever met her? Has Legoland ever been in the media in a negative light before?
Bundle of Funyuns's avatar

Beloved Lunatic

6,350 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Hygienic 200
  • Popular Thread 100
One on hand, we have a moron who doesn't think that it's a problem to get a Tattoo of ******** Tinkerbell impaled on a light-switch, and go around Legoland with her kid.

On the other hand, we have butthurt people who refuse to get dem dicks out dey's butts and learn to ignore things. Also, children are going to learn these things regardless, and in this day and age, they're learning it faster than ever. So obviously, people need to stop being dumb and trying to protect their "PRECIOUS BUNDLES OF JOYYYY", and let them discover s**t.

They're both stupid.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
ice queen in a dark tower
marshmallowcreampie
ice queen in a dark tower
youre missing the point of my post
just because something is offensive doesnt mean that it should be removed. the people being offended can very easily look away


Then maybe we shouldn't take the feelings of the tattooed woman in concern. Legoland is a private business and they market their park as a child-friendly environment. If people are allowed to go in displaying pornographic images on their clothing or bodies, where a child can easily see it, well, the other customers aren't gonna see that as child-friendly. You gotta pick your battles. It's either the feelings of the tattooed woman, or the feelings of the multiple people who complained.


who cares if children can see it?


Besides Legoland and their customers?

Quote:
they probably dont even know what the ******** it is


They don't need to, for quite some time yet, either. And some woman's tattoo is not the ideal means to learn.

It wouldn't kill that woman to wear something that would've covered it up. She did not. That's on her, and her alone.

Quote:
by complaining about the situation and forcing the woman to be removed, theyve automatically lost my sympathy for their feelings


Hey, I'm all about "******** the haters", but pornographic imagry is a very hot-button issue. In this case, one easily concealed. If she couldn't be asked to conceal the image, then I have no sympathy for her. What did she honestly expect? It's a ******** CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENT! And she's walking around with a risque image clearly displayed. That's like bringing a 6-pack to an AA meeting...
Requiem ex Inferni's avatar

Eloquent Streaker

Amusement park run by a private company. They can set whatever rules they want about admission so long as it doesn't violate certain discrimination laws. If they want to throw someone out for a particularly ******** idiotic tattoo, that's their right.

I don't see any issue here. It's not like this is some huge 1st Amendment violation or anything. And it's not like she's banned from the park- I'm sure if she came back with the tattoo covered, they'd have no problem letting her back in.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
ice queen in a dark tower
black_wing_angel
ice queen in a dark tower
marshmallowcreampie
ice queen in a dark tower
youre missing the point of my post
just because something is offensive doesnt mean that it should be removed. the people being offended can very easily look away


Then maybe we shouldn't take the feelings of the tattooed woman in concern. Legoland is a private business and they market their park as a child-friendly environment. If people are allowed to go in displaying pornographic images on their clothing or bodies, where a child can easily see it, well, the other customers aren't gonna see that as child-friendly. You gotta pick your battles. It's either the feelings of the tattooed woman, or the feelings of the multiple people who complained.


who cares if children can see it?


Besides Legoland and their customers?

Quote:
they probably dont even know what the ******** it is


They don't need to, for quite some time yet, either. And some woman's tattoo is not the ideal means to learn.

It wouldn't kill that woman to wear something that would've covered it up. She did not. That's on her, and her alone.

Quote:
by complaining about the situation and forcing the woman to be removed, theyve automatically lost my sympathy for their feelings


Hey, I'm all about "******** the haters", but pornographic imagry is a very hot-button issue. In this case, one easily concealed. If she couldn't be asked to conceal the image, then I have no sympathy for her. What did she honestly expect? It's a ******** CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENT! And she's walking around with a risque image clearly displayed. That's like bringing a 6-pack to an AA meeting...
why does it matter that its a childrens environment?


Because it's NOT a child-friendly image. They age-restrict "Adult Content" media. The exception is not made for body-art.

And as Legoland is a privately owned and operated business, they have the right to remove the woman, at their sole discretion, if they feel that there is a problem. And since multiple people complained...well...there was a problem, and they solved it.

Quote:
they dont give a ******** about seeing sexual things. parents are the ones that make it seem like its terrible and destructive


Hey, if we were talking about 15 year olds and up, I wouldn't argue. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hasn't ventured into pornographic materials. But we're talking 5 and 6 year olds.....and that's just horrid.
Stuch BSc's avatar

4,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Hygienic 200
Sounds to me like the woman is a grade A knob.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
ice queen in a dark tower
black_wing_angel
ice queen in a dark tower
black_wing_angel
ice queen in a dark tower


who cares if children can see it?


Besides Legoland and their customers?

Quote:
they probably dont even know what the ******** it is


They don't need to, for quite some time yet, either. And some woman's tattoo is not the ideal means to learn.

It wouldn't kill that woman to wear something that would've covered it up. She did not. That's on her, and her alone.

Quote:
by complaining about the situation and forcing the woman to be removed, theyve automatically lost my sympathy for their feelings


Hey, I'm all about "******** the haters", but pornographic imagry is a very hot-button issue. In this case, one easily concealed. If she couldn't be asked to conceal the image, then I have no sympathy for her. What did she honestly expect? It's a ******** CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENT! And she's walking around with a risque image clearly displayed. That's like bringing a 6-pack to an AA meeting...
why does it matter that its a childrens environment?


Because it's NOT a child-friendly image. They age-restrict "Adult Content" media. The exception is not made for body-art.

And as Legoland is a privately owned and operated business, they have the right to remove the woman, at their sole discretion, if they feel that there is a problem. And since multiple people complained...well...there was a problem, and they solved it.

Quote:
they dont give a ******** about seeing sexual things. parents are the ones that make it seem like its terrible and destructive


Hey, if we were talking about 15 year olds and up, I wouldn't argue. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hasn't ventured into pornographic materials. But we're talking 5 and 6 year olds.....and that's just horrid.
nobody here is questioning legoland's right to remove her

"Adult Content" is age-restricted because our society is full of ridiculous cunts that think a child's head will explode if they see anything related to sex or nudity.


It's not entirely unreasonable. Children that young don't understand the complexities of sex. Pregnancy, infections, and at that age, potential long-term psychological damage. It's simply best that children that young not be exposed to such matters. For their own good.

Quote:
How is it horrid? They don't know what the ******** it is.


That fact almost makes it worse.

Quote:
They're not going to be offended or disturbed by it.


No, but children get ideas. Ideas they don't need, at that age.
daChaosKitty's avatar

Fashionable Genius

6,300 Points
  • Forum Explorer 100
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • First step to fame 200
black_wing_angel
It's not entirely unreasonable. Children that young don't understand the complexities of sex. Pregnancy, infections, and at that age, potential long-term psychological damage. It's simply best that children that young not be exposed to such matters. For their own good.

Quote:
How is it horrid? They don't know what the ******** it is.


That fact almost makes it worse.

Quote:
They're not going to be offended or disturbed by it.


No, but children get ideas. Ideas they don't need, at that age.

I'd heard that exposure to graphic content can warp brain development.

Additionally, exposing young children to overt sexual imagery (read: porn, for others) is a form of sexual abuse.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,150 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
ice queen in a dark tower
black_wing_angel
ice queen in a dark tower
black_wing_angel
ice queen in a dark tower
why does it matter that its a childrens environment?


Because it's NOT a child-friendly image. They age-restrict "Adult Content" media. The exception is not made for body-art.

And as Legoland is a privately owned and operated business, they have the right to remove the woman, at their sole discretion, if they feel that there is a problem. And since multiple people complained...well...there was a problem, and they solved it.

Quote:
they dont give a ******** about seeing sexual things. parents are the ones that make it seem like its terrible and destructive


Hey, if we were talking about 15 year olds and up, I wouldn't argue. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that hasn't ventured into pornographic materials. But we're talking 5 and 6 year olds.....and that's just horrid.
nobody here is questioning legoland's right to remove her

"Adult Content" is age-restricted because our society is full of ridiculous cunts that think a child's head will explode if they see anything related to sex or nudity.


It's not entirely unreasonable. Children that young don't understand the complexities of sex. Pregnancy, infections, and at that age, potential long-term psychological damage. It's simply best that children that young not be exposed to such matters. For their own good.

Quote:
How is it horrid? They don't know what the ******** it is.


That fact almost makes it worse.

Quote:
They're not going to be offended or disturbed by it.


No, but children get ideas. Ideas they don't need, at that age.
Psychological damage? The ********? lol


It does happen.

Quote:
A half-decent parent will be able to actually communicate with their child and explain these things to them.


Sure. When the time is right. 6 years old, is unreasonably early.

Quote:
Unless they're one of those ******** idiots that think that 'innocence' is something sacred that needs to be treasured.


A) Not specifically. I do believe in abstinence, until one is matured, but not much beyond that. I simply believe that a child that young is not ready to know these things. There's no benefits to subjecting a child that young, to such things. But there are dangers.

B) Let's not have petty insults. I'm trying to keep this discussion civil and enriching.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games