Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-01-2008, 11:32 AM   #26
Trish Greene
Dojo: Aikido-Kajukenbo Self Defense Center
Location: Boise
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 98
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post

It would be a waste of time to repeat myself further, so I'll leave the tattoo fans to their own designs, as it were. Best of luck.
After reviewing this conversation.. I think this is the best statement I have seen yet!!

One of these days, people will start looking at who the person is on the inside, and not judge what's on the outside.

To each their own.

"Aikido is nothing but an expression of the spirit of Love for all living things."

Morihei Ueshiba
www.aikido-kajukenbo.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 04:31 PM   #27
HL1978
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: Fairfax, VA
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 429
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

I can appreciate the aesthetics of the artwork, but hate to see what they will look like in 20+ years.

The latter is why I think people should think 2x before getting one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 05:27 PM   #28
Bronson
 
Bronson's Avatar
Dojo: Seiwa Dojo and Southside Dojo
Location: Battle Creek & Kalamazoo, MI
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,677
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

I have tattoos for one simple reason, I like them. I and the others I know with them didn't get them to try to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex we got them because we like them, period.

You don't like them and that's fine, so you don't have to get one. But I fail to see how me or anybody else having a tattoo efffects you one whit.

I don't hear the proponents of tattooing saying that everybody should be required to have one, yet I often see the opponents saying that nobody should be allowed to have them.

Tell ya what. When you get all the affairs in your own house and life settled and in perfect order then you can start on mine. Until then why don't you turn your self-righteous knob a little to the left.

Bronson

"A pacifist is not really a pacifist if he is unable to make a choice between violence and non-violence. A true pacifist is able to kill or maim in the blink of an eye, but at the moment of impending destruction of the enemy he chooses non-violence."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 06:51 PM   #29
graham
 
graham's Avatar
Dojo: Northampton Ki Aikido Club
Location: Northampton
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 134
United Kingdom
Offline
Re: tattoos

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
Many men think, hey, if she's willing to do something pointless and cavalier with her body, maybe she'll do other pointless and cavalier things with it, like going home with me after a few drinks.
Sounds like these men you know are idiots.

Personally, I think that tattoos on women can look quite cool, but I'm probably emotionally shallow like that. I guess the other option is that it's a matter of personal taste, but that's surely too easy.

Oh, as you brought up God, you might be interested to know that in the Bible Jesus has a tattoo on his thigh and God 'the Father' has one (or many) on his hand.

What a strange thread.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2008, 07:50 PM   #30
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Doesn't it speak a little of someone's own self evovlement and emotional and spiritual maturity about how much they judge another?

I thought one of the big lessons to be learned in budo is to turn inward in upon yourself and reflect on self and seek to improve your self.

To thine own self be true....

Judge not, unless ye to....

Stuff like that.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2008, 01:24 AM   #31
Carl Thompson
 
Carl Thompson's Avatar
Location: Kasama
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 485
Japan
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Ron Tisdale wrote: View Post
I've been avoiding this thread like the plague...
Now, after reading it, I know why...
It kinda gets under your skin.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
The "body is a temple" line comes from the biblical "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received form God? You are not your own; and you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

If you aren't the owner of your body. I don't see how deciding to brand yourself with a heavy metal tattoo honors God, but even people who call themselves Christians will make excuses for what they want to do.
You realise Jesus probably had a modified body too don't you? It's maybe debatable regarding tats, but he almost certainly had a more painful and physiologically drastic alteration in a rather intimate area -- a common practice among most male Jews. Forget merely painting on God's canvass -- this guy had a section of it cut away!

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
And I'm not impressed with people who don't have a real argument and resort to pseudo-pithy one-liners.
So a short and snappy line about argumentum ad hominem probably won't go down too well then?

One of my tattoos was partially inspired by Slayer (a bit like the Divine Intervention cover), whom I also think are a baddass band. I understood that some people might want to judge me unfairly when I got my tattoos done, so I guess that is one advantage I have over people who are discriminated against for the skin pigmentation that they were born with.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
The statement you're referring to "The bottom line is tattoos are more prevalent among the lesser educated, the younger, people who engage in risky behavior (sex, drugs), have done time, etc.," is a fact backed by studies.
No, that is a prejudice backed up with some out-of context articles. If you confine the context, you can find any correlation you like, such as hair colour, culture, religion and so on, but taking that and using it to judge anyone in any context who shares that characteristic is prejudice, pure and simple. Similar links have been made between crime and skin pigmentation that people inherited as a racial feature. They too ignore deeper issues, selecting only what is needed to back up a prejudice rather than a full, scientifically rigorous exploration of available data. The work of Blumenbach was used in a similar way to back up Nazi ideology during the Second World War. Choose a cultural, ethnic or behavioural feature you don't like and tack on some specious research. Incidentally, some of the horrors of that period of human history have been described in chilling musical form by the likes of Slayer.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
I shouldn't have to explain that that doesn't mean that everyone with a tattoo falls into those categories automatically, only that there is a real correlation which makes the negative view of a tattooed person not simply a matter of blind prejudice.
Yes it is blind prejudice when you categorise people you don't know by the exterior, without examining the content of their character and I would like you to explain it when you assume that I am more likely to engage in risky behaviour or have a poor education because of any form of self-expression I have chosen.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 05:09 PM   #32
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

It's pointless to go around and around with people who will say 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of context, or who insist on responses to a point that has already been addressed. For example, to the person who said, in effect, "I got my tattoo because I liked it" - that's a disingenuous non-answer. If you continually peel away the layers of the "why?" onion you'll eventually get to the truth of some underlying need for attention, confidence, belonging, etc. These reasons are a major part of why tattoos are perceived negatively.

Carl, you say that you knew when you decided to get a tattoo that you might be judged unfairly - leaving aside what that says about your decision to do it anyway, it's also not the case that all judgments are unfair. If I walk down the street wearing a rainbow wig, carrying a large stuffed animal and singing loudly, I can cry about my right to self-expression and being "judged", but it is perfectly fair for people to have a reasonable suspicion that I'm an idiot or have some mental problem or personality disorder. The idea that people have to get to know the "real" you to make some valid statistical inference about your mentality and a host of other factors is not true. If they do happen to get to know how wonderful you are on the inside (even though you're crying for attention on the outside for some reason) and refuse to give you any credit for that, that's certainly unfair. But it is not incumbent on people to invest that effort, personally or professionally. If a hiring manager has a short time to decide between two candidates who are identical except for one having tattoos, it is both valid and fair for him to believe that there is a slightly higher risk for the tattooed guy to be the one who's going to call in sick on occasion because he was out partying the night before. This is apart from other considerations such as whether a percentage of customers will get a negative impression of his business if the position is a customer-facing one.

The only other point worth making here is that you seem to be mixing definitions of "prejudice" to call any judgment of an individual unfair. Prejudice can refer to any opinion, including a favorable one, not just unreasonable antipathy based on uncontrollable factors. To avoid confusion, we're really talking about "first impressions" or "sizing people up". There is no disagreement that it's grossly unfair to judge people on factors they have no control over, such as their ethnicity. However, people can and do devalue themselves in society by their actions and choices, and the petty thief and the professor are not equally valuable to society, so saying that no one can make judgments about another due to things they *have* control over is not true.

Sizing up unknown people is something everyone does constantly. Take the same actor, dress him a certain way, and people will get different impressions about his character. Show women a picture of the same attractive 25 year old male model dressed like an executive in one photo and a McDonald's employee in another, and they'll rate the executive as more attractive. How people look and act gives an impression of their other qualities because there are valid correlations. If you're working at McDonald's, odds are you're not the best and brightest. Is that a fair impression? Yes, because you probably spent your high school years listening to Slayer and smoking weed instead of hitting the books. Like it or not, tattoos fall into this category because of similar correlations.

Ignoring tattoos specifically since anything further will be repeat, the more interesting issue is sizing people up in general. Not only is it perfectly fair to make statistical evaluations on seeing people, but it's wired into us precisely because it's a valuable skill. To bring this back toward martial arts and the question of whether it's "fair" or "enlightened" to do so, the following article serves as an interesting and cautionary example:

http://www.aikidojournal.com/?id=3357

Right off the bat, the author says "I had been sensing sketchy vibes on the train right from the beginning: it was packed full of unsavory, creepy characters, wannabe gang members, or otherwise hardened, indifferent looking people". So immediately, as everyone does, he swept his environment and made an assessment of the likely character and mentality of his fellow passengers by their appearance alone, without getting to know them as human beings. This is a fundamental survival process all animals do, because there are such strong correlations between appearance and behavior. He then immediately refers to his aggressor as "thuggish looking". Is he being racist? Unfairly judgmental? Should he arrange to have tea with this gentlemen and hear his life story before making an assessment of his likely character?

In the very next paragraph a main reason for his problem becomes evident. He was wandering around the city the prior day, feeling people's "energy", enjoying hippie thoughts and doing his aiki thing to love the world in the spirit of true budo. Then he gets on the train, and probably sits there with a beatific peaceful look that says "easy mark" to anybody within sight of him. Funny, in photos of Ueshiba he seems to look pretty serious when he's out and about. Go figure. So that was one mistake, but the major mistake is one that seems common to virtually every real crime case (see for example Strong on Defense, by Sanford Strong), which is to ignore feelings of unease. In every case in Strong's book, the victims (that survived) said later that they had felt something wrong, but they ignored it, essentially due to social conditioning that says you should feel guilty if you make snap judgments about people based on things like how they look. After all, you wouldn't want to offend the guys who look like gangbangers by avoiding them, you might give them a complex! Wearing pants half past their nuts is just free expression, they're probably on the way to the library to study for their organic chemistry exam, and you really shouldn't cause any angst. The author of this story says the same thing right from the start, he sensed sketchy vibes due to the "unsavory" characters. Like other crime victims, he tried to maintain his love, peace and chicken grease hippie guilt trip about not being "judgmental", and paid the price. So yes, not only is it perfectly fair, it's perfectly sensible, and those instincts are wired in for a reason. Now if the author had had armfuls of tattoos, it may have helped give a different impression to his attackers by looking a bit more unsavory himself, but enough about that.

As an aside, I think Stanley Pranin's rant in the comments section of the article is complete nonsense. All things considered, 10 bucks is cheap compared to the myriad possible bad outcomes had he felt the need to prove himself. Protecting loved ones is one thing, pretending to be Batman and doing things the police are far better suited to do is another. The author shouldn't feel bad if he learned a valuable lesson on trusting instincts and going with your impressions for only 10 dollars. Having put himself in a bad position, he made the right choice for what no doubt felt like the wrong reason (being afraid), but Pranin's "I'll handle it" attitude is what makes widows and fatherless kids unnecessarily. That's a different discussion, which people can have if they like. I don't have anything further to add about tattoos that I haven't already said here or elsewhere, so if you quote pieces to me and don't get a response you'll know why: see earlier comments. I have nothing personal against anyone here who happens to have tattoos, but I also don't feel in any way guilty or unjustified in assuming other things about you until proven otherwise, and I have better things to do than wait around for that proof. Seriously, in court, you're innocent until proven guilty, but in real life, the survival instinct and common sense has it the other way around. Everyone should respect your right as an individual to make your own decisions, but no one is obligated to respect those decisions. To each his own...and all the consequences that go with it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 05:47 PM   #33
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 138
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
As an aside, I think Stanley Pranin's rant in the comments section of the article is complete nonsense.
Dan, I checked out the article just to follow up on that statement. I mention this because I do not recall having ever read a nonsensical rant by Stanley Pranin. I was correct. The rant in question was officially posted by Mr. Pranin, but he pasted it in from a forum thread. The actual author (as attributed in the post itself, at least) is Jason Wotherspoon. I thought that was worth clarifying. I will not go so far as to blame you for the misattribution, because the presentation was somewhat confusing. However, I am not sure it was necessary to cite Mr. Pranin by name -- especially since the tone and 'voice' of the rant were entirely different from those Mr. Pranin always writes in, especially on his own web site. In this case you seem to have misjudged the situation by crediting the apparent label and ignoring the myriad other clues contained in the substance. But enough of my snide ironic moralization: my real point was just to clarify this so readers would not be left with a mistaken impression.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 08:29 PM   #34
Carl Thompson
 
Carl Thompson's Avatar
Location: Kasama
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 485
Japan
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
It's pointless to go around and around with people who will say 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of context
No, unless we are advanced maths theorists, most of us agree with that as an absolute. You are not saying that. You are saying

x (tattoos) = y (risky behaviour etc), which IS a matter of context.

I pointed out that there is little difference between that and

X (black skin) = Y (criminal)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
Carl, you say that you knew when you decided to get a tattoo that you might be judged unfairly - leaving aside what that says about your decision to do it anyway, it's also not the case that all judgments are unfair.
Did you follow the link on argumentum ad hominem ? You also went on to make an unfair judgement by the way:

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
If I walk down the street wearing a rainbow wig, carrying a large stuffed animal and singing loudly, I can cry about my right to self-expression and being "judged", but it is perfectly fair for people to have a reasonable suspicion that I'm an idiot or have some mental problem or personality disorder.
So if someone was at a Mardi Gras or on their way to a fancy dress party, they would be an idiot too would they? I pointed out that you are deliberately misusing context to discriminate against people for behaviour you do not like. Of course we discriminate positively and negatively on a personal level all the time. We usually take in a whole range of factors and bear in mind contexts.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
The idea that people have to get to know the "real" you to make some valid statistical inference about your mentality and a host of other factors is not true.
It is the taking one characteristic (tattoos, black skin, Judaism, wearing a suit etc) which one has a private dislike of, finding a situation in which it may have been a valid indicator of something else one dislikes and using it as a way to diminish anyone who has that characteristic in all situations, that is objectionable here. I might associate the Mafia with black suits and I may successfully identify a gangster by that and other characteristics in certain contexts. Does that make the mourners at a funeral gangsters?

I hope you can overcome your prejudice. Then we could maybe train together someday and learn from each other.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 09:00 PM   #35
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Chhi'mèd Künzang wrote: View Post
Dan, I checked out the article just to follow up on that statement. I mention this because I do not recall having ever read a nonsensical rant by Stanley Pranin. I was correct. The rant in question was officially posted by Mr. Pranin, but he pasted it in from a forum thread. The actual author (as attributed in the post itself, at least) is Jason Wotherspoon. I thought that was worth clarifying. I will not go so far as to blame you for the misattribution, because the presentation was somewhat confusing. However, I am not sure it was necessary to cite Mr. Pranin by name -- especially since the tone and 'voice' of the rant were entirely different from those Mr. Pranin always writes in, especially on his own web site. In this case you seem to have misjudged the situation by crediting the apparent label and ignoring the myriad other clues contained in the substance. But enough of my snide ironic moralization: my real point was just to clarify this so readers would not be left with a mistaken impression.

Chhi'mèd
Thank you, I'm not familiar with his tone and voice, I just saw "Stanley Pranin writes" to indicate that section.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 09:39 PM   #36
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Exactly, you didn't examine the context.

You made an ASSUMPTION. An incorrect one to boot.

Par for the course, apparently.

B,
R

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 10:23 PM   #37
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Carl Thompson wrote: View Post
It is the taking one characteristic (tattoos, black skin, Judaism, wearing a suit etc) which one has a private dislike of, finding a situation in which it may have been a valid indicator of something else one dislikes and using it as a way to diminish anyone who has that characteristic in all situations, that is objectionable here.
It most certainly is objectionable, and if you can't see that that's not what I've done here, I can't help. Tattoos are voluntary, black skin is not. I said nothing about dislike, private or otherwise, nor did I say it's fair to "diminish" anyone and/or extrapolate one thing in isolation to "all situations." Your comment is a strawman. You're assessing me as "prejudiced" based on your misreading of what I wrote, using a definition I rejected as unclear and biased, attributing thoughts and attitudes to me even though I specifically said judging based on uncontrollable factors like skin color is unfair, etc. I'm sorry you feel the need to resort to such a tactic, but misrepresenting contrary views and calling everyone prejudiced who doesn't agree with your choices in life is a dodge. You're the one who made the decision to get the tattoo. No one is obligated to respect your personal choices or agree with you as to their merit. If it makes any difference, I'll repeat, again, that statistics do not dictate the value of a particular individual; just because you have a tattoo doesn't make you a bad guy. That's a separate issue from whether getting a tattoo itself is a good idea. Even good people make bad choices, and if getting a tat is the worst thing you ever do, well, you're probably ahead of the game. In any case this discussion was not intended to be personal, and I wish you the best.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 10:52 PM   #38
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

You are prejudice against people with tattoos. That is very apparent and clear to me. You automatically assume something about their character based on the sole fact that they have a tattoo.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2008, 11:44 PM   #39
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
You are prejudice against people with tattoos. That is very apparent and clear to me. You automatically assume something about their character based on the sole fact that they have a tattoo.
With the caveat that prejudice is a loaded word, I would agree with the latter statement. However, it is an *assumption* made about a *voluntary personal choice*, in the absence of any other information about a person. If I get to know someone and think they're great, then the *assumption* was incorrect and I won't hold it against them. I'll still think it's a pointless thing to do, but it's not a big deal compared to something real about their character. But as a first impression, yes, it makes a negative impression as it does for many people, for all the reasons mentioned. Making assumptions based on things about people's appearance is normal, and not automatically unfair, unless the assumption is held above all evidence to the contrary or based on things outside the person's control.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 01:31 AM   #40
clwk
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 138
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
With the caveat that prejudice is a loaded word, I would agree with the latter statement. However, it is an *assumption* made about a *voluntary personal choice*, in the absence of any other information about a person. If I get to know someone and think they're great, then the *assumption* was incorrect and I won't hold it against them.
I haven't really followed this thread, just happened to see your previous post (because, by the way, I tend to like your posts -- so no hard feelings). In the spirit of constructive discussion, I'd like to add a twist to this. Let's set aside the personal choice issues. You might be right, doesn't matter. The thing is, when you simply observe someone's body superficially, you don't have enough information to judge how it became the way it is. My reasonable argument would be that people change, and it is only by accident that most people's bad decisions (I'm stipulating just to avoid the other line, okay?) aren't so readily apparent. That's probably worth considering. My unreasonable argument would Godwin this thread: *just like that*.

Chhi'mèd
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 02:28 AM   #41
Carl Thompson
 
Carl Thompson's Avatar
Location: Kasama
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 485
Japan
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

This is a straw man argument…

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
It's pointless to go around and around with people who will say 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of context.
Who are these mathematically-challenged people?

You also hoist yourself with your own petard by revealing the logic behind your viewpoint. My tactic was to dissect your ideas and their implications (including the diminishment of people who favour certain practices you dislike), not you personally.

If I misunderstood your meaning here, I apologise. However, it looks like you mean the association between tattoos (2+2) and risky behaviour (=4) is not a matter of context and that it is not worth going "around and around" with people who disagree with that. Have I got that wrong? Also, can you show how that pattern changes when you factor in the electiveness of the characteristic? People also discriminate against those who "elect" to become members of certain religions after all.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
If a hiring manager has a short time to decide between two candidates who are identical except for one having tattoos, it is both valid and fair for him to believe that there is a slightly higher risk for the tattooed guy to be the one who's going to call in sick on occasion because he was out partying the night before.
What if I decide to only hire tattooed people because I think folks with virgin canvasses have a slightly higher risk of calling in sick on occasion because they were out partying the night before? Would that be unfair? How would that unfairness differ from yours?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 07:23 AM   #42
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Dan wrote:

Quote:
With the caveat that prejudice is a loaded word, I would agree with the latter statement. However, it is an *assumption* made about a *voluntary personal choice*, in the absence of any other information about a person. If I get to know someone and think they're great, then the *assumption* was incorrect and I won't hold it against them. I'll still think it's a pointless thing to do, but it's not a big deal compared to something real about their character. But as a first impression, yes, it makes a negative impression as it does for many people, for all the reasons mentioned. Making assumptions based on things about people's appearance is normal, and not automatically unfair, unless the assumption is held above all evidence to the contrary or based on things outside the person's control.
People do make CHOICES for a myriad of reasons. "Good" or "Bad"? well I think that depends on many, many factors.

One thing that my studies in eastern philosophy, specifically through Aikido have led me to realize that "good" and "bad" are and ATTACHMENT that we as people put on things based on our own experiences and associations. They are not ultimate and what is good for one may not be bad for another.

One might assume that putting a hand on a hot stove is always BAD, however if you did it to stop a 2 year old from burning his hand, it might be a GOOD thing.

Ma'ai, the study of the distance and engagement between people is something we study greatly in aikido (or should). Our goal should be to expand our knowledge of that GAP....Ma'ai.

you have stimulus and response...in between it we have CHOICE. What assumptions we make about something can affect the skillfulness of the choice we make. If we limit ourselves to our very first thought, experience, or approach the situation with a preconcieved emotion (prejudice) then we will make a decision that is limited by that self imposed constraint.

Mushin, or no mind is what we should strive for. It certainly is not easy, but that is what we should be looking for in any situation.

It is not about the choices the other person makes...you can't control them....

it is about the choices YOU make. Why limit yourself and dismiss someone at first contact.

We are supposed to learn this lesson in aikido.

Does that mean we must ignore the input such as a Tattoo? no. If I see a guy walking down the street with barbed wire tattoo'd around his neck, with a swastika on his forehead with the words HATE tattoo''d on his knuckles...certainly that is information will be considered in my assumption (prejudice).

I'd consider that person in a different way than one that might have a beautiful japanese scene tattoo'd on their arm.

It is probably impossible to not to be predjudice based on this input, and probably a wise thing to highly value that information at some level.

However, I think it is also important to increase our skillfullness in the situation and take in more information before we make your "move" for our "final cut".

It could be that the guy with the "bad" tattoos has evolved or transformed and has overcome his ways and is working on reaching out in a positive way now. It happens.

Philosophically, how are we ever going to evolve if we are not willing to look deeper and help heal?

I do appreciate your honesty in this subject. We are all not above predjudice, I'd like to think that I am, but the fact is, we all struggle with it, even if we don't think we do.

Practicing aikido should be considered a way to help us understand ourselves and our emotions so we can more skillfully interact with others.

  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 10:30 AM   #43
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Carl Thompson wrote: View Post
However, it looks like you mean the association between tattoos (2+2) and risky behaviour (=4) is not a matter of context and that it is not worth going "around and around" with people who disagree with that.
What I was referring to was that I already posted one study showing a *statistical* link between having tattoos and other risky behavior, in addition to studies showing that people generally make this association already based on personal observation. I can see that if I post a dozen more studies you'll likely ignore them as well. To me, that association is not seriously debatable. I'm not sure if you're getting the distinction between a statistic and an individual case. Perhaps this is because statistics are often misused to characterize individuals despite any other information and/or deny that they can be in the "doesn't apply" range of the statistic, a practice which I've said several times is unfair.

Quote:
What if I decide to only hire tattooed people because I think folks with virgin canvasses have a slightly higher risk of calling in sick on occasion because they were out partying the night before? Would that be unfair? How would that unfairness differ from yours?
For two reasons: first, the statistical association backed by population studies is that people *with* tattoos are more likely to enjoy excessive partying. Secondly, I said nothing about *only* hiring people without tattoos, the example I gave was of two identical candidates who *only* differ in tattoo status. Obviously, a tattoo by itself is minor compared to other factors, it's just not completely neutral.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 10:35 AM   #44
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

So you still can't genuinely 'read' people. That's OK.

Or if you can, there is then the next step pf applying energetically the quality you sense is missing to complete the circuit of chi.In which case you can apply your wisdom, constructively.

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 11:08 AM   #45
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
it is about the choices YOU make. Why limit yourself and dismiss someone at first contact.
To be clear, I said nothing about dismissing people, and I agree that limiting oneself is unnecessary. If I see someone with a tattoo, I don't run screaming, and I don't point and laugh. But I do take note of it as part of an impression. I think everyone does, consciously or not, and in the case of tattoos why not? If I can see it, the person put it in plain sight on purpose.

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
Does that mean we must ignore the input such as a Tattoo? no. If I see a guy walking down the street with barbed wire tattoo'd around his neck, with a swastika on his forehead with the words HATE tattoo''d on his knuckles...certainly that is information will be considered in my assumption (prejudice).

I'd consider that person in a different way than one that might have a beautiful japanese scene tattoo'd on their arm.

It is probably impossible to not to be predjudice based on this input, and probably a wise thing to highly value that information at some level.
Exactly, although the use of the word prejudice is loaded, because its most common usage refers to unreasonable antipathy toward ethnic groups, so it's clearer to simply talk about impressions. But just as there is a degree of difference between a barbed wire neck tattoo and a mellow Japanese scene, there is also a difference between having any tattoo at all and having none.

Quote:
However, I think it is also important to increase our skillfullness in the situation and take in more information before we make your "move" for our "final cut".

It could be that the guy with the "bad" tattoos has evolved or transformed and has overcome his ways and is working on reaching out in a positive way now. It happens.

Philosophically, how are we ever going to evolve if we are not willing to look deeper and help heal?
This is true, however most of the time we simply don't have time to do this. In a practical sense there will invariably be other indicators than tattoos to make distinctions between, say, the active gang member and the guy who has renounced that lifestyle and now tries to help kids avoid it. As I've said, a tattoo in and of itself is not something damning, but that doesn't make it a non-entity, nor does it mean it's unfair to get impressions from it. Apart from that not everyone can be healed by love and understanding, and it's dangerous to think so, as the mugging victim on the train discovered.

Quote:
I do appreciate your honesty in this subject. We are all not above predjudice, I'd like to think that I am, but the fact is, we all struggle with it, even if we don't think we do.
I think one of the benefits of online discussions is the ability to be completely forthright about a given topic, even if it's not always clear where you're coming from. In this case, like in many things, there is a gray area where a degree of making judgments about people is fair, and it's unnecessary and counterproductive to be absolutist and insist that you're lacking in humanity if you ever do it. So, if it provides any interesting food for thought, you're welcome.

Last edited by Dan Austin : 07-04-2008 at 11:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 11:10 AM   #46
Dan Austin
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 151
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Jennifer Smith wrote: View Post
So you still can't genuinely 'read' people. That's OK.

Or if you can, there is then the next step pf applying energetically the quality you sense is missing to complete the circuit of chi.In which case you can apply your wisdom, constructively.
Jennifer: stay off the BART, don't travel alone, and carry a weapon. Best of luck.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 01:35 PM   #47
Cady Goldfield
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,019
United_States
Offline
Re: tattoos

Quote:
Trish Greene wrote: View Post
I really don't think God cares about what you are wearing,
Actually, maybe He does, since in the Hebrew Tanakh (the "Old Testament"), the Jewish people are expressly forbidden to get tattooed or to otherwise "mark the skin." Apparently, this was to help differentiate themselves from the "heathens" around them.

That didn't stop my Uncle Louie from getting a tattoo when he was in the U.S. Navy during WWII, tho'.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2008, 03:42 PM   #48
jennifer paige smith
 
jennifer paige smith's Avatar
Dojo: Confluence Aiki-Dojo / Santa Cruz Sword Club
Location: Santa Cruz
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,049
United_States
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
Jennifer: stay off the BART, don't travel alone, and carry a weapon. Best of luck.
How about shellfish?

Jennifer Paige Smith
Confluence Aikido Systems
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 10:34 PM   #49
Carl Thompson
 
Carl Thompson's Avatar
Location: Kasama
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 485
Japan
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
What I was referring to was that I already posted one study showing a *statistical* link between having tattoos and other risky behavior, in addition to studies showing that people generally make this association already based on personal observation. I can see that if I post a dozen more studies you'll likely ignore them as well. To me, that association is not seriously debatable. I'm not sure if you're getting the distinction between a statistic and an individual case. Perhaps this is because statistics are often misused to characterize individuals despite any other information and/or deny that they can be in the "doesn't apply" range of the statistic, a practice which I've said several times is unfair.
I'm glad you agree that misusing stats is unfair and I am not ignoring them -- I am trying to understand your usage here. You do not seem to be separating individual cases and stats at all. I pointed out that your research was specious. To me, you were effectively saying that your stats can be fairly applied to every situation (100% of the time guilt by association). Now you seem to be suggesting that other things can balance it out, like maybe the tattoo is a minus point and the owner of it has to have some other plus point to put him back in credit -- while the other non-tattooed guy starts off in the black. The use of stats reminded me of those employed by Terry Pratchett in his comic fantasy novels, in which he explains that scientists dismiss the possibility of magic existing as millions to one, but that wizards know that millions to one chances happen 8 times out of 10. Employing folk with an assumed 10 out of 10 statistic that other statistics (and heap of flawed logic that equates human worth with their education level, pants-altitude, job type, sexual liberty and other prejudices) all just adds up to a mess of negative discrimination, not a scientific argument. I hope we are getting past that.

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
If a hiring manager has a short time to decide between two candidates who are identical except for one having tattoos, it is both valid and fair for him to believe that there is a slightly higher risk for the tattooed guy to be the one who's going to call in sick on occasion because he was out partying the night before.
If it is fair to use your select reports to treat two equally qualified people as unequal, then how would it differ from selecting stats from cultures where the opposite prejudices and statistics occur (e.g.: where tattooing shows religious devotion or non-drinker status and non-tattooed are the heathens, more likely to drink etc), such as Yantra tattooing in southeast Asia or the Straight Edge scene in North America? The Laos IT company only hiring tattooed devotees or the punk only going for X's would be the yin to your yang. It is an apagoge that mirrors and exposes that kind of prejudice. It is creating a subclass of people with fewer job rights because of a characteristic one doesn't like. Flipping a coin would be fairer than guilt by association. You may recall the Ainu were mentioned earlier. If you refused a tattooed Ainu woman a job on the grounds of her ethnic practice you would be guilty of discrimination on cultural grounds.

And I actually disagree with the caveat you mentioned. Another reason why electiveness (beyond control) is not an issue here is that we do sometimes correctly discriminate based upon stats and scientifically accurate theory about permanent characteristics. Insurance companies cross the line sometimes (and this will get more complex in the future), but the stats showing a higher incidence of risky behaviour in male drivers are backed up by the testosterone-releasing obviousness in (or sometimes above -- as you pointed out) a male's pants. It's a cross I'll grudgingly bear. And much as I have grown to love you during this discussion, if I were looking for a partner to make babies with, you would be automatically disqualified as a potential breeding partner, despite the fact that statistically, every person on the planet has one testicle and one ovary.

That is why your misuse of statistics to claim this
Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
"The bottom line is tattoos are more prevalent among the lesser educated, the younger, people who engage in risky behavior (sex, drugs), have done time, etc.," is a fact backed by studies.
…as a reason to discriminate is out of order. People get tattoos for many reasons (ethnic, religious and even medical not to mention dumb ones and non-elective tattoos such as the ka-tzetnik numbers that were forced upon Jews in Nazi concentration camps). We make judgements all the time based upon external appearance, our own personal experience, likes and dislikes and whatever. If we automatically stop at the surface (denying people job rights, their dignity etc), even when we know that….

Quote:
Dan Austin wrote: View Post
… that doesn't mean that everyone with a tattoo falls into those categories automatically
… we are being unfair. You are effectively advocating a subclass of human beings who have fewer jobs rights based on something as simple as a practice you do not like, even though you know you could be wrong. I'm not saying you should ignore anything. If someone has "I hate Jews" tattooed on their forehead, it is the fact that that person hates Jews that is wrong, not the medium of expression. If someone has a crucifix tattoo and says they got it because they love Jesus, they probably love Jesus. That is the content of their character. They just happen to have chosen to manifest it in a way you don't like, but big deal. Negative assumptions about a person based on tattoos could be correct but they could also be wrong, Same goes for assumptions based on suits, scars, hair colour, names... we start with impressions. That's natural. Final judgement of human worth and rights should go beyond that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2008, 11:18 PM   #50
Carl Thompson
 
Carl Thompson's Avatar
Location: Kasama
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 485
Japan
Offline
Re: Tattoos (in General)

Just to explain what I meant by "X's"…



Quote:
The letter "X" is the most prevalent symbol of straight edge. Commonly it is worn as a marking, symbol or tattoo on the back of one or both hands, though it can be displayed on other body parts as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Aikido and Tattoos sceptoor General 63 04-28-2014 11:15 AM
Transmission, Inheritance, Emulation 6 Peter Goldsbury Columns 35 03-13-2009 07:16 PM
Poll: Do you have any permanent aikido-related tattoos on your body? AikiWeb System AikiWeb System 15 12-09-2006 09:49 AM
Being a general opherdonchin Spiritual 11 11-08-2002 04:51 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:49 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2017 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate