If you got a tattoo, what would it be?

January said:
Obvious to everyone on this forum thread - the ones reading your post. I do actually think tattoos should have a cooling off period, say, 48 hours and a simple instant drug /alcohol test beforehand - so that people can't get them on impulse or when not thinking clearly. But I doubt it is seniors getting tattoos who are the main problem with that - or even the majority of people getting them. Most people get something significant and personal to them and have thought about it well beforehand - but would be a safeguard.
Click to expand...

Fair enough about the forum audience. My point was more that ‘obvious’ things often still need stating because people act as if they haven’t considered them. Otherwise we wouldn’t see so many regrets.
 
Rakaia said:
You appear to have some difficulties making a point...
Click to expand...

I can assure you the difficulties are all yours. However, I do apologize as it was not my intention to send you scrambling for your dictionary. Next time, I’ll try to simplify my point so it’s easier for you to follow.
 

oslooskar said:
Calling it "enhanced’" doesn’t change the fact that it’s still disfigurement. The body is permanently altered. Whether someone sees that as positive or negative is a matter of opinion, but the definition remains the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not disfigurement. A person's figure is exactly the same after getting a tattoo.

Yes, the body is permanently altered. It's not disfigured. though.
 
oslooskar said:
I can assure you the difficulties are all yours. However, I do apologize as it was not my intention to send you scrambling for your dictionary. Next time, I’ll try to simplify my point so it’s easier for you to follow.
Click to expand...
Good to see you scored another petty point.🙄
 
Dave03 said:
Actually, it's not disfigurement. A person's figure is exactly the same after getting a tattoo.
Yes, the body is permanently altered. It's not disfigured. though.
Click to expand...

Dave, you’re arguing semantics to avoid the core point. Disfigurement isn’t just about body shape—it’s any permanent alteration to the body’s natural appearance. Whether that’s seen as good, bad, or neutral is subjective, but the fact remains: a tattoo is a modification of the body’s natural state.
 
oslooskar said:
Dave, you’re arguing semantics to avoid the core point. Disfigurement isn’t just about body shape—it’s any permanent alteration to the body’s natural appearance. Whether that’s seen as good, bad, or neutral is subjective, but the fact remains: a tattoo is a modification of the body’s natural state.
Click to expand...

No semantics. Disfigurement and alteration are two completely different things.

So, which is it? Disfigurement, alteration or modification?

Also, your 'core point' seems to be nothing more than you don't like tattoos, and are willing to go to extremes to get that point across.
 
Last edited:
Dave03 said:
No semantics. Disfigurement and alteration are two completely different things.
So, which is it? Disfigurement, alteration or modification?
Click to expand...

Dave, now you’re just splitting hairs. Disfigurement is a type of alteration—just one that some people view negatively. But at its core, the point remains the same: a tattoo permanently changes the body’s natural appearance. Whether you want to call it an alteration, a modification, or something else entirely doesn’t change that fact.
 
oslooskar said:
Dave, now you’re just splitting hairs. Disfigurement is a type of alteration—just one that some people view negatively. But at its core, the point remains the same: a tattoo permanently changes the body’s natural appearance. Whether you want to call it an alteration, a modification, or something else entirely doesn’t change that fact.
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs? The irony is palpable.

Yes, it permanently changes the body's appearance. But doesn't disfigure a person. Alters? Yes. Modifies? Yes. Disfigures? No.

Saying it 'disfigures' someone is being dramatic.
 
Eupher said:
1,000 upvotes. I came into this world without a tattoo, and that's exactly how I'm gonna leave it.
Click to expand...
During draft of you had visible tattoos so be it then it was changed to no visible tattoos but think after late 90's you can have visible tattoos just not neck / face ?
 
NotCompSavy said:
During draft of you had visible tattoos so be it then it was changed to no visible tattoos but think after late 90's you can have visible tattoos just not neck / face ?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean, except perhaps the military. TBH, I have no idea what the policies were regarding tattoos when I enlisted in 1975. Couldn't have been more disinterested. I have never had an interest or a compulsion to get a tattoo, within the military or without.

All I can say regarding the military and tattoos, it's a helluva lot different now than it was when I was serving. A lot of warriors find them compelling. Bully for them.

Not me -- ETA: Not that I call myself a "warrior". I was and am a musician, never having been on a two-way rifle range.
 
Last edited:
Eupher said:
Not sure what you mean, except perhaps the military. TBH, I have no idea what the policies were regarding tattoos when I enlisted in 1975. Couldn't have been more disinterested. I have never had an interest or a compulsion to get a tattoo, within the military or without.

All I can say regarding the military and tattoos, it's a helluva lot different now than it was when I was serving. A lot of warriors find them compelling. Bully for them.

Not me.
Click to expand...
I was drafted artillery and it was a free for all the fights alone were through the roof .

Things only got better after but yes standards now are not like when you went in 1975 but standards now are not in any government / private anything what they were years ago in any country .

I'm in Miami and now and then while food shopping , etc run into SouthCom officers chat with them and they are impressive
 
NotCompSavy said:
I was drafted artillery and it was a free for all the fights alone were through the roof .

Things only got better after but yes standards now are not like when you went in 1975 but standards now are not in any government / private anything what they were years ago in any country .

I'm in Miami and now and then while food shopping , etc run into SouthCom officers chat with them and they are impressive
Click to expand...
Fighting over tattoos? Trying very hard to see logic in that, and am totally failing.

Fighting over a girl, or an ethical/moral/patriotic issue, especially when you're 20 years old -- I get that.

But a tattoo?

Nope.
 
Last edited:
johndoe said:
A tattoo on wrinkly skin looks like crap.
Click to expand...

Eupher said:
Fighting over tattoos? Trying very hard to see a logic in that, and am totally failing.

Fighting over a girl, or an ethical/moral/patriotic issue, especially when you're 20 years old -- I get that.

But a tattoo?

Nope.
Click to expand...
''Fighting over tattoos? Trying very hard to see a logic in that, and am totally failing.''

Lol no we fought over anything and everything not tattoos .

Different times and we did not want to be there .
 
Dave03 said:
Splitting hairs? The irony is palpable. Yes, it permanently changes the body's appearance. But doesn't disfigure a person. Alters? Yes. Modifies? Yes. Disfigures? No. Saying it 'disfigures' someone is being dramatic.
Click to expand...

I see you’re doubling down on semantic nitpicking while adding a touch of condescension. That said, calling it 'dramatic' doesn’t change the definition. Disfigurement is simply a permanent alteration to the body’s natural state—whether you personally find the word too strong is irrelevant. You admit tattoos alter and modify the body, and disfigurement is just one category of that. We can dance around terminology all day, but the reality remains the same.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top