On point 1 I'm afraid I fail the test. I don't mind tattoos and small piercings, but industrial-size piercings make me flinch and look elsewhere.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Well, you recognize your patterns, which is a good start. Next thing to do is catch yourself in your re-action, and really ask yourself whether that's what you think, or just how you've conditioned yourself.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Number 1. doesn't seem like you o.O

However the "I've been doing this for X years" statement leaves me cold. A mechanic can be a mediocre mechanic for 20 years it still means he's going to be a mediocre mechanic.

I find it's often used by those who are personally threatened that they may not know something.

The real Pro's never seem to use this excuse unless badgered by know nothing know it alls constantly.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I don't think you'll get Steven Hawkins doing either 2 or 3.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

eh - there are certain considerations that make me want to devil's advocate on all of these. for example:

1 - I can take some pretty extreme stuff - like people putting knitting needles through their arms - but if what they're doing is seriously dangerous to themselves or others, I've got a few issues - ie, knitting needles are dandy, but using rust sheet metal? or wandering around with spikes in your palms, trying to high five and shake hands? I have trouble with flaying (removing sections of skin wholesale) for the same reason, when I don't mind scarification (cutting patterns of lines into the skin) (as long they use sterilized utensils, anyway)...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Heh.

My reaction (which I've already said I know isn't fair) to your above statement was actually: It is not remotely fair to draw a continuum of behavior from self-modification and self-inflicted non-injurious pain to behaviors which actively put long-term health and life at risk, and anyone who does so is lame.

But even further, although I don't have the same reaction to behaviors which *only* damage or put at risk long-term health and do not accomplish some form of body modification, I have to argue that none of these things should allow us the right to hand down moral judgments. To do so is to deny what I see as a fundamental human right-- self-ownership.

This gets into something which I may have to post another entry on-- that while a democratic government can support a system where one person finds someone's behavior morally offensive but does not feel it is their place to stop said behavior, a truly democratic individual will never be morally offended by another individual exercising their rights.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Um...hm...

Let me start by saying that, with the exception of the guy with the spikes in his palms, I have no moral qualms invovled these activities, more an emotional unease paired with an adverse physical reaction. The spike palms are morally problematic entirely due to thier capacity to give injury to others, not due to thier existance as such.

You are absolutely correct to say that drawing a continuum of that nature is improper - and it wasn't my intent to do so. Looking back, I think you are correct, however, I did...that was sloppy of me, and I apologize for it.

a truly democratic individual will never be morally offended by another individual excercising thier rights.

a) is that the position that you are trying to bring yourself into? Good for you!
b) however, do you mean that in its current unqualified status, or abridged by the inclusion except when it curtails the rights of another or except when it curtails the rights of another unduly...putting aside the semantics of "unduly" for the moment, but simply using the term to note that a certain amount of curtailing could be reasonably expected in some situations.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

a) Yes, I want to be that way. I do not think that I am, or even that I am likely to get "all the way" there. But it is a worthy goal.

b) I tend to put aside Neitzche's arguments which seem to point to "it's my right to punch you, and it's your right to try not to get punched" in favor of, well, essentially what you say here. This is called by Karl Popper (about whom you've no doubt seen me rant frequently) the "Paradox of Freedom" which is to say that "perfect" freedom collapses quickly into despotism, and that governments operating under democratic principles represent only a running approximation of the greatest possible freedom applied to the greatest possible base.

And no apologies are needed-- imprecise arguments are inevitable. Gracefully dealing with them is not. I've made flawed arguments as well, and when called on them I try to be happy to adjust my statements or where applicable my viewpoint.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)