Heh. Somebody once said “A tatoo is like a leisure suit you can never take off.”
Conformity drives strange behavior, like long hair and bell bottom pants in my generation and tattoos in the younger crowd. I’m glad I cut my hair and threw away my bell bottoms.
Judging by the number of threads about it I’ve seen in my short time here it is The Most Important Issue Ever, although I have no idea why a vocal minority seems to lose their minds over other people having tattoos on a regular basis.
Even if this wasn’t IMHO, “a quick google” is not a citation. It’s trivial to prove nearly any point with the results of “a quick google” if you use the right search terms.
This is not a normal reaction.
Why do people assume that those who have tattoos got them to be rebels or not mainstream? There is no basis to make that assumption in the general case.
IMHO, the objections people in this thread and others have raised to tattooing are ridiculous. If a person wants to ink his or her skin it is really no one’s business but theirs. Judging others for their aesthetic choices beyond “That doesn’t appeal to me” is clearly closed-minded behavior, and I find it disappointing that it is so prevalent here.
Who are these people who “lose their minds” or think it is "The Most Important Issue Ever? I’d sure hate to think that in a post accusing others of over-reaction, you aren’t guilty of precisely that. Specific citations to particular posts would be quite adequate, thanks. Don’t let me down here.
I don’t know if you are just avoiding the issue or actually deny my point. Anyway:
British Association of Dermatologists survey says one third regret their tattoo.
US Food and Drug Administrationsays:
And Cecil himself says:
Even allowing for polling aberrance, 20-30% or even half that is “significant” which is what I said.
In my opinion there are at least a dozen posters to whom other people’s tattoos are incredibly objectionable, and they tend to swarm into these threads to express their displeasure. I’m not accusing anyone of overreaction. I’m accusing them of being closed-minded and making unwarranted assumptions about other people’s motivations. I will not provide citations, as I have made no claims that require citation. I would, however, urge you to google “hyperbole.”
There is no issue to avoid.
That is simply untrue. Allow me to quote you again:
Even assuming the validity of the numbers you cite, which I’m willing to do because, again, this is IMHO, it’s incredibly disingenuous to claim that you can support the range in your actual statement with citations. If you did base your original claim on these figures it seems obvious that your intent was to mislead.
edit: Looks like nested quotes don’t work here for some reason. Weird.
Heh. You funny. You make a bold claim that others express extremely strong views. I ask you for specifics and you bunk off. And then you seek to excuse your own very strong expression by implying it was merely hyperbole. In short you have nothing. And if you do have anything, it seems to be within the rules you have just yourself set that I would be entitled to blow off any strongly expressed views as hyperbole.
Keep digging.
To be more plain, 10% (ie half the bottom of the range) is “significant” which justifies my minimum statement. 30% being the top of the range is very high in my opinion. You can of course differ on the meaning of very high, but IMHO when a third of people near-permanently mark themselves in a way they regret, that’s very high. Furthermore, look at my post in context. It was a response to Rachellelogram heaping shit on **Gaffa’s **post for (allegedly) being so presumptuous as to suggest tattoos may be a matter of regret. Turns out they are a matter for regret up to 30% of the time. That counts as “may” in my book.
missed this
Mmkay. So a poster losing their mind over other people having tattoos is not an overreaction then. Can’t have it both ways.
You asked me for a cite but you won’t give cites yourself. Perhaps I should suggest you google “hypocrisy”.
Are tattoos way overplayed by now?
Yes, all the non-conformists are now conformists.
That’s actually one of the better ideas to avoid relapse that I’ve heard. If you have a tattoo that reminds you that you’re a non-smoker, you’ll feel that much bigger the idiot if you light up again - and you can’t get rid of the reminder! That’s a pretty good Ulysses contract right there.
There is nothing bold about the claim that others have expressed strong views on the subject of tattoos. I’m not willing to review threads in order to compile a list of posts for you. If you don’t agree that others express strong views in opposition to tattoos you are entirely welcome to your opinion, but I believe that flies in the face of reality. That my statement was hyperbole should, IMHO, be obvious to any reasonable person. I don’t believe that a fluent English speaker could, in good faith, consider my statement equivalent to others’ posts on the subject of tattoos. I’m convinced that you are using my hyperbolic complaint about others’ closed-minded beliefs to direct attention from your disingenuous post.
You misquoted yourself, conveniently omitting the unsupported element of your claim, and only acknowledged its existence when I called you out. It is conceivable that you somehow forgot what you had claimed. Had this been the case, however, you would not be attempting to claim that the “very high” in “the percentage of people who regret having tattoos is somewhere between significant and very high” is supported by an estimate of 30%. That is absolute nonsense. If you had included citations in your original post and said that 30% seems very high to you it would be different, but when someone claims that the percentage of a thing is “very high” without qualification most would assume that that percentage is at least greater than fifty percent. Simply put, you have been caught out in an attempt to mislead others with a technically accurate but clearly disingenuous claim, and now you seek to mislead others by redefining terms in a counterintuitive manner in order to render your original claim defensible.
You are confused. I didn’t accuse anyone of overreacting. This is a claim you have manufactured.
You made a claim based on evidence you did not share. When you were pressed to share said evidence it did not support your claim. I simply pointed out that people have very strong reactions against tattoos, a fact verifiable by reading the thread. Had your google results been available to me in the thread I would simply have pointed out the weakness of your claim. Unfortunately, they were not.
Tattooing is not necessarily about nonconformity. Your assumption about others’ motives is unsupportable in the general case.
So far we have had from you that people “lose their minds” over this issue and that based on the number of threads its “The Most Important Issue Ever”. We have had that there are “at least a dozen posters to whom other people’s tattoos are incredibly objectionable”. Even allowing for hyperbole, it seems to me you have made claims. But for some reason you have “made no claims that require citation”. You have some sort of special “my claims don’t require citation” rule applicable just to you, do you? Are you a bit special? Or maybe there is a “nothing bold” rule on the SDMB regarding cites that I have missed?
Cite or shut up. It’s that simple. If you are going to make claims, back them or back down.
What drivel. I did not misquote myself; I partly quoted myself and I did so because my original post (the context of which you have lost sight) was made to refute an extremely strong claim ie that another poster’s view was a “enormous fallacious fail” and consequently I only needed to jump a low bar to make my case good.
Further, your assumption that “very high” means over 50% is utter tosh. Would you say that a 10% death rate from a particular disease wasn’t very high? Context is everything. Sure, regrettable tattoos aren’t death, but if you think people doing something to themselves that is permanent and that they come to regret 30% of the time isn’t a very high rate regret rate, you and I will just have to differ.
As to “over-reacting”, I know you didn’t use that term. I simply leapt to the totally unfounded conclusion that when you said “I have no idea why a vocal minority seems to lose their minds over other people having tattoos on a regular basis” you were implying that losing one’s mind over other people having tattoos was an over-reaction. Sorry. I now take it that this is not the case and that you think it is a proportionate reaction to lose one’s mind over other people having tattoos. I’m surprised that’s your view but your last couple of posts denying you had suggested anyone was over-reacting to tattoos force me to that conclusion. I am very very sorry to have totally mischaracterised your position.
Any other nitpicks or conspiracy theories you would like to discuss? Or can we now get back to the fact that my original post in this thread was substantially sound?
Throughout history, in general, tattoos have mostly been popular with non-conformists.
Now, the non-conformists have become the conformists.
For the record (and because it seems an important information) :
I was reading yesterday an article about health issues related to tattoos (mostly what you’d expect : infection, allergies, etc…) and I was surprised to read that you can sometimes be denied an epidural anesthesia because of tattoos on your back. The reason being that the procedure might force inks into the nervous system with unknown and possibly damaging consequences.
Just thought I would share the info.
Yeah, here’s the thing: Tattoos have been around for thousands of years. How long were bell bottoms in style?
I do agree that some tattoos would be a bad idea; like say one of Kenny from South Park. Because who the hell is going to know who Kenny is 20 years from now?
But a non descript tat wouldn’t play out like that.
Actually it’s probably a better analogy than you allow, and there is even a consistent nautical theme.
Bell bottoms were fashionable in the navy 200 years ago. However, they came into fashion amongst the general populace only for a brief period in the 60’s and 70’s and then they were out again.
Tattoos have also long been popular amongst seafarers but only more recently among the general population.
Just because tattoos “have been around” for thousands of years doesn’t mean that they have been commonplace amongst the general population all that time.
I don’t know if tattoos will stay fashionable for long or not. The sheer number of people with them at the moment and the permanence of them will perhaps militate the longevity of their popularity. But I don’t think I’d put money on it.
They guy who has the Kenny tattoo will probably know who Kenny is.
Yesteryear’s long hair craze was mostly driven by the music scene. To what extent do today’s heavily tatted musicians influence their audience?
I’m not sure about that. At best that would seem to depend on how you define “conformists” (I don’t think I’ve used that word since high school).
So there’s no broad population group where most people have a tattoo. I’m not sure it’ll ever get to that point. And the survey also says that 25 percent of people with tattoos think they’re more rebellious for having them and 72 percent say it makes no difference. Among non-tattooed people, 50 percent say people with ink are more rebellious.