Graffiti, Tattooes, and Piercings

[packersfan]

I really want a tatoo...
Does anyone have any ideas?

[Lily Adams]

http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...c/happysad.jpg

And for the sailor side in me:
http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/a...c/DSCF0856.jpg



I like to give myself temporary tatoos.

[Idril]

Better be careful with those tattoos!



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/default.stm

You have to be so careful with foreign language tattoos. My advice would be to do your own research, don't depend on someone else's translation. Find a translation site, type in the word you want, then go to another translation site and do it again and then go to your local bookstore and find a dictionary for that language and look up the word again. It might be work but it's worth it to avoid a lifetime of embarrassment.

[Virgil]

There is a great George Carlin joke about that. It goes something like this. A woman is proud of the tattoo of the oriental writing on the small of her back. She says it's something spiritual. When someone questions it she goes to a translator only to find out it means "beef with brocoli."

[packersfan]

I'm interested to know what you guys think of graffiti, tattooes, and piercings.

I personally think pretty graffiti is okay, just because it looks cool and it could add spice to boring places in need of a little "touch-up"- but then again ugly, graffiti is not cool and worthless and could ruin a lot of beautiful places.

It would be cool if the "cool" graffiti was allowed but it would be difficult to draw the line, I guess...

Tatooes are cool all the way round except they're permanent and could cause infection.

And I think ear piercings are cool on both guys and girls but it could cause infection as well.

I'm thinking of getting a tattoo, but I'm kind of unsure, so I'm really interested to hear what you guys think, as well as graffiti and piercings.

Thanks so much.

[Virgil]

I'm interested to know what you guys think of graffiti, tattooes, and piercings.

I personally think pretty graffiti is okay, just because it looks cool and it could add spice to boring places in need of a little "touch-up"- but then again ugly, graffiti is not cool and worthless and could ruin a lot of beautiful places.

I couldn't care less what deformations, disigurements, and crap you do your body or your property, but I don't take kindly to graffiti. Whose property are you criminally disfiguring? Do you own that property? Someone had to spend their money for that property and without permission you have commited a crime. I hope the police catch your *** and throw you in jail. And that is still too good for you.

How dare you.

[packersfan]

And that is prescisly why i asked that question.
I've shifted my opinion over a little bit- good for you, very persuasive.
I personally have never committed that crime (or a crime for that matter, so no need to be angry with me. I thought (past tense-im not entirely sure of what to think now) that is what somewhat cool. But nevermind. Thanks Virgil, I appreciate that.

[Shalot]

I hate to see ugly grafitti on most things but there are some parts of town that are so decrepit that I don't see how a little spray painted blocky/bubbly words in blue and purple outlined in black could hurt. If the windows are busted out or the inside is burned out and all that's left is a brick shell, I don't see how spray painting it harms. If anyone does own it, they obviously don't give a damn about it. And in this town there are several blocks of buildings just like that and the grafitti there doesn't bother me AT ALL. I drive past it on the way to work and I think, "it looks better than it did."

Now, if a brand new bridge is built, and some bored teenager with nothing else to do goes and spray paints it, then I have the reaction that Virgil expressed.

tattoos and body piercings are fine, but excessive tattoos and piercings or those that make a person look scary somehow kind of gross me out and I feel sorry for that person because I think one day they will wake up regretting what they've done to themselves.

[stephofthenight]

tats are fun!!!
not that painfull, its just like a couple of bee stings, depending on where and how big it is.

[Virgil]

I hate to see ugly grafitti on most things but there are some parts of town that are so decrepit that I don't see how a little spray painted blocky/bubbly words in blue and purple outlined in black could hurt. If the windows are busted out or the inside is burned out and all that's left is a brick shell, I don't see how spray painting it harms. If anyone does own it, they obviously don't give a damn about it.

Still not the point. It's not yours to do as you please. It belongs to someone else. If you have a beat up old car, does that give someone the right to put a few more dents in it, or spray paint it? Nothing disheartens a community more when people don't respect others private property. It makes people who might invest give up.

[Shalot]

Still not the point. It's not yours to do as you please. It belongs to someone else. If you have a beat up old car, does that give someone the right to put a few more dents in it, or spray paint it? Nothing disheartens a community more when people don't respect others private property. It makes people who might invest give up.

It also disheartens a community to see busted up buildings that are neglected. And I seriously doubt a little spray paint is going to deter an investor who sees a business opportunity.

and those ugly neglected buildings are worse than graffitti because someone with money owns those and needs to take responsibilty for them. with grafitti, it's normally bored kids doing it, and yes it's wrong and yes they should be punished, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig - lipstick or not - it's still a pig. Sort of a backwards analogy there, I guess.

If I have an old beat-up car parked in an otherwise aesthetically pleasing neighborhood, the neighbors are going to be mad at me about that car being there bringing the property values down, and they won't have any sympathy for me when some kid comes along and smashes it with a baseball bat and paints "Piece of ****" on the side of it. It's the same thing with those neglected buildings sitting there year after year, making the city look like a dump. At that point, you can spray them or not, but they're still going to be ugly, neglected and hazardous.

[Virgil]

It also disheartens a community to see busted up buildings that are neglected.

Still not your property do do as you please.

And I seriously doubt a little spray paint is going to deter an investor who sees a business opportunity. and those ugly neglected buildings are worse than graffitti because someone with money owns those and needs to take responsibilty for them.

Oh I do, because the potential investor evaluates the neighborhood. It's one thing for the neighborhood to be poor; it's another to be destructive.

with grafitti, it's normally bored kids doing it, and yes it's wrong and yes they should be punished, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig - lipstick or not - it's still a pig. Sort of a backwards analogy there, I guess.

Bored? I think they're more than bored. They could go play basketball if they're bored. I've read interviews with these punks. Their goal is to deface property with their icons, as if it gives them some sort of satisfaction to have their symbol on others property. They ought to have their hands...I won't say it.

If I have an old beat-up car parked in an otherwise aesthetically pleasing neighborhood, the neighbors are going to be mad at me about that car being there bringing the property values down, and they won't have any sympathy for me when some kid comes along and smashes it with a baseball bat and paints "Piece of ****" on the side of it.

I've seen rich people and poor people have beat up old cars. I've had a beat up old car and no one has ever told me it brought down property values. You mean your sympathy is with someone who puts a baseball bat through someone's windshield? Come on.

It's the same thing with those neglected buildings sitting there year after year, making the city look like a dump. At that point, you can spray them or not, but they're still going to be ugly, neglected and hazardous.

Well, then the community should do something about it. Fines and whatever legal measures are legit. Deface it is not.

[Shalot]

Still not your property do do as you please.

So, a businessman can leave a rundown, decrepit, hazardous building as is, just because he owns it?

Oh I do, because the potential investor evaluates the neighborhood. It's one thing for the neighborhood to be poor; it's another to be destructive.

spray paint is not destructive. Dyanmite and fire are destructive. and if the building is falling down anyway, what is the difference? I don't know why you are so upset about it.

Bored? I think they're more than bored. They could go play basketball if they're bored. I've read interviews with these punks. Their goal is to deface property with their icons, as if it gives them some sort of satisfaction to have their symbol on others property. They ought to have their hands...I won't say it.

some are bored. some are making a statement. I've known a few grafitti makers personally. I myself never went because I didn't have a tag. do you know what a tag is?

I've seen rich people and poor people have beat up old cars. I've had a beat up old car and no one has ever told me it brought down property values. You mean your sympathy is with someone who puts a baseball bat through someone's windshield? Come on.

You come on. Have you never been to a snotty neighborhood Virgil? you can't have junk in front of your house in certain communities. signage and certain yard decorations are prohibited as is a junky car. I am not talking about an old car that runs Virgil. I am talking about junk and some neighborhoods won't tolerate it. And they wouldn't have any sympathy if it was spray painted.

Well, then the community should do something about it. Fines and whatever legal measures are legit. Deface it is not.

Some grafitti is not meant to deface the property. And i stand by my statement: if a building is a run-down fire hazard that the owner won't fix or demolish, then I don't care if someone spray paints it.

[Virgil]

So, a businessman can leave a rundown, decrepit, hazardous building as is, just because he owns it?

Communities have leagl avenues to address that. If you're not aware of it go to a lawyer and your Congressman.

spray paint is not destructive. Dyanmite and fire are destructive. and if the building is falling down anyway, what is the difference? I don't know why you are so upset about it.

I have a problem with people who have a cavilier attitude about doing what they like with other people's property. These are all rationalizations. People can come up with rationalization to do or take your property. Would you be happy?

some are bored. some are making a statement. I've known a few grafitti makers personally. I myself never went because I didn't have a tag. do you know what a tag is?

Yes, I know what a tag is, and don't tell me they only put it on falling apart buildings. I see it in my neighborhood on people's fences. there is a special crime unit devoted to graffiti.

You come on. Have you never been to a snotty neighborhood Virgil? you can't have junk in front of your house in certain communities. signage and certain yard decorations are prohibited as is a junky car. I am not talking about an old car that runs Virgil. I am talking about junk and some neighborhoods won't tolerate it. And they wouldn't have any sympathy if it was spray painted.

I grew up in Brooklyn NY. Graffiti was everywhere. Toleration of bad behavior no matter how insignificant it was seemd caused New York City to fall from one of the great cities in this country (in the 1940s and 50s it was referred to as the capital of the world) to a pathetic run down crime infested hole in the 1960s through 1980s. Today by by cracking down on quality of life crime (graffiti, squeegy washers, pan ahndlers, turnstile jumpers, ) New York has resurged and is once again the best city in the country. Toleration of bad behavior is not acceptable or excusable. It leads people to do other things. I wonder what other crimes these punks are committing.

Some grafitti is not meant to deface the property. And i stand by my statement: if a building is a run-down fire hazard that the owner won't fix or demolish, then I don't care if someone spray paints it.

Well, we disagree. Punks ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one has the right to do anything to other people's property; anything else is rationalization.

[Shalot]

Communities have leagl avenues to address that. If you're not aware of it go to a lawyer and your Congressman.

in this community, a lot of our businessmen hold office so they can sidestep the legal process. If you're not aware of that fact of life, then wake up. If a grafitti artist wants to put his tag up on it, I don't give a crap.

Yes, I know what a tag is, and don't tell me they only put it on falling apart buildings. I see it in my neighborhood on people's fences. there is a special crime unit devoted to graffiti.

I never said that they only put it on run-down buildings only. where in my posts does it say that? it says that I don't care if they tag run-down buildings that are an eye-sore anyway. you need to read more carefully and if you are going to argue with me for the sake of arguing then I have nothing more to say to you other than to address the rest of this post. after that, I am finished with this discussion.

I grew up in Brooklyn NY. Graffiti was everywhere. Toleration of bad behavior no matter how insignificant it was seemd caused New York City to fall from one of the great cities in this country (in the 1940s and 50s it was referred to as the capital of the world) to a pathetic run down crime infested hole in the 1960s through 1980s. Today by by cracking down on quality of life crime (graffiti, squeegy washers, pan ahndlers, turnstile jumpers, ) New York has resurged and is once again the best city in the country. Toleration of bad behavior is not acceptable or excusable. It leads people to do other things. I wonder what other crimes these punks are committing.

Well, we disagree. Punks ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. No one has the right to do anything to other people's property; anything else is rationalization.

Where in my posts does it say that I think they ought not be prosecuted? They should be prosecuted if they get caught. I am just saying that I do not care if someone tags a cruddy row of buildings downtown.

some graffiti, (not all) can be considered an art form. in the sixties, graffiti was a way for political activists to get their message across. People like you have reduced all of it to vandelism, which admittedly some of it is, but not all of it. However, graffiti does have an interesting history of some of it has artistic merit.