>>10718526>Still shows a vulnerability to nonsensical fads that have long lasting consequences though.That's a bit of possible contradiction. Again, if it is some fad, then you are right. If it has meaning, then it shows the opposite, ie.: ability to dedicate to something lasting. Hence me saying there are tattoos and tattoos.
>or to draw on a personality instead of developing as a personThis is a false dilemma. Your personality development ends when someone draws something on your skin, anon? Does tattoos have a magical power to stop your personal growth?
>Tattoos are a sign of cultural and personal weakness in the same way being overly vain is.And this is just a pure nonsense. Again, Europeans - your ancestors included (that is if you are not some shitskin temporarily squatting UK), inked themselves since the beginning of the written history. Were they all vain and personally weak? What is even the correlation here? There is none.
>muh investmentYou are just making fallacious scenarios here. There is no way you can know this before actually talking with the person and getting to know them. And even if you would be correct in this, it is still another fallacy - you can easily do both, especially if you are not consoomer. People spending some minor cash for tattoos are least of a problems of a consumer plague.
