However, the author -- Theodore Dalrymple (not his real name) -- is a particularly interesting character.

He is almost exclusively pessimistic about humanity, with a particular dislike of anyone less fortunate than himself. He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve, taking to an extreme the idea of personal responsibility, and draws on his experience as a prison doctor to try to excuse his writing career of finding ever new ways to look down on others.

> Regarding his pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple", he wrote that he "chose a name that sounded suitably dyspeptic, that of a gouty old man looking out of the window of his London club, port in hand, lamenting the degenerating state of the world"

This is posed as a bad thing, but there are lots of people on this site who tell themselves this very thing.

Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag the scales we're operating at.

As for defining what is just - this is obviously a huge subject studied by philosophers - but I'm assuming that, if we had these all-knowing judges, they could just assess (by scanning thoughts of people) how hard everybody is trying to do good to others. And this way, we would be living in a just world. To repeat my question - would that be so bad?

and more here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale...

Edward VII was inked up, with his mother's approval. If it's good enough for the son of Victoria, it should be fine, even for the prudes.

My point is that it has never been the case that “tattoos are just for scum”, and that the author of this piece is woefully and intentionally unaware of history and culture, even inside the upper crust of his own british milieu.

1. Not liking something

and

2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.

Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.

For those able to put words in order that article would take 15 minutes to write and 5 to proof read.

>Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.

What would you do if the author tattooed that piece on themselves? You now can't tell them they are wrong for hating people with tattoos because it's a tattoo.

At the end of the day, keep your opinions about what other people do to/for themselves to yourself ... it's as simple as that. And when you choose to exercise your right to share that unrequested opinion, don't be alarmed when you get a middle finger in your face.

> Why the visceral hate?

Pot, kettle.