So, let me get this straight. Because a person has a tattoo makes them, without any regard for their personality, skills, or any other...you know...relevant?...factors, instantly makes them incapable of passing history and geometry, nor capable of rendering first aid to someone in dire need of it? Based on your line of logic, said person, due to a tattoo, is instantly too unintelligent or barbaric to help someone in need?

Please be so kind as to tell me I'm horribly misconstruing this, as otherwise, that's perhaps one of the most ignorant things I've heard in quite some time. My mother has a tattoo. She was only a scant few credit hours from becoming a nurse, and only dropped the program due to (in respect for her privacy) a personal loss. By your line of logic, my mother, who as far as random bystanders go is pretty qualified to help, isn't capable of rendering aid, as she so clearly cares nothing for her body (her hip, btw, so you'd never know) and thus must care nothing for anyone else's? Please, be so kind as to explain to me how you arrive at such a conclusion. I'm just shaking with excitement here.

Lastly, with the utmost respect, I dunno if you've ever experienced near exsanguination or the loss of limb. I hope not. I've experienced the former under the pretense of a surgical recovery gone awry. It's one of the scariest, least pleasant things you can imagine. I cannot imagine what it'd be like coupled with loss of limb and the utter chaos those in Boston experienced. Respectfully, I'd wager near anything you'd be begging for anyone to help you, were it you.

You know. So you can judge their tattoos and self serving attitude later, and all.