Author Topic: Tatoos and The Decline of Society (Read 3670 times)

stevusmagnus · « **on:** September 13, 2010, 11:31:30 PM »

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/08/15/the-modern-world-is-going-to-hell-a-continuing-series/

MrsZ · « **Reply #1 on:** September 14, 2010, 03:50:48 PM »

Thank you for the link to these posts. Amusing and true!

scipio_a · « **Reply #2 on:** September 19, 2010, 03:03:39 AM »

The article is pretty pedestrian. It was broght up on anouther form along with onlther essay.

I pointed out there that there is a vailid argument against tattoos....but no one has yet made it. I'm still waiting.

I'm not sure if this thread is an anti-tattoo thread or if it is anti-the-problem-that-has-cause-a-prevalence-in-tattoos.

They are two different things. Assuming the argument against tattoos that is based on the 5th commandment does NOT stand scrutiny in this time place and culture...and I think it will not completely....there is then not much of a problem with tats...the problem lies elsewhere....can you all figure it out? No one at FE has yet...

The anti-tattoo people just parrot ridiculous essays, and the pro tat folks just don't see a problem....

but you don;t have to be one of those two kinds of folks...there are alternate taes.

I'll wait.

scipio_a · « **Reply #3 on:** September 19, 2010, 03:04:10 AM »

Man my typing has gotten bad over the past year.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** September 19, 2010, 03:13:51 AM »

Quote from: scipio_a

Man my typing has gotten bad over the past year.

It's well-established in moral theology that they are bad.

Do some research and quit pretending that people need to explain why it's wrong to mark the body with graffiti. Putting graffiti on a Temple of the Holy Spirit: the answer is no, it's unacceptable.

Leviticus condemns tattooing as well.

scipio_a · « **Reply #5 on:** September 19, 2010, 05:12:57 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

It's well-established in moral theology that they are bad.

Do some research and quit pretending that people need to explain why it's wrong to mark the body with graffiti. Putting graffiti on a Temple of the Holy Spirit: the answer is no, it's unacceptable.

Leviticus condemns tattooing as well.

Are you stupid or something?

I'm the one that said there is a valid argument against it. But don't try to turn something that is not a moral therology question into something that is.

That ios what the morons at FE tried to do. You see telemaque, you don't have much standing. I'm actually interested in a real answer....not some Luigiesque opinion.

So when you're able to do that...get back to me.

In the meantime, I know Stevus is actaully capable of making solid opoints if he has one. No doubt there are others. As I said before, I will wait.

scipio_a · « **Reply #6 on:** September 19, 2010, 05:20:03 AM »

Additionally the Haydock commentary does not agree with you...as I guessed. Telemaque...when it comes to questions of what is allowed by the Faith and what is not you are almost always wrong. It must get tiresome.

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id438.html

Go learn your Faith, and what is allowed by it...then play with the big kids....until then go dream of getting frowens from teenage girls' mothers and fathers.

And go make someone a sandwich...a bacon sandwich if you can find any.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** September 19, 2010, 05:53:25 AM »

Quote from: scipio_a

Additionally the Haydock commentary does not agree with you...as I guessed. Telemaque...when it comes to questions of what is allowed by the Faith and what is not you are almost always wrong. It must get tiresome.

That's one interpretation. I didn't say Leviticus was binding. But as a matter of moral theology, tattooing is considered sinful.

Quote

Go learn your Faith,

I know what priests who are experts on moral theology teach from the pulpit. And they condemn tattooing.

Quote

and what is allowed by it...then play with the big kids....until then go dream of getting frowens from teenage girls' mothers and fathers.

Doesn't surprise me you resort to some sort of personal attack. The bottom line is only a clown would say there's no argument against defacing the body with tattoos. Only a clown would sport an avatar from an obscene movie on a traditional Catholic forum. Only a dirtbag would go about trying to smear other posters because of disagreements.

Quote

And go make someone a sandwich...a bacon sandwich if you can find any.

Anyone who would suggest to the typical Catholic that there isn't an argument against damaging and defacing your own body by permanently marking it with ink and needles needs could probably use a fast. Any priest who would tell a young woman or young man it's okay to go out and get a tattoo is giving immoral advice.

You're always pushing laxism with your avatars from degenerate comics or movies, apparently because you think it's "cool" to represent Catholicism as a clown.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:05:16 AM »

Quote from: scipio_a

Are you stupid or something?

I'm not stupid, but I perhaps you lack the imagination to come up with something more clever to say.

Quote

I'm the one that said there is a valid argument against it.

You said no one has made the argument. Why don't you make it instead of taunting people?

Quote

don't try to turn something that is not a moral therology question into something that is.

All these questions are matters of moral theology. Have you ever read a moral theology manual?

Quote

That ios what the morons at FE tried to do. You see telemaque, you don't have much standing.

Calling people stupid and morons and saying they don't have standing. How is that supposed to mean that no one has made a good argument against tattooing?

Quote

I'm actually interested in a real answer....not some Luigiesque opinion.

You mean his quotations from saints? Luigi didn't generally venture opinions. Just quotations.

Quote

So when you're able to do that...get back to me.

I think most people wouldn't see any reason to "get back to you," but I'm patient and believe even the most intractable dunces can learn something eventually. Even you.

Quote

In the meantime, I know Stevus is actaully capable of making solid opoints if he has one. No doubt there are others. As I said before, I will wait.

I really don't have confidence in your judgment of relative merit of posts, but it would appear you believe praising Stevus somehow gives you Trad "cred." What relevance your opinion of other posters has to any discussion of morality is beyond me.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** September 19, 2010, 06:52:01 AM »

Is branding oneself immoral?

Is scarring oneself for the sake of having a scar immoral?

I don't see how anyone can think indelibly marking oneself with needles for the purpose of decoration could possibly be doing a good thing from a moral point of view.

Matto · « **Reply #10 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:15:51 AM »

Would it be okay to get a tattoo if it was an image of one of these?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** September 19, 2010, 07:30:53 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Would it be okay to get a tattoo if it was an image of one of these?

A tattoo from Abu Graib:

Charles · « **Reply #12 on:** September 19, 2010, 10:10:09 AM »

Just as the womb of Our Lady was a Tabernacle, so are we Tabernacles as we receive Our Lord.

Tattoos are not even pleasant to look at imo, and when one gets a tattoo, what do they do ? They show it to people. They are proud of it. And at it's worst, the tattoo is in a place where to reveal it encourages promiscuity.

Lust and Pride are not virtues.

henry · « **Reply #13 on:** September 19, 2010, 12:00:06 PM »

I think "pest" is too mild.

scipio_a · « **Reply #14 on:** September 19, 2010, 10:29:37 PM »

Quote from: Charles

Just as the womb of Our Lady was a Tabernacle, so are we Tabernacles as we receive Our Lord.

Tattoos are not even pleasant to look at imo, and when one gets a tattoo, what do they do ? They show it to people. They are proud of it. And at it's worst, the tattoo is in a place where to reveal it encourages promiscuity.

Lust and Pride are not virtues.

and the bolded part is the crux of the situation. Until one of you is actually able to make the argument that REALLY DOES exist vs tattoos...all you have is an opinion.

Your supposition about being proud of having a tattoo is just that supposition....and what kind of pride are we talking about? a bad kind or the kind that is not properly speaking pride?

And the promisuity thing...LOL...supostion again...but here's the real problem....there is a problem that tattoos are EVIDENCE of....no one here...no one at FE has yet mentioned it.

And as far as the REAL argument that exists....that none of you have been able to produce or reproduce...it has been superceded somewhat by cultural usage...so....find the real problem and get back to me.

The Haydock commentary gives an example of a SAINT who had a big ol' tat.