Originally Posted by Overdrive
DD, I did not question his character. You took that post way too close to heart or over-looked it. I simply asked him a question regarding the actual purpose and the reason of it. So far, he hasn't answered it. I asked another person with a tattoo and they answered it with complete nonsense. And I should've change 'permanent' to 'semi-permanent' (as they can be removed, but can cost a pretty petty).
I didn't say it HAS to make sense to me. Objectively, it doesn't make sense.
I didn't say that I accepted smoking either. I don't go into areas where smoking is allowed and I'm usually not around smokers because produces second-hand smoking. However, I'm not saying anything about their character either; it's just a preference on my health and what is best for me.
Why should it have to be explained? That's my point. Do you go around asking people why they smoke? In that vein -- are you even curious? Assuming an individual smokes w/ no tattoos, and does not smoke w/ tattoos, I'd say the lifetime cost of smoking trumps a tattoo PLUS removal (strict out of pocket cost, not even including health). Objectively, to me (read as: subjectively), smoking doesn't make sense either, but there's not the same stigma attached to it. My question is why? You also quickly jumped to the conclusion of "lame," AND made the bold claim of all females ruining their attractiveness from having tattoos, pardon the knee jerk reaction (to your knee jerk reaction), but that is pretty close to a dismissal if I had to label it. Also, I was asking whether or not it was a character flaw, I think you interpolated that hypothetical a little far... I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to gather some reasoning here, as you've made the bold claim of objective sense above. My prodding point here is that there are a lot of things in life that don't make 'objective' sense, why should tattoos be sensible? I should also point out that you are projecting your bias on to everyone on the planet if you're claiming "objective" sense. Obviously it makes sense to SOMEONE (or, at the very least, it made
sense to someone at some point
). I'll have to question the objective claim, apologies if this rubs you the wrong way.
Originally Posted by Moz
So you equate tattooing as being no worse than self-destructive spending habits and thousands dollars of bets?
That sounds like calling out someone for their decisions for having a tattoo!
Bizarre argument or very poorly framed.
Yeah, my OP was poorly worded, reading it again. The previous sentence is actually very important from a contextual standpoint, though. The thought was a continuation of things that do or do not make sense. I'm not equating the act of getting a tattoo with self-destructive spending/smoking. I'm saying it's NOT equated when it comes to judging (making sense of things), assuming all behavior is less-than-ideal. It should be apparent why spending yourself frivolously into debt, OR increasing your own chances of lung cancer is a bad thing, right? Why aren't these behaviors questioned, but it's completely acceptable (read the thread) to make snarky remarks (resnarkies?). I'm trying (with little success) to point out that there's a stigma attached specifically to tattoos, and the stigma is one of 'self destruction' and/or irresponsibility and/or temporary lack of judgement. While this may or may not be true in many, many, many cases, it's not a fact. My question is: why the stigma? I'm also not referring to gambling above, although I guess that could make sense.
Edit: Reading your Sneetches comment above, I'd actually say we're arguing the same point, although my OP was worded pretty terribly.