OT: He who speaks with forked tongue!

[Laughing Cow]

Guys and Gals.

Found this over on CNN, and I said to myself WTF.

pics might not be suitable or upsetting for some
Tongue splitting (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/05/13/tongue.splitting.ap/index.html)

What will those people do next to their buddies, chop of a leg??

Let me know what you guys think about it.

[@PLUGO]

That sort of thing is pretty old news...

I remeber as a kid seeing a documentary on a Yogi who did this to himself so that he could move each end of the toungue into each nazel cavity...

Yeah well aside from THAT the trendyness is pretty old...


Miller, a Democrat from Chicago's south suburbs, says he understands the notion of personal freedom. "But I'm not sure the people getting this done understand the risks," he says. "We're choosing safety over cosmetics."

This annoys the H3LL out of me!!! Who is this guy to say what's safe for whome!!!

Oh... by the way... there already is a fetish subculture that idealizes the removal of limbs. I even recall news accounts of a person who went "underground" to have a leg removed after a doctor refused to do it...

Not my cup of tea, though...

I would consider having an extra set of arms added on if there was tech that would allow for it.... I could then drive and roll a phattie at the same time!!!
;) :cool: :D :cool: ;)

[Laughing Cow]

DS.

It is still very new on this side of the water.
;)

Article said, I think, that there are still only 2000 people in the western world so far but that the numbers are growing quickly.

Just kinda extreme, most of the companies over here won't hire you if you got pierces or easy visible tattoos, never mind let you represent the company to an outsider if you got such a tongue mod.

Very career limting those body-modifications, IMHO.

Cheers.

[Kristoffer]

I think it's cool.. what's the fuzz about? :confused:

[Radhnoti]

I think we own our own bodies and, assuming someone is of sufficient age to be considered an adult, should be free to do what we want with it.
Politicians playing "nanny" to everyone should be voted out of office. I disagree with the current law REQUIRING that seat belts be worn for the same reasons. Requiring kids to wear seat belts, ok. But, not an adult who is capable of making his/her own decisions. I know that the argument against it comes down to "the state ends up paying the bill", and I think that's ridiculous...as it could be applied to almost anything that strays from the norm. It's frustrating, to me, when people making the laws assume everyone not in their "social strata" are too stupid to be allowed to live their life.

[MasterKiller]

I know that the argument against it comes down to "the state ends up paying the bill", and I think that's ridiculous...as it could be applied to almost anything that strays from the norm.
Seatbelt laws were passed because Insurance companies wanted them passed, not because the states cared. The insurance companies lobbied extensively and 'donated' a lot of money to get the laws passed to reduce their payouts for auto accident victims.

When it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see insurance money behind the recent Tobacco legislation. They lose a lot of money every year actually having to pay people's medical bills like they are supposed to.

My woman works in the medical billing industry. It's rife with corruption, and they will do anything to avoid paying out if they can, including having laws passed that favor them.

[Radhnoti]

Aaaahhhh. Mine eyes have been opened just a bit more then. Thanks for the perspective MK.

[Shuul Vis]

Im glad they passed a seatbelt law because it gets us thinking more about putting it on. BUT GET THIS, GDA was pulled over and took his belt off right in front of the officer so he could reach into the glove compartment to get his info and the cop tried to get him for not wearing his belt! That sht drives me crazy.

[Kuen]

I like guys like this and fully encourage more to follow his lead. Free entertainment is hard to come by these days. :p

As for laws against body modification? Rediculous. He can saw his own leg off if he wants, it is his "temple" after all.

[@PLUGO]

Radhnoti:
I totally hear you on the "nanny" effect. Don't Legislators have better things to spend our time with than what people should & shouldn't do!!!

MasterKiller:
Spot on with that er... conspiracy. It kind of cuts both ways you know... can we as a sociaty legislate against "stupidity?"

Shuul Vis:
GDA was pulled over and took his belt off right in front of the officer so he could reach into the glove compartment to get his info and the cop tried to get him for not wearing his belt! This happened to a friend of mine as well, the car was packed as well. The Cop just did as cops do taking the info then returned with a ticket for the red-light he went through AND a ticket for the "no-seatbelt." Everyone in the car was in an uproar as we all saw RICH remove the seatbelt so as to reach into the Glove-box...
He could totally have fought that ticket with any of us as witness... He opted to just pay it & skip the hassle... when I hear that I could's slaped him!!!

Laughing Cow:
It is still very new on this side of the water.
Didn't mean to come off all smug... living in the Bay Area California there are many opportunities to catch the leading edge of this sort of thing...er... ya'know...;) :cool:

The new thing I've caught glimses of is high-tech body mods... Lights lazers and such. Read about someone inserting battery powered lights (super-tinny ones) under the skin... similar to how people incert the steel balls under the skin.

What? you haven't seen that?

google some picks...

[apoweyn]

Radhnoti,


Originally posted by Radhnoti
I think we own our own bodies and, assuming someone is of sufficient age to be considered an adult, should be free to do what we want with it.
Politicians playing "nanny" to everyone should be voted out of office. I disagree with the current law REQUIRING that seat belts be worn for the same reasons. Requiring kids to wear seat belts, ok. But, not an adult who is capable of making his/her own decisions. I know that the argument against it comes down to "the state ends up paying the bill", and I think that's ridiculous...as it could be applied to almost anything that strays from the norm. It's frustrating, to me, when people making the laws assume everyone not in their "social strata" are too stupid to be allowed to live their life.

Yeah, but what's the rationale for not wearing a seatbelt beyond "I don't have to if I don't want to"? If that's the crux of a person's argument, it's a bit thin. Law aside, freedom is mitigated by judgment. And if that sort of judgment is determining behavior, that's not a great thing.

I basically agree with you. But people who are going to make those sorts of choices would do well to understand the consequences ahead of time.

Take Gary Busey for example. All about personal freedom before he comes off his motorbike without a helmet and has to relearn how to walk. Now, his take is slightly different. And I suspect he'd do it differently given the chance.


Stuart B.

[Radhnoti]

A change of heart for how to treat HIS body would be Gary Busey's right. Gary Busey deciding everyone else should be forced to wear helmets based on his own common sense, would NOT be his right.

apoweyn -"...people who are going to make those sorts of choices would do well to understand the consequences..."

I agree to an extent. I feel one of the problems we face today is a lack of personal accountability. It's not for the government to micro-manage every facet of our day to day lives on the off chance that we might be too ignorant or stupid to make the proper choices in life. Especially not the U.S. government which was expressly set up in such a way as to limit it's influence. I do disagree with you about, "I don't have to if I don't want to" being a weak argument though. Phrased another way it's (at it's core) the same argument as, "What makes you think YOU have the right to tell me what to do?"...which I think is an excellent argument.

Ownership of my own body and the right to do with it what I wish, I suspect, is one of those "self-evident rights" the framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought it would be necessary to mention.

.....

One of many that seem to be slipping away from us...

Rep. Ron Paul for President!

:D

[rogue]

Ownership of my own body and the right to do with it what I wish, I suspect, is one of those "self-evident rights" the framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought it would be necessary to mention. I think their ideas of self expression didn't include sticking things through their tongues and eyebrows.

[Laughing Cow]

Ownership of my own body and the right to do with it what I wish, I suspect, is one of those "self-evident rights" the framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought it would be necessary to mention.

Except that this goes against good christian values and since the founders and writers of the constitution were christians.

The same reason why suicide, abortion assisted suicide and similar are illegal, Judeo-Christian values.

But at 500$ a pop for the op I would have thought that the medical profession loved it as they already do many other unnecessary body mods (circumcision, plastic surgery, etc).

OTOH, there is no medical reason why tongue splitting should be advocated or practiced.

I have nothing against well-done tatoos, certain piercings, but when it comes to mutilating the Body just to be different and for the shock value I draw the line.

One thing I was told by my parents when topics like that came up, ask yourself a few questions:
1.) Would you do it to yourself
2.) Would you like it in your life-partner and your kids.
3.) How will it affect your work and social life.

FWIW, there are a few diaries online that were created by people that underwent the mod and detail the 3 weeks after the op. Interesting read, for anybody thinking about getting it done. ;)

Cheers.

[@PLUGO]

I have nothing against well-done tatoos, certain piercings, but when it comes to mutilating the Body just to be different and for the shock value I draw the line.

That's fine & fair enough... The question is weither some-one that has that view should be allowed to set into motion a means to have that line drawn for someone else?

[joedoe]

So why is suicide considered a crime? And aren't self-mutilators often treated as mentally ill?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
So why is suicide considered a crime? And aren't self-mutilators often treated as mentally ill?


If I remember the little bit of christianity that I was taught suicide is a mortal sin and a guarantee to sit by the warm fire.

Both suicides and self-mutilators are treated as mentally ill, where I come from.

Cheers.

[GeneChing]

I'm already circumcised - that's enough social scarification on me. As long as the let me burn a dragon and tiger in my forearms.... :eek:

[joedoe]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow



If I remember the little bit of christianity that I was taught suicide is a mortal sin and a guarantee to sit by the warm fire.

Both suicides and self-mutilators are treated as mentally ill, where I come from.

Cheers.

I guess my point is that we put limitations on people who wish to kill themselves, or harm themselves through self mutilation, but are now arguing that we don't have the right to limit them from 'body modifications' like tongur piercing and amputations?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by joedoe
I guess my point is that we put limitations on people who wish to kill themselves, or harm themselves through self mutilation, but are now arguing that we don't have the right to limit them from 'body modifications' like tongur piercing and amputations?

I am not too sure what is going on.

Some people I talked to are for the Body-mod, but are against muslims cutting their heads during a pilgrimage.

I think that too many people became too self-centred/egositic and start now lashing out at anybody that tries to restrict them or show them another viewpoint that they are not comfortable with.

To a certain degree I think it has to do with the world getting "smalller" and more information is becoming available via the news/Internet, etc which resulted in a form of culture shock.

Just some random thoughts.

[joedoe]

Well for me personally, I don't really care what other people want to do to their bodies. However I do find it hard to understand why you might want to fork your tongue or remove a limb. I only barely understand why people get into body piercing :eek:

[Laughing Cow]

To a certain degree I can understand why people would want to go for it.
Not going to give my opinion about their motivation here though.
;)

At the same time they must also accept the limitations and reactions that they are imposing upon themselves by doing those things.

IMHO, too many people opt for those without doing proper research or having thought about the long-term impacs of them. And later on it becomes kinda an addiction or competition.

As the article said one Soldier had reconstructive surgery because he is afraid of getting kicked out because of it.

[Budokan]

My wife works for a large insurance company. More than once she's had to put a Stop Payment on a claim made by pregnant men. Yep, that's right, the company is so f*cking stupid it doesn't know any better than not to pay out a false claim to a pregnant man...

[Shaolin-Do]

"tongur piercing and amputations"

No limitations on tounge piercings because law makers like blow jobs too.
:)

[@PLUGO]

I think the interesting point of discourse can be found not in the question of why someone would want to or be allowed to fork their tongue or amputate a leg... but is more accuarately touched on with the questions of:

Why is Suicide illegal?

and

Why must I ware a seat belt?


it seems to me that there's an underling connection with one's duty to society.
The Suicide debate is made more interesting when intersected with the Dr. Kavorkian (sp?) doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Might it be that suicide is frowned upon (aside from the religious views) because it removed a potentially useful member of society from the community?
As suicidial tendancies are viewed as a form of illness there's still a question of how "useful" such a person can be within a community. However a look at the industry of medicine (particularly for the "mentally ill") may reveal that even an unwilling participant may measure as of some value to that system.

Now consider the view of suicide when it's called "Seppuku" The act then intersect society at a very different point.

Could it be that something like willfully amputating one's leg is viewed in a similar light in that it's viewed as negatively impacting the community?
There's an ongoing debate in our culture about how much resources should be devoted towards access for those with "disabilities." Weither it's wheelchair access or "disability" pay, there is already a sort of duty society has towards these individuals.
In that light it sort of makes sence to frown upon someone intentionally placing themselves in a catagory to recieve similar benefits...

Bringing it back to Tougue splitting; do these same views apply? It's been mentioned that such a modification may inhibit one's ability to "get a certain job" this is also true if you've got purple hair.. or in some cases a beard.
Does this then become a matter of superficial appearances?

or Taboos?

take for instance 2 cultures:
<b>Culture A)</b> has strick taboos against a woman appearing in public topless.

<b>Culture B)</b> Has no such taboos.

What happens when the two "meet" on the ever schrinking global stage? I guess that's the challange of multiculturalism.

Jeeze... I'll get back to the seatbelt bit later, if noone else wants to break it down...

:p

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by joedoe
So why is suicide considered a crime? And aren't self-mutilators often treated as mentally ill?

To my understanding, suicide is a crime because it then gives the authorities the 'right' to see that the person gets proper treatment. And while many may see that as a violation of the person's rights, others would argue that the person doesn't have the judgment to make that call at that time.

Again, saying that can be interpreted as limiting that person's rights. And I'm not necessarily advocating that. But consider this: Many suiciders seem to want to tell people something. But lack the language to do so. I get the feeling (and that's all this is, honestly) that they often lack the sense of reality to understand that once they've sent the message, they won't be around to benefit from it.

I had a former student who killed himself. He was also a student of my friend, the guy that ran the school. (I only taught a couple of classes a week.) This guy stopped in to chat with Matt that afternoon. Hung himself (with his belt) that evening.

Why? Why come and chat with Matt if he was planning to 'end it all' that night?

I think he was trying to say something. But couldn't do it by the conventional means. So the illegality of suicide is to give the authorities the right to give this guy the treatment he needs to get the opportunity to say what he has to say. It's a bit convoluted, granted. But this is mental health after all. It's all a bit convoluted.

Think about it. How many times (in the DC metro area alone) has traffic come to a standstill because some guy is threatening to jump off the Woody Wilson bridge? Held up for hours. If the actual, wholehearted intent was to die, then they'd jump. Pronto. But it's not. The intent is to be helped. But the person is unable to ask for it.

That's my theory anyway. People who really want to die probably don't get arrested very often. Because they succeed.


Stuart B.

[Radhnoti]

rogue - "I think their ideas of self expression didn't include sticking things through their tongues and eyebrows."

Yeah, but I bet they'd have thought the government that outlawed such things tyrranical. They wanted their government small and out of their way.


L.C. - "Except that this goes against good christian values and since the founders and writers of the constitution were christians.
The same reason why suicide, abortion assisted suicide and similar are illegal, Judeo-Christian values."

Not disagreeing...exactly. There may be a Judeo-Christian backdrop for a lot of U.S. law...but everything you mentioned is not illegal (abortion)...and if it IS it's a hotly contested topic in the U.S. (physician assisted suicide).

As for the founders and writers of the Constitution all being Christian...
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Also: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Jefferson later took a bible and cut out everything he found ridiculous or unbelievable...which was a lot. It's still known as "The Jeffersonian Bible".
George Washington, "father" of the U.S. : "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." He did go to church, but never said he was Christian and didn't call for a priest on his death bed.
Many people forget that atheism was quite the scholarly rage around the time of the founding of our country, and several of the founders claimed to be atheist....Ben Franklin for instance proudly proclaims himself atheist in his autobiography.

"Under God" was not added to the Pledge of Alliegiance until after WWII...and my grandpa still forgets to put it in there.

Not saying that Christianity had NO effect on the development of the U.S., just that I think it's effect is overstated and overrated.

Be kind Christians, it's just my POV. ;)

[apoweyn]

Radhnoti,


Originally posted by Radhnoti
A change of heart for how to treat HIS body would be Gary Busey's right. Gary Busey deciding everyone else should be forced to wear helmets based on his own common sense, would NOT be his right.

Well, I definitely see your point. But I don't think it's unusual or reprehensible for a government to take steps to see that its citizenry doesn't get smeared all over its highways.


I agree to an extent. I feel one of the problems we face today is a lack of personal accountability. It's not for the government to micro-manage every facet of our day to day lives on the off chance that we might be too ignorant or stupid to make the proper choices in life. Especially not the U.S. government which was expressly set up in such a way as to limit it's influence. I do disagree with you about, "I don't have to if I don't want to" being a weak argument though. Phrased another way it's (at it's core) the same argument as, "What makes you think YOU have the right to tell me what to do?"...which I think is an excellent argument.

Well, in all fairness to you, I can see this point as well. "I don't have to if I don't want to" is essentially a statement of personal freedom. And personal freedom, as an ideal, is not only worth fighting for. But dying for. The question, to my mind, is whether people pick their battles very intelligently. Personally, I have much more reservations about the guy who wants the right to be flung through his windshield than about the guy who wants to see a dictatorship toppled. Both are expressions of freedom. But one just seems kinda... trite to me.

That said, that's only my opinion. And personal freedom is bigger than that.


Ownership of my own body and the right to do with it what I wish, I suspect, is one of those "self-evident rights" the framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought it would be necessary to mention.

I think you're probably right about that. My only reservation is that we spend so much of our lives trying to 'figure out who we are' that self expression through amputation seems daft. Hell, look at tattoo removal. Those guys do alright. Why? Because someone wanted to say something at one point in his life and wanted to take it back later. But we can't put arms back.

Again, that's just a personal take.


Stuart B.

[Laughing Cow]

Radhnoti.

Thanks, for your post.

Not being american, I am natually not fully up on all the smaller details.

Said that, a lot of the things I said apply to a large section of Christian countries, including my home-country.
Granted thins have started to change in the last 20yrs.

But there are still a LOT of Laws out there both US and non-US that have a very cler judeo-christian influence.
And I think that the influence 200 or so years was way stronger than it is now.

Abortion is still illegal in many countries unless there are special circumstances like rape or similar.

Cheers.