Body Mod

[Guest Crimson Spider]

It appears that all my attempts to emphasize exception to the more general claims I have stated have failed. Whenever I write something like:

[quote](I have seen some rather elaborate mosaics before) [/quote]

and

[quote]As I said earlier, I don't mind a few piercings or tattoos.[/quote]

and

[quote] If we want a full examination on the matter, we would pretty much have to psycho-analyze people with an unusually large amount of tattoos or piercings in order to discover if issues follow certain trends. [/quote]

and

[quote]For a personal statement,[/quote]


It is not some attempt to cover my rear. I really am acknowledging the exception, that my view on the matter is personal, and the need for precise evaluation to sustain any claims. I have seen people with elaborate settings tuned towards Anasazi-based hieroglyphs, tributes to parent cultures in Africa, and detailed armor or printed patterns. If you are within reason, then there is no need to have a guilty conscious over what I am saying. But alas, so many people miss the point.

For example:



[quote name='Vicky'][SIze=1]So people who do what they want with their body have a problem? [/size][/QUOTE]

I will stop right here, because this is where the crux of the statement lies. I did not say that freedom of expression on someone's body was an issue. I did not say that everyone who chose to do so has an issue. I did not say that "improving" your body was an issue. I did not say that altering someone's image was cowardly.

What I said was "Moderation is key, and if someone does not or cannot moderate, then there is likely an issue.", which can be applied to almost anything. For example: dieting and exercise. Remember: the anorexic believes that they are improving their body as well.

[quote][size=1]And for the 'God made you that way argument' I have this. It's more like God gave you a mould and said, "Go on kids, use your imagination!".[/size][/quote] This is strange, because I said that I didn't mind a few piercings and tattoos. I have never mentioned God in this thread. This is assuming that this comment is directed at me, since the idea of divinity was sparked and discussed strictly around my use of the word "pure".



Now, Raiha, I am smart enough to realize that if there is something that is unpleasing to see, that I should avert my eyes. However, to do this requires acknowledgement that the unsaid thing is, indeed, displeasing to me. Whether or not I view someone who has it, then, is irrelevant; it is annoying regardless of my current exposure.

Would I hold discourse with someone on a personal level? No, I would not. I have learned that I shouldn't judge someone only by the presence of their tattoos. This doesn't, however, mean that excessive tattoos aren't an outlet for a psychological issue, or that someone of intelligence is necessarily an agreeable or friendly person. There are variations to the cultures that embrace a large amount of body art, enough that I cannot fully generalize a person. Heck, the cloest you could do is come to generalize the culture, which is an effect of the people. Regardless, though, of race, creed, intelligence, gender, or culture, I do not like excessive, and especially random tattoos.



The two greatest destroyers of understanding are Hypocrisy and the No True Scotsman fallacy. I would ask that everyone please evaluate what I say a little further.

[Gelgoog Pilot]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by[B] Vicky[/B]
No one is born perfect at all (at least to people who are modified) and those who have the balls to fix the outer image to conform to their inner image don't have a problem, they simply have bravery.
[/QUOTE]

You know, who is to say that we are born imperfect? Perhaps we are in fact born perfect? Who is to say what is perfect in the first place, I think we are in fact born the way we are for reasons unknown, whether is be a plan of some God or the way fate or chance had intended. Modifying what you already have is nothing to be ashamed of. It enhances who we are as people. Now, do I think some people go over board? Yes. That's is my personal view or idea of what is beauty or art. That is all Crimson is saying, he does not favor the cluster of images, perhaps he is more inclined to the simplistic.

The other part of this that annoys me frankly is that anyone who doesn't feel they need to change their appearance for themselves or others is lacking balls. What the Hell? So because I don't think I need to change anything to display the inner me on the outside I am less brave than others who do? What if I think there is nothing to fix? What if I understand myself and know there are things that I COULD fix but choose not to for my own reasons? Then I must be a coward?

This thread is touching more on what rights people have with how they see themselves and how they wish to be perceived by others. You are asserting that certain people are something other than what they think themselves or how they wish to be seen. If you at all respect people who are modifying their body then you should think on what you are saying about those who do not. Just my thoughts, be careful how you ridicule another's thoughts or opinions, especially in a thread like this.

[Raiha]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']
Now, Raiha, I am smart enough to realize that if there is something that is unpleasing to see, that I should avert my eyes. However, to do this requires acknowledgement that the unsaid thing is, indeed, displeasing to me. Whether or not I view someone who has it, then, is irrelevant; it is annoying regardless of my current exposure.

The two greatest destroyers of understanding are Hypocrisy and the No True Scotsman fallacy. I would ask that everyone please evaluate what I say a little further.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Objection: Blanket statements up the yin-yang.

First off, if you really are that smart you should probably rephrase your statements so they don't come off sounding like: "I am prejudiced against people with tattoos all over because they are obviously insane." Secondly who are you to judge when someone has enough tattoos? I've asked this before but since it's gone unanswered and you attempted to bury it under a snowstorm of self denial and righteous indignation I suppose it bears repeating.

And because this isn't a thread about the two greatest destroyers of understanding and since you aren't the Arbiter of Understanding I suggest you leave off telling us what's what in the world of Understanding Destruction. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Objection: Blanket statements up the yin-yang.

First off, if you really are that smart you should probably rephrase your statements so they don't come off sounding like: "I am prejudiced against people with tattoos all over because they are obviously insane." Secondly who are you to judge when someone has enough tattoos? I've asked this before but since it's gone unanswered and you attempted to bury it under a snowstorm of self denial and righteous indignation I suppose it bears repeating.

And because this isn't a thread about the two greatest destroyers of understanding and since you aren't the Arbiter of Understanding I suggest you leave off telling us what's what in the world of Understanding Destruction. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Indigo"]Yes, but he didn't say that. That's kinda cold in my mind. Anyway..... no one's to judge who has enough tattoos. It's that person's opinion. So I'm thiniking in Crimson Spider's mind, he thinks that some people have more than enough tattoos. what's wrong with that? oh, and by the way.....rob rotten kinda freaks me out. and why is he flicking someone off again???:confused:[/COLOR]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]Yes, but he didn't say that. That's kinda cold in my mind. Anyway..... no one's to judge who has enough tattoos. It's that person's opinion. So I'm thiniking in Crimson Spider's mind, he thinks that some people have more than enough tattoos. what's wrong with that? oh, and by the way.....rob rotten kinda freaks me out. and why is he flicking someone off again???:confused:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Yes, he thinks people can have more than enough, but he can't be the one to tell people when they finally do have enough.

And Rob Rotten is an adult industry kingpin. He can flip off whoever he wants. For more you can see his myspace [provided you're of age and it isn't illegal and your mother doesn't catch you]. There are some beautiful pictures of his work, his tattoos, and some of his skater gear.

Again though, not a space for people under 18, or 17, or whatever the age of consent is in your state/county/province/principality.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]
And Rob Rotten is an adult industry kingpin. He can flip off whoever he wants. For more you can see his myspace [provided you're of age and it isn't illegal and your mother doesn't catch you]. There are some beautiful pictures of his work, his tattoos, and some of his skater gear.

Again though, not a space for people under 18, or 17, or whatever the age of consent is in your state/county/province/principality.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]nah, i have no interest in seeing him again in my life. i don't like him. sure he may have skills, but i'm not going any further than that picture.[/COLOR]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Again though, not a space for people under 18, or 17, or whatever the age of consent is in your state/county/province/principality.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

You know that only makes me want to see it even more. Huzzah for challenges.

But I must admit, he makes having a lot of tattoos look good.;)

[Guest Crimson Spider]

What my statements "come off" as is your responsibility, Raiha. I cannot be responsible for someone else's ability to take offense to my stance. If people want to mull over my statements with broad, inaccurate straw-man generalizations like "self denial" and "arbiter of understanding", that is something I cannot stop.

Now, I will respond to your question with another question: Who are you to disagree with my statements about tattoos? Who gives you the authority to decide that I am wrong or right? Playing the uncertainty card doesn't accomplish anything in regards to someone's own position on the stance. It just mentions a universal aspect of the universe, and that is the relativity of opinion. And here, it is done so in a manner to imply that I am somehow unaware of my own senses and feelings on the issue. However I digress:

I am a man with enough experience in a multi-cultural environment to acknowledge the amount of deviations from the standard, and characterize when these deviations are beyond the third deviation or are unwarranted by the particular culture that someone has. I am also aware of the aspects of contrast, color, and figures working in concert with one another to develop meaning. I can recognize with multiple senses when there is too much information to be conveyed in a manner that is can be understood by your average person. I can see that it is someone's behavior towards and with tattoos that is the real indicator of their mental state, and a large amount of their body covered in tattoos is one of the indicators of this behavior. I am aware that some of the cultures that hold to the ideal of excessive tattoos also hold on to ideals that are destructive, and the use of tattoos are emphasized as some outlet of this culture.

Do I have an exact number for the percentage of the body that should be covered? No, I do not. I do not have an exact amount of spices that need to be on chicken in order to maintain a reasonable flavor that doesn't overwhelm the sense of taste. I do not have an exact pitch, volume, and rhythm in which all music should be in order to prevent destructive interference. I do not have a specific wavelength of light that needs to be emitted from as particular point to decide what color that point is. Trying to establish some exact number is [i]not[/i] the goal, because it is not a numerical system.


Finding specific studies is hard, due to the changing culture of tattoos in modern society. The after effects of criminal culture ([url]http://www.shutitdown.net/gangtattoos/[/url]) are still present, but modern culture is adapting. Other than some obscure study listed in Wikipedia and a phantom report that I CANNOT find online from Christina Frederick Recascino, there is very little on the study of tattoos in modern culture.

But, it is there. A fairly simple web page ([url]http://whyfiles.org/206tattoo/3.html[/url]) lists the conclusion on the studies of tattoos in modern culture. In particular, it mentions that piercings and tattoos behave similarly to self-mutilation and cutting in their ability to release stress through pain. This is characterized by, as I had said prior, excessive piercing or tattoos.

It is very simple to reason the presence of a problem, though. If you are given that there needs to be a motivating factor for drastic changes to appearance, then this motivating factor is either related to the process of the act (mutilation), or the idea behind going to the extreme.

The idea behind can be MANY causes, such as association with a particular social group, rebellion against a force that discourages tattoos (I have seen quite a few people who tattoo only because the Church of LDS says they shouldn't), self esteem, an artistic statement, or probably several other reasons. Due to the statistic abnormality in which someone gets a copious amount of tattoos or some very large tattoos, a problem association is likely.

What the people who don't have a severe problem should be is thankful that others show concern over the issue, and should acknowledge that the distaste that others have is rooted deeply in a history of accurately associated issues. It is through this discernment of what is normal that someone is able to diagnose or see symptoms of a problem.

[Red]

Cripes, you're a modest one!

Drop the thesaurus and get a grip mate - you can't moan at someone about generalisations and people 'having the authority' to decide if you're right or wrong, moments before you swear you're right based on generalised opinions of others. Find a peer-reviewed study to back up your conclusion regarding excessive tattooing; a doctor supposedly saying that it = self harm doesn't cut it (ho ho ho).

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"][quote name='Crimson Spider;821977] Who are you to disagree with my statements about tattoos? Who gives you the authority to decide that I am wrong or right? Playing the uncertainty card doesn't accomplish anything in regards to someone's own position on the stance. It just mentions a universal aspect of the universe, and that is the relativity of opinion. And here, it is done so in a manner to imply that I am somehow unaware of my own senses and feelings on the issue. However I digress:[/QUOTE]I think both of you are arguing in circles really. You've stated your opinion, she doesn't agree. So I say to you... so what? You just indicated that opinion is relative. So perhaps you should take that advice to heart and accept that it doesn't match with what others think?[quote name='Crimson Spider;821977] I am a man with enough experience in a multi-cultural environment to acknowledge the amount of deviations from the standard, and characterize when these deviations are beyond the third deviation or are unwarranted by the particular culture that someone has. I am also aware of the aspects of contrast, color, and figures working in concert with one another to develop meaning. I can recognize with multiple senses when there is too much information to be conveyed in a manner that is can be understood by your average person. I can see that it is someone's behavior towards and with tattoos that is the real indicator of their mental state, and a large amount of their body covered in tattoos is one of the indicators of this behavior. I am aware that some of the cultures that hold to the ideal of excessive tattoos also hold on to ideals that are destructive, and the use of tattoos are emphasized as some outlet of this culture.[/QUOTE]Actually tattoos are becoming socially acceptable and no longer the eyesore they were once considered. You're also swinging dangerously back into the grounds of presenting what you get from your own perceptions, those "multiple senses" you speak of. You need some hard facts to back up the sweeping generalizations your making. [QUOTE=Crimson Spider;821977]Do I have an exact number for the percentage of the body that should be covered? No, I do not. I do not have an exact amount of spices that need to be on chicken in order to maintain a reasonable flavor that doesn't overwhelm the sense of taste. I do not have an exact pitch, volume, and rhythm in which all music should be in order to prevent destructive interference. I do not have a specific wavelength of light that needs to be emitted from as particular point to decide what color that point is. Trying to establish some exact number is [i]not[/i] the goal, because it is not a numerical system.[/QUOTE]Comparing spices in food to amount of tattoos fails as an analogy since what one considers to much varies quite a bit. You're again skirting around the issue with comparison after comparison that gets you no where. It's simple, you don't have an exact number because there isn't going to be a consensus on what's considered too much. [QUOTE=Crimson Spider;821977]Finding specific studies is hard, due to the changing culture of tattoos in modern society. The after effects of criminal culture ([url]http://www.shutitdown.net/gangtattoos/[/url]) are still present, but modern culture is adapting. Other than some obscure study listed in Wikipedia and a phantom report that I CANNOT find online from Christina Frederick Recascino, there is very little on the study of tattoos in modern culture.[/QUOTE]See here's where your discussion falls in on itself. Like many things in our society, their significance has changed considerably. And even if people use them for certain associations like criminal gang markings, you're forgetting that it's no different than say a bandanna. The tattoo isn't the issue it's the intent of the actual person.[QUOTE=Crimson Spider;821977]But, it is there. A fairly simple web page ([url]http://whyfiles.org/206tattoo/3.html[/url]) lists the conclusion on the studies of tattoos in modern culture. In particular, it mentions that piercings and tattoos behave similarly to self-mutilation and cutting in their ability to release stress through pain. This is characterized by, as I had said prior, excessive piercing or tattoos. [/QUOTE]Now your making connections that don't exist. You've made the erroneous jump from someone getting a tattoo or a piercing to someone who has legitimate psychological issues. The problem has absoutely nothing to do with standard body modifications. I read the article, that's talking more about people who had issues with being social in the first place. That's not the same as what you consider excessive body modifications, that's someone who can't stop cutting themselves and by your logic, we should be pointing fingers at any behavior that causes pain. [QUOTE=Crimson Spider;821977]It is very simple to reason the presence of a problem, though. If you are given that there needs to be a motivating factor for drastic changes to appearance, then this motivating factor is either related to the process of the act (mutilation), or the idea behind going to the extreme.[/QUOTE]Motivating factor? We all have them, it's called wearing clothing, living in houses, training our bodies to behave in ways that are not considered natural. We mutilate our natural appearance on a daily basis. The only real difference here is once someone gets a tattoo or piercing, they don't have to keep doing it every day. =P [QUOTE=Crimson Spider;821977]The idea behind can be MANY causes, such as association with a particular social group, rebellion against a force that discourages tattoos (I have seen quite a few people who tattoo only because the Church of LDS says they shouldn't), self esteem, an artistic statement, or probably several other reasons. Due to the statistic abnormality in which someone gets a copious amount of tattoos or some very large tattoos, a problem association is likely. [/QUOTE]Again, you're going on old concepts and personal opinion instead of seeing how society has changed. And where is this statics abnormality you speak of? I think you need more hard facts and less fluff.[QUOTE=Crimson Spider'']What the people who don't have a severe problem should be is thankful that others show concern over the issue, and should acknowledge that the distaste that others have is rooted deeply in a history of accurately associated issues. It is through this discernment of what is normal that someone is able to diagnose or see symptoms of a problem.[/quote]By the way, I'm one of those people who by your definition doesn't have a severe problem since I have no interest in body modifications. And my concern is heading in your direction since so far, you've backed very little of your statements with real facts. You're putting opinions out there as if everyone who doesn't get tattoos or lots of piercings think the same thing. Uh... no, we don't. :/ And I can guarantee you that our definition of what's considered normal isn't the same either.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Vicky]

[quote name='Gelgoog Pilot']You know, who is to say that we are born imperfect? Perhaps we are in fact born perfect? Who is to say what is perfect in the first place, I think we are in fact born the way we are for reasons unknown, whether is be a plan of some God or the way fate or chance had intended. Modifying what you already have is nothing to be ashamed of. It enhances who we are as people. Now, do I think some people go over board? Yes. That's is my personal view or idea of what is beauty or art. That is all Crimson is saying, he does not favor the cluster of images, perhaps he is more inclined to the simplistic.

The other part of this that annoys me frankly is that anyone who doesn't feel they need to change their appearance for themselves or others is lacking balls. What the Hell? So because I don't think I need to change anything to display the inner me on the outside I am less brave than others who do? What if I think there is nothing to fix? What if I understand myself and know there are things that I COULD fix but choose not to for my own reasons? Then I must be a coward?

This thread is touching more on what rights people have with how they see themselves and how they wish to be perceived by others. You are asserting that certain people are something other than what they think themselves or how they wish to be seen. If you at all respect people who are modifying their body then you should think on what you are saying about those who do not. Just my thoughts, be careful how you ridicule another's thoughts or opinions, especially in a thread like this.[/QUOTE]


[size=1]One. I said that people who modify their body to the extreme extent often feel they are born imperfect, I didn't say they all were.

Two. I didn't say people who don't change their appearance don't have balls - I said it takes courage to do that to yourself, not in anyway indicating people who don't do it aren't. You can say that a Knight is brave without indicating that the Peasant is a coward. Read the post.

Three. That last pargraph hardly makes any sense at all because you didn't read my post correctly. I'm asserting people have an inner image (assuming that's what you're talking about) because a lot of my friends who do body modification and many other famous modifers said that as well. When you cut your hair you do it the way you want - if you didn't have an inner image or any kind of image of what you wanted to be you would never shave, never cut your hair or trim your nails.[/size]

[Raiha]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']What my statements "come off" as is your responsibility, Raiha. I cannot be responsible for someone else's ability to take offense to my stance. If people want to mull over my statements with broad, inaccurate straw-man generalizations like "self denial" and "arbiter of understanding", that is something I cannot stop.
[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It is not my responsibility to clarify the entirely questionable statements you make using your opinion as the Honest To God Truth. Do you even vaguely recall the part where you said and here I'll generally quote with a little paraphrasing: "The two greatest destroyers of understanding [...] blah blah blah?"

Or has that left your mind entirely? You are responsible for what you say, and if it happens to be as clear as a cloudy morning over San Francisco Bay, then it's your responsibility to admit that you can't determine exactly what destroys understanding, what motivates everyone who gets a tattoo, and that you can't in fact be right about your opinions just because you happen to think of yourself as a "multi-cultural" adult male. Whether you are or not is now open to debate since you felt it necessary to validate yourself with that statement.

Amazing. You're multi-cultural? You've been to every country on earth? Seen how people from all walks of life live their lives? Lived among them and learned the ways of the Chinese, European, Japanese, Pacific Islander, Native American etc etc etc? Tell us more about how this made you qualified to tell us what normal really means and when enough is enough.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]I think both of you are arguing in circles really. You've stated your opinion, she doesn't agree. So I say to you... so what? You just indicated that opinion is relative. So perhaps you should take that advice to heart and accept that it doesn't match with what others think?[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, Raiha has been asking several questions in regards to my stance, such as what is meant by purity, or if the amount of tattoos makes it so I would not get along. I am answering those questions. Besides, it amuses me.

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Actually tattoos are becoming socially acceptable and no longer the eyesore they were once considered. You're also swinging dangerously back into the grounds of presenting what you get from your own perceptions, those "multiple senses" you speak of. You need some hard facts to back up the sweeping generalizations your making. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

And I have, but you are also mistaken. The issue about whether or not I like to see tattoos, that is my perception alone, and requires no other evidence than my admission of honesty. What this is equated to by many is whether or not tattoos are "wrong", or whether or not I am somehow morally corrupted when I say that I don't like how tattoos look. I am also aware that tattoos are becoming socially acceptable, and I also socially accept tattoos. What I do not like is a copious amount of tattoos in a small area, a very large covering of various tattoos in a large area. I am also off put by tattoos of offensive materials, and a very large covering of someone's body with tattoos. I would not like it on your clothes, I would not like it on your shoes, I would not like it on your skin, I would not like it on your shins. I would not like it in your hair, I would not like it here or there. I do not like full body tattoos, and I can assure this to all of yous.

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Comparing spices in food to amount of tattoos fails as an analogy since what one considers to much varies quite a bit. You're again skirting around the issue with comparison after comparison that gets you no where. It's simple, you don't have an exact number because there isn't going to be a consensus on what's considered too much. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

You have misunderstood again. My analogy is not for convincing, but for understanding. My position of "excessive random tattoos" is not explicit enough for everyone to understand what I am saying. So, I provide various analogies about overloading senses that more people can relate to. There is a very good chance that someone who happens upon this thread has heard a song that they thought themselves to have too many instruments all at once, or a food product that was overly spiced. Whether it is overspiced to my standard is irrelevant, since the given condition of the analogy is that it is overspiced to whomever tastes it. There is no intention to convince people about any specifics on the matter, because the only purpose I am trying to convey is the presence of sensory overload.

However, if you want to play it that way, I'm game: Playing the relativity card does not support your position any more than mine. There mere fact that someone disagrees with me does not change the validity of any stance. Whether or not someone agrees with me will not change the fact that I have not defined my own preferences on the issue as far as to claim surface area percentages. The system is not defined absolutely because it is not numerical.

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]See here's where your discussion falls in on itself. Like many things in our society, their significance has changed considerably. And even if people use them for certain associations like criminal gang markings, you're forgetting that it's no different than say a bandanna. The tattoo isn't the issue it's the intent of the actual person. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

You've got it. The intent is the key issue on ANY circumstance if you are going beyond my personal favor and into associated problems. Any event has a cause. The event is a product of the cause, therefore the event speaks of the products because of their intertwined relationship. Having a copious amounts of tattoos is a product. It is a product that has a cause. Therefore, Excessive Tattoos are related to this cause, and therefore are a symptom of the cause.


[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Now your making connections that don't exist. You've made the erroneous jump from someone getting a tattoo or a piercing to someone who has legitimate psychological issues. The problem has absoutely nothing to do with standard body modifications. I read the article, that's talking more about people who had issues with being social in the first place. That's not the same as what you consider excessive body modifications, that's someone who can't stop cutting themselves and by your logic, we should be pointing fingers at any behavior that causes pain. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

The connections exist. There was no jump from my original statement. The problem is not about standard body modifications. Having a copious amounts of tattoos is a product. It is a product that has a cause. Therefore, Excessive Tattoos are related to this cause, and therefore are a symptom of the cause. And yes, we should examine behavior that causes pain.


[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Motivating factor? We all have them, it's called wearing clothing, living in houses, training our bodies to behave in ways that are not considered natural. We mutilate our natural appearance on a daily basis. The only real difference here is once someone gets a tattoo or piercing, they don't have to keep doing it every day. =P [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

That is irrelevant to the cause, and dismisses any behavior as "acceptable" just because of a very generalized definition of mutilation. Having a copious amounts of tattoos is a product It is an product that has a cause. Therefore, Excessive Tattoos are related to this cause, and therefore are a symptom of the cause.

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Again, you're going on old concepts and personal opinion instead of seeing how society has changed. And where is this statics abnormality you speak of? I think you need more hard facts and less fluff. [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Wrong. I am going off of current observation. Specific statistics on the number tattoos or the body percentage that anyone has are very hard to find, since the most recent study that I found in 2003 from the Harris Poll only covered "one or more" tattoos, a very vague statement. Admittedly, many studies are too outdated to use, such as Dr. Timothy Roberts study that concluded some rather frightening trends about tattoo relationships with the youth. It is sparsely ever posted on the internet, though ([url]http://tattoo.about.com/cs/articles/a/schoolcensor.htm[/url]). For full statistics, you'd probably have to find the book.

What I can say is, at the age and social location in which 36% of my peers have a tattoo ([url]http://www.tattooremovalreality.com/index.php/statistics-and-facts/36-tattoo-statistics[/url]), the number of people that I have met with a large amount of tattoos on their person is definitely less than 10%; infrequent enough that I do not see it on a daily basis. This is just a large amount, and not just overboard.



[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]By the way, I'm one of those people who by your definition doesn't have a severe problem since I have no interest in body modifications. And my concern is heading in your direction since so far, you've backed very little of your statements with real facts. You're putting opinions out there as if everyone who doesn't get tattoos or lots of piercings think the same thing. Uh... no, we don't. :/ And I can guarantee you that our definition of what's considered normal isn't the same either.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Wrong. From the moment I have entered in this "debate", I am the only person who has done anything more to support my claims than post up an image of a tattooed man flipping the camera off. The fact that I do not like a lot of tattoos does not need to be substantiated. I have supported the claim that tattoos have a history rooted in criminal culture, and I have supported the claim that tattoos have been linked as an outlet for self mutilation. In fact, I'll support another claim now: The claim that tattoos are linked with rebellion.

[url]http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/tattoo_facts.htm[/url] is a website that is not composed very well (difficult to read), but does provide the most information about the Harris poll. In particular,

[quote]
How do tattoos make people feel?

Among Americans with tattoos, 34% said having a tattoo has made them feel sexier. Interestingly, more tattooed females (42%) feel this way than males (25%).

Additionally, those with tattoos said that having a tattoo has made them feel more rebellious (29%) while others said a tattoo makes them feel more attractive (26%). But tattoos apparently won't do much for your intelligence or your physique, as few Americans reported that tattoos make them feel more intelligent (5%), more healthy (4%), or more athletic (3%).[/quote]

A full 29% of people who had tattoos did it to be more rebellious, dwarfed only by those who thought it made them sexy or attractive.





[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]It is not my responsibility to clarify the entirely questionable statements you make using your opinion as the Honest To God Truth. Do you even vaguely recall the part where you said and here I'll generally quote with a little paraphrasing: "The two greatest destroyers of understanding [...] blah blah blah?" [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE]

If this thread had anymore misunderstanding, I might as well start writing in German. However I digress: There is a difference between clarifying and accusation. If you asked about my definition of pure, that is clarification. When you say "Objection: Blanket statements up the yin-yang.", that is accusation.


[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Or has that left your mind entirely? You are responsible for what you say, and if it happens to be as clear as a cloudy morning over San Francisco Bay, then it's your responsibility to admit that you can't determine exactly what destroys understanding, what motivates everyone who gets a tattoo, and that you can't in fact be right about your opinions just because you happen to think of yourself as a "multi-cultural" adult male. Whether you are or not is now open to debate since you felt it necessary to validate yourself with that statement.[/font][/color][/quote]

I am aware, but riddle me this: who says it's as clear as a cloudy morning over San Francisco Bay? My statements appearing uncertain or being misunderstood by you is independent on whether or not I am correct. And I also asked a counter-question: Who are you to disagree with me, or to say I am right or wrong? If you intend to do so, then support yourself. Otherwise, your claims remain vacuous and hypocritical if you demand one standard from someone and not the same from yourself.


[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Amazing. You're multi-cultural? You've been to every country on earth? Seen how people from all walks of life live their lives? Lived among them and learned the ways of the Chinese, European, Japanese, Pacific Islander, Native American etc etc etc? Tell us more about how this made you qualified to tell us what normal really means and when enough is enough.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Fact: you do not need to visit every country on Earth and seen from [i]all[/i] walks of life in order to be culture. But, I interact with people from various cultures in many ways. As my job as a math and science tutor (a rather intimate job with your clients), I have discussed and spoken on various cultural, political, and historical issues with people natively born and raised in Korea, Japan, the East Coast, the West Coast, Canada, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Africa, India, and England from ages 18 to 60. Outside of my job, the many cultures that I have dealt with are paraded and discussed in classes like Art, English Composition, and World Literature, and the people above have also been present in those classes. I have spoken, debated, and agreed with Islamics, Atheists, Agnostics, Nihilists, Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Neo Pagan, Homosexual, Heterosexual, and Bisexual people. Heck, I've even spoken with women in all of their difficulty to understand.

The main thriving force for differences in culture are differences in ideas and beliefs, and these can be presented directly by a faceless entity. On forums and other various media, other people will post up their opposing views and ideas, and these are so often dissected, evaluated, and discussed that I can talk about many issues that I otherwise would not care about had it not been brought to my attention. Believe it or not, the people here in this thread add to my credibility and knowledge, making me grow more powerful by the day.

That is also precisely why I prefer to stick to the ideas presented on the issue, and not go around asking for ethological appeal. An idea can come from anyone and from anywhere, regardless of the background of current state of that person.

EDIT:

You know, I just realized how irrelevant the ethological appeal was. If I state that I do not like a copious amount of tattoos, in whatever rhythmic hyperbole I choose, then this is self-evident. It is my opinion, and chances are my opinion about what I like is correct. If I am not talking about my opinion and am talking about statistical numbers and trends regarding the causes of a large amount of tattoos, then there are studies and statistics that can back this up. Really, the only value an ethological appeal has is whether or not my opinion is divine.


I suppose I should clarify what I mean by standard deviation. [url]http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/tutorials/stddev/index.html[/url] has a nice explanation. It is a math term in relation to the distribution of values in respect to the "average". Someone who has what I would call an excessive amount of tattoos would probably fall, from my current experience and exposure, into being beyond the second deviation. If you include the majority that do not have a tattoo, then it would possibly be even the third deviation, which is 0.3% of the population. Oh, how I wish there was a specific statistic on the exact amount of tattoos (or body percentage) that someone has, because then I [i]could[/i] show you what I mean.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"]You know, this can be put in simple terms instead of "fluffing" it up as it were. You (Crimson Spider) don't like it when people have a lot of tattoos and seem to believe it means there is something wrong with the person.

Pretty much everyone else in the thread disagrees. Various back and forth replies are not going to sway either side to accept what the other thinks. End of discussion.

Instead of beating each other over the heads saying you're wrong, how about accepting the fact that you have different opinions on the subject and moving on? And I'm looking at everyone here.

This is dragging the thread down way too much in my opinion. You all disagree, get over it. Seriously, arguing endlessly isn't going to change anything. Especially when both sides are positive that the other one is wrong.[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I'm sorry, but I have the urge to call you "violet".


Anyway, something that I have learned through various discussions is that one side can, indeed, be convinced that they were right or wrong based on the ideas presented within. Indeed, I have been proven wrong many times in the past, and I have learned from these mistakes. That is what makes me grow more powerful :D.

But anyway, a person will usually consider or change their position when the following circumstances are fulfilled:

#1: The evidence presented is submittable within the defined context of the opposing paradigm.

#2: The idea presented on this issue seems to be relevant and an accurate mode to define the nature of the universe around them.


But I digress: A debate's goal is not just to convince the other side that you are right. Debates refine the ideas presented within, whether that be supporting them or casting aside the incorrect notions. They tailor skills of both sides to be able to reason well enough within their means to satisfy their own opinion in the presence of opposing evidence. They also act as a display to those who are really indifferent on the matter, helping them decide their positions.

But if you really want to just command us to stop with your superior power over the nature, just say the word and I will cease contributing to the discussion.

EDIT: Wait... I'm not sure if you can moderate the lounge. I don't know if you have that power.

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Crimson Spider']But if you really want to just command us to stop with your superior power over the nature, just say the word and I will cease contributing to the discussion.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't say superior, I'm saying as one who has been watching the debate unfold, it seems pretty clear that your opinions aren't going to sway the others. Because if you look back, you're on some level repeating what you've said again and again and people keep telling you "that's your view, here's mine" So they've already accepted that you see it that way, they're just saying they don't agree.

Plus to add to the debate a bit, often people misjudge tattoos and self expression by failing to realize that those folks who like themselves and wish to personalize their own bodies, does not necessarily stem from one's ego (or lack of), but a very strong sense of self. And many who decide to look into the psychology of those with tattoos seem to associate them as criminals and study them with this blinkered, society-conceived view.

This has me looking back at when women in our society started wearing pants and the negative associations that came with it. Including rebellion, gangs, and what were considered mental issues. Though it is now considered the norm where once it was not. Something to think about you know, just what the view of tattoos will be in the next generation.[quote name='Crimson Spider']EDIT: Wait... I'm not sure if you can moderate the lounge. I don't know if you have that power.[/QUOTE]I'm a Senior Moderator, that means I can moderate in any section of the boards. Just to clear that up for you. =P And I'm not ordering you to stop, I'm voicing my opinion that it's dragging out at this point. [/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I saw the subject of the body as a temple (Christian stance) come up a while ago, and I thought I'd touch on it a moment. It felt to me as if the understanding of the concept was rather shallow, and I wanted to get the context right.

See, I don't really find tattoos offensive at all. I find some of them silly?like, for instance, the name of your significant [strike]figure[/strike] other (sorry; chemistry is wearing on me)?and some quite beautiful, but mostly I just see them there. The 'offensive' ones are only offensive if you let them offend you, and remember that some of the people who wear them will have to live with their "good idea" for many more years, so a small cynical chuckle doesn't hurt.

But the statement that "the body is a temple to God" should be used as refute against tattoos very carefully, and only after one has examined what the author (Paul) was saying when he wrote it.

(Incidentally, I hate verses, and only use them as reference points; they work fine in Psalms and Proverbs, but elsewhere the temptation to dissect out of context is too great for many people, even pastors, to handle. I try to quote paragraphs in whole numbers as much as I can.)

[QUOTE][B]1 Corinthians 6:18-20[/B] (NKJV)
[FONT="Arial"]Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of tthe Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
In the previous paragraph (which I'll spare you the quoting), Paul was also talking about sexual immorality. Therefore the 'temple' argument is directed at [I]that[/I] act. One can certainly apply the last sentence to the concept that tattoos do not glorify God, but then again someone might wish to be tattooed as a sign of worship. So if the act of tattooing is unclear, how do we (as Christians, mind; I do not speak for all here) decide whether such an act is in fact defiling the body?

[QUOTE][B]Romans 12:1,2[/B]
[FONT="Arial"]I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
Previously in Romans, Paul was discussing the concept of grace, and how forgiveness from all sin did not mean a license to sin out the wazoo. Here he is urging that we keep ourselves holy; this word in any context describes an object that has been set aside for the honoring of a specific thing, usually a god and in this case God.

The last part of the paragraph is important. [I]"...be transformed by the renewing of your mind...."[/I] Basically, in whatever you do, do it so that it glorifies God, "...so that you may prove what is good and acceptable....."

From these statements, we can determine that tattooing is not inherently a defiling of the body, unless the intent is to raise up something other than Him. (Again I must repeat, I speak for the Christian sect.) A tattoo meant to praise Him is obviously fine. A tattoo to be there is . . . iffy, and no one's to judge but the owner and God.

Ultimately, the issue only applies to the individual. Since the individual is getting the symbol, it is no one else's responsibility to declare it foul UNLESS one Christian to another feels that accountability is needed, and then admonishment can only go so far.

So do I mind tattoos? No. Some o' them are pretty frilling neat. I think the guy who tattooed himself all over with leopard spots and went buck naked to live in the wild has a few problems to work out, but I lose no sleep over it. And I don't currently feel the desire to get one, but that's my choice.

[CENTER]----------------[/CENTER]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Besides, it amuses me.[/quote]
The minute you said that was the minute I lost all respect for you.[/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

No no. I meant "power" as in the ability to decide the rules and going-ons in this thread. Not power as in the presence of information in the debate.


Though I'm not ready to agree that this thread has gone through cyclic repetition yet. It seems more that I need to repeat several phrases said prior in order to debunk new claims. Let me re-examine the events as they unfolded.

My first post: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821853&postcount=34[/url] Pretty much stated in a very simple and somewhat humorous manner what my opinion was.

Raiha's response: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821875&postcount=35[/url]

Asked about my stance on purity. I'd like to state here that I do concede the notion that the idea of using yourself as a canvas can be artistic.

My response: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821900&postcount=41[/url]

Explaining my position on "pure", and debunking the assumed notion of divinity by re-iterating my acceptance. Also gave my person reason why I don't want a tattoo.

Relevant post: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821920&postcount=42[/url]

Of Darren's. He states something that I admit annoys me VERY much to this day, and I have hinted at my distaste for the ideology a few times. I am someone who does not think you should just accept an opinion or act for the sake of diversity. In particular, against the phrase "there is nothing wrong with the need to have full body ink". This is something that I do not agree with. So, In my response:

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821928&postcount=45[/url]

I stated that yes, there are several problems characterized by having excessive tattoos or piercings. I will eventually elaborate further on the nature of these issues (though the lack of statistics makes it so I have a hard time proving the "excessiveness" factor in relation) This is where I started stepping on toes. I also elaborated on what caused my discomfort.

Raiha's response: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821932&postcount=47[/url]

Pretty much gave a blanket "well, no one asked you" statement, along with another separate question.

The next posts by Vicky: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821934&postcount=48[/url]
And James: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821936&postcount=49[/url]

Were where the misunderstandings were about me making "objective facts out of personal views" and where Vicky's ideology about body mods was violated.

My next post: [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821946&postcount=51[/url]

Pretty much summed up as a "No, I'm not" post, and answered Raiha's next question. Raiha's next post:

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821956&postcount=53[/url]

Is where we started breaking into ethological appeal and accusation. Note, I never was asked that question in the past. Anyway, my response:

[url]http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=821977&postcount=58[/url]

Pretty much said that I can't be responsible for all accusation, and that the argument for relativity of opinion doesn't somehow make any person more correct than another. Before I realized the futility of establishing any "credo", I played along with that game basically saying that I was a reasonable man and not some little boy in the middle of nowhere. I also began to support my claims here.

This is the point where Aaryanna made the circular claim. Though, doing this entire examination, I have found very little "circle". Just elaboration and answering questions.


Though I do agree that people often misjudge tattoos due to their history. This is why I strive for an accurate judgment based on modern statistics, but my delves into the recesses of the internet have shown me a lack of data.


To elaborate a little bit more on your post, Allamorph, one of the Levitticus laws was a statement against using tattoos. Now, the reason why this was done was because, at that time, tattoos were almost strictly used in pagan worship of shapes and symbols. Using a tattoo [i]at that moment in time[/i] had a very different meaning than to be sexy or attractive. That is not the case now, so there is little to worry.

Also, "it amuses me" was not a statement of pride. I really am entertained by the debate here.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Crimson Spider]To elaborate a little bit more on your post, Allamorph, one of the Levitticus laws was a statement against using tattoos. Now, the reason why this was done was because, at that time, tattoos were almost strictly used in pagan worship of shapes and symbols. Using a tattoo [i]at that moment in time[/i'] had a very different meaning than to be sexy or attractive. That is not the case now, so there is little to worry.[/quote]
[FONT=arial]Close. However, that commandment (Leviticus 19:28, for those who want to know) and all others in that section were prefaced by this statement:

[INDENT][I]The L[SIZE="1"]ORD[/SIZE] said to Moses, "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the L[SIZE="1"]ORD[/SIZE] your God, am holy.' "[/I][/INDENT]
These commandments were first intended to provide laws for the people, and second to set apart the Hebrews as God's chosen people.

Notice, if you look, that the previous command says to not cut the hair at the side of your head, or to trim the edges of your beard. Beard-trimming is not a sin; this was an outward mark of His people.

Keep that in mind.[/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Crimson Spider']Though I'm [U]not ready to agree that this thread has gone through cyclic repetition[/U] yet. It seems more that I need to repeat several phrases said prior in order to debunk new claims. Let me re-examine the events as they unfolded.[/QUOTE]Hence my phrasing: [quote]Because if you look back, you're [I][B]on some level[/B][/I] repeating what you've said again and again[/quote]It's gotten to that point, since segments of what you are telling people are exactly what you said in previous posts, the spices analogy being one of them.

You used the overwhelmed by too many tattoos three times and the spices one twice and when you responded to Aaryanna, you literally repeated this phrase here:

[INDENT]Having a copious amounts of tattoos is a product It is an product that has a cause. Therefore, Excessive Tattoos are related to this cause, and therefore are a symptom of the cause.[/INDENT]
Three times, so perhaps you might want to work on coming to the point? Since you do tend to ramble quite a bit when you respond.

Oh and yes it is our jobs to decide the rules and going-ons in a thread. For example if people are derailing it too much, we ask them to get back on topic, things like that. And on some level we do control the information allowed, like tacking on the disclaimer to Raiha's picture she added. [/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

There were some repeats. Mainly for clarification.

Guy #1: I went to the store.

Guy #2: Dude, did you go to the community center?

Guy #1: No, I went to the Wal Mart


In particular, the first mentioning of overspicing of chicken was the initial analogy. The second mentioning was to help demonstrate that I do not have a numeric system because the senses don't apply by numbers in that sense.

Point taken, though. I'll just do what I did with Vicky and lump things into the general statements, analyze the fundamental statement more directly, or just type "see point above".

[eleanor]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You know, when I use the phrase "pure", it was more in respect to archetypes and statistics in videogames
[/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms]So, like, I just spent five minutes trying to figure out what this even means.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Lunox][font=trebuchet ms']So, like, I just spent five minutes trying to figure out what this even means.[/font][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Archetype ? Paladin, "Lawful Good", etc.

Statistics ? . . . yeah, I got nothin', either.

>_>[/FONT]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

In a lot of RPGs, you can custom build your character by deciding which stats go where. A character who is focused heavily on a single aspect is called a "pure".

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']In a lot of RPGs, you can custom build your character by deciding which stats go where. A character who is focused heavily on a single aspect is called a "pure".[/QUOTE]I'm at a loss as to how you even thought people would put that connection together. Plus Video games are not real so using them as a model for what's considered pure for a discussion over something that is real, like tattoos on people... just seems ludicrous in my opinion.