> Getting scars on purpose is a quite questionable decision.
Interesting. Why?
Isn't it a common and longstanding cultural practice, even among indigenous peoples? Intuitively, I'd say body modification is based on the desire to shape one's own body, something we usually embrace in fitness culture and medicine, for example.
I don't have any tattoos or scars, but I can't think of anything that would make them questionable.
Perhaps some of the objection arises from a confusion between body modification and self-harm?
Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's good. We also shouldn't confuse self-mutilation with healthy activities like exercising simply because both "shape one's own body".
> Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean it's good.
This is true, although it is a good start, right? If a cultural practice has survived for many generations, this alone already indicates that the practice might be compatible with human society, morals, sustainability, etc.
> We also shouldn't confuse self-mutilation with healthy activities like exercising simply because both "shape one's own body".
True! We should indeed not confuse self-mutilation with healthy activities just because they share some similarities.
But would you classify scars or tattoos motivated by aesthetics as self-mutilation? What about piercings, such as holes for earrings or laser hair removal?
I believe that is an interesting and unusual position. Do you have an argument in favor of your (so far implicit) take?
> If a cultural practice has survived for many generations, this alone already indicates that the practice might be compatible with human society, morals, sustainability
Does it? This sounds like a disingenuous take that doesn't even pretend to bother with reality.
> But would you classify scars or tattoos motivated by aesthetics as self-mutilation?
Disingenuous question - the person you're replying to called you out for very obvious collating of body mutilation and fitness/medicine.
