<p>I wouldn’t say that I support extreme tattooing/piercing, sewhappy. In fact, I find it aesthetically unpleasant. I have all kinds of evidence, however, that there are plenty of people who do it who are not “misguided, foolish, somewhat reckless.” I’m more interested in why, in the instance above in your exchange with cosmicfish, you altered the meaning of what he or she said to make your point. Can you explain how “it helps to make his memory a more constant and positive part of my life” led you to conclude that cosmicfish “needed” a tattoo to remember? I see this kind of misinterpretation all the time on College Confidential and I wonder why people do it. It’s no way to have a conversation.</p>
<p>I am honestly bewildered as to why permanently marking your flesh honors the memory of someone who has died. There are so many other ways to honor and remember someone. I just find it preposterous and again a really lame rationale for pursuing extreme tattooing or piercing.</p>
<p>I think, sewhappy, that you don’t have to look past this most recent post to understand why people have been “scolding” you on this thread. Think about it: Cosmicfish lost a friend. He or she has chosen a way to remember that friend. When someone has experienced a loss, it is considered good form (at least where I come from) to say, “I’m sorry for your loss,” not words to the effect of, “Well, you sure chose a lame and preposterous way to remember your friend.” That kind of rhetoric bewilders me. </p>
<p>And, cosmicfish, I am sorry for your loss. I am happy that you have found a way to remember your friend that is meaningful for you.</p>
<p>I’m going to have to agree with just about everything Sewhapy has said. I think this is one of those issues where we can debate until the cows come home, but we’re never going to agree. I will never understand the need to deface your skin that way.</p>
<p>Disagreeing is cool. Calling other people’s choices “lame” and “preposterous” is not.</p>
<p>is “deface” ok?</p>
<p>While I’m not impressed by the aesthestics of piercing/tattooing, I do admire the people’s skill at time management. It’s pretty impressive when you’ve got your life so well organized that “Impale tongue with andiron” makes it to the top of your to-do list.</p>
<p>“My cousins and I all have similar tattoos (with our own special flair). Frankly, I don’t care what you think of them.” </p>
<p>Methinks…</p>
<p>Look, I’m not the word police. At least some of us on this thread are adults who presumably know that casting aspersions on other people’s choices (indicated by word choice, among other things) is not conducive to civil discussion. That’s why online boards such as this one have codes of conduct. There are lots of aesthetic choices I’d not make for myself (they include tattooing, piercing, dyeing my hair, lifting my breasts, rearranging my nose, plumping my lips, waxing my nether regions) that I nevertheless do not judge others for making.</p>
<p>
I do not have an objection to the word itelf, although it can be a poor choice at times - it mostly depends on context and what you mean. For example, I find a number of clothing styles to be unattractive, impractical, and overpriced, but I do not consider people “lesser” for choosing to purchase and wear them. If you think that tattoos and piercings are unattractive and not worth the pain, cost, and risks, that is fine - the problem is when you start lumping people into “lesser” categories because they have a different opinion on this matter.</p>
<p>
Well, for most people in this country there are about 56 hours a week for sleep, another 40-60 hours for work or school, perhaps 14 hours a week for essentials like eating, bathing, etc. That leaves at least 38 hours a week to do whatever the heck you want - an hour or two every now and then does not require a ton of time management. Just because you would place higher priorities on that free time and ready cash does not mean that you get to judge how others spend theirs.</p>
<p>Absweetmarie–I applaud your discussion on the way language is used and/or deliberately misread to alter others’ arguments. It’s wearing to spend time and energy to go back and highlight remarks in order to say, “no, that’s not what I/he/she said.” The slight argument reframings just muddy what could be good discussion. Not just hear, but overall in society. Winning an argument becomes more important than hearing different points of view and honestly creating an opinion. Ad hominem language use, using value-laden words and then innocently denying the judgmentalism, all make informed, congenial discourse difficult to maintain.</p>
<p>It could be a fascinating topic of discussion in itself.</p>
<p>“Just because you would place higher priorities on that free time and ready cash does not mean that you get to judge how others spend theirs.”</p>
<p>I can judge people any way I want.</p>
<p>
Fair enough, but don’t think for a second that it gives you either moral superiority or any positive distinction. It just makes you look small and sad. And revelling in it, as you have done, just makes it worse.</p>
<p>cosmicfish, you are clearly passing judgement on others yourself. And have done so pretty much throughout this thread.</p>
<p>Look, EVERYONE judges people at some point. Rational and generous-minded people try to keep an open mind and try to catch themselves making judgments based on unexamined assumptions or insufficient evidence. And they try to be open to revising their judgments when new evidence presents itself. </p>
<p>I don’t see a complete absence of judgment as either possible OR desirable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote: I can judge people any way I want.<br>
Fair enough, but don’t think for a second that it gives you either moral superiority or any positive distinction. It just makes you look small and sad. And revelling in it, as you have done, just makes it worse./
[quote]
</p>
<p>This thread is beginning to take the tone of the “sweats vs no sweats” thread that was going strong a few weeks ago. It really baffles me that so many cannot understand a simple fact that people will judge you no matter what you do.</p>
<p>The pro-tat crowd has a right to get their tattoos and love them, and the anti-tat group has the right to think they’re lame. The pendulum swings both ways, and neither group has a justifiable reason to be upset about it.</p>
<hr>
<p>Now as far as what the OP was asking. I don’t really associate tattoos alone with drug use and “loserville”.</p>
<p>cosmicfish, with all due respect, I do not see the poster “claiming superiority” in his/her post. If you made a decision to have a tattoo embedded in your living organ and think it was the right one, why can’t you simply live with your decision without assuming that anyone who does not find your decision aesthetically attractive or medically sound attacks you or tries to show their superiority by stating their position?</p>
<p>
Yes, I have, but to the best of my recollection I have not done so based on anyone’s aesthetic or personal choices, but on their decision to condemn people who choose to look different to an inferior position. Consider Oivoiv from post #306:</p>
<p>
If you choose to look differently than me, do different things than me, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But condemning people as “desperate, pathetic” because of those differences is something I do judge as unacceptable.</p>
<p>
Sure, but not EVERYONE revels in it.</p>
<p>You’re right, Consolation, about the judging. I object when people act as if their own judgment on a topic is the most reasonable one. Or when they use inflammatory descriptions like “pathetic,” “lame” or “desperate” to describe other people’s behavior (especially when civil discussion is supposed to be the goal here, and some of the people whose behavior they are ridiculing are part of the discussion). Or when they say things like, “People who do this clearly are doing it for the shock value” and then can’t let go of that assumption even after plenty of people on this thread have said that’s not their motive.</p>
<p>FinanceGrad, I agree. Same tone. That’s why I stopped posting - but here I go again. The poisonous rhetoric begins to come into play when both sides of an argument start to “dehumanize” the other side and fail to view them as a precious individual who really, they know nothing much about other than what they see in front of their face - which can be SO limiting and deceiving.</p>
<p>Just because someone wears sweats in public or has tattoos and piercings - even all over their body doesn’t make your assumptions about their motivation, character, or anything else CORRECT.</p>
<p>And just because someone thinks sweats are tacky, and tattoos and piercings are disgusting, and they automatically are repulsed by these outward appearances, and may even have extreme instant prejudices against the individual does not make them heartless horrible people.</p>
<p>People are just people. We all have our prejudices, whether we want to admit them or not. We all have our preferences, and we are ALL precious, different, wonderful creations. When we start rising above the language that others are pointing at us and instead, listening to what they say and deciding NOT to be offended, and viewing EVERYONE as important and valid - we can all be a little nicer. :)</p>
<p>
The post that I was directly responding to was simply sarcastic on its own, but after the other posts by this individual it seemed to be characteristic of what I described. Please note posts 306 and 309, for example.</p>
<p>
I do not recall objecting to anyone raising those viewpoints - I have disagreed, but nothing more. People who say “I don’t like the way they look” or “they’re not worth the pain and the risks” are fine with me - I have a different opinion, and they are welcome to theirs, although I may dispute some of the particulars.</p>
<p>My issue is with those who take those individual viewpoints and use them to cast aspersions on the character of entire groups of people.</p>