Gender confused Hillary_step:
My, my you are a sensitive Willy
Yes I am. Its of my greatest qualities. Girls don't like it to be too insensitive or they spend far too much time on their knees. To the subject at hand.
No, I am afraid that the passage above can also be relagated to the ranks of a diatribe that has little to do with the issues that I raised in the post.
What does an alchoholic cutter have to do with a tattooed, pierced and mutilated body? One is as a result of an illness, the other the result of unencumbered choice, a point that you then latterly seem to recognize. They have nothing in common, especially as you seem to indicate that the "cutters" scars are part of her unfortunate history.
Everyone's scars whether they wear them in or out or with color or fleshed holes are a part of their history. The connection between the two is that there is something on the inside that has to get out, that has to be expressed. That is the human connection between the two. As far as illness goes, what isn't an illness viewed through another person's eyes? You paint with such a specific, threatened and elitist brush that everyone is missing the point of your painting. Or perhaps we are getting it loud and clear.
1) Tattoos, piercings, bodily mutliations have become the fashion the past fifteen years or so. Those who have taken on this decoration are fashion victims. The difference between clothing, household and other fashions is that bodily decorations are generally irreversible. You have your fashion fad stamped on you for the rest of your life, with all that this entails.
Not your choice. Not your judgement to make. A victim is an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance. If that is how you are coloring Richie then damn color yourself with that as well. The choice to confront the after effects of our circumstances in a manner that is personal is what defines us not the manner in which we do it. The manner is subject to debate but really the only opinion that matters in the debate is our own. What is your aim here? To protect Richie or to condemn him? To argue because its fun? I don't know Richie as well as I want to but what I do know is that while modes of expression can be fads their permenance or lack there of takes nothing away from the needs that spawned them. It is down to the individual.
2) The claims that tatoos, piercings and bodily mutliations are an appeal to individuality flies in the face of fact. Previous to the past decade or so, a minority of people were tattooed. Then when the fashion fad hit, millions of people followed like sheep. How can one defend this as an appeal to individuality?
Because choice is individual. Each piece of art displayed is individual whether that piece is on a wall or on skin.
Letting "Barney" loose on a thread without teaching his the basics of debate is a dangerous exercise
Wow. You got me. Point taken. Perhaps though before you correct my skills at debate you may perhaps correct your own rafter of grammar.
I can't make it any simpler for you. I'd offer to draw you a picture but I'd be wasting my time. Clearly you just want to argue over semantics and that is not worth my effort.