Army's new tattoo policy

[Koldo]

Military personnel do not "surrender" to a higher authority, they recognize that someone must be in charge and that person normally in charge, but not all the time, is of higher rank.

If i understood him right...

By surrender, he means something more akin to allowing your own will to be overwritten by someone else's nearly without restrictions.

Isn't that what happens on army?

It appears that you think that military personnel are of low mental capabilities or think they are by your comment " their lack of knowledge" seems to imply this.

Lack of knowledge does not mean lack of intelligence.

By lack of knowledge, he meant something more like not being told what exactly you are getting yourself into when you are ordered to do something.

 

[esmith]

If i understood him right...

By surrender, he means something more akin to allowing your own will to be overwritten by someone else's nearly without restrictions.

Isn't that what happens on army?

Not sure what was meant by the statement, that will have to be clarified.
So what do you consider would be an example of someones own will being overwritten by someone else's without restircitons.

Lack of knowledge does not mean lack of intelligence.

By lack of knowledge, he meant something more like not being told what exactly you are getting yourself into when you are ordered to do something.

When you raise your right hand and took the oath of enlistment or oath of office for an officer you knew what you what was expected of you and what you were "getting yourself into". You also found out that when you violate regulations that there will be consequences, which seem to be missing in today's world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think it's a bad idea just because tattoos can serve as an easy way to identify a body. Personally I think having some ink should be encouraged just encase the identity of your remains comes into question. Even if it's just something like your kid's names across your back, or a Bible verse on your arm, or even your blood type, in that environment it just seems like a good idea to have at least a few tattoos.

 

[Koldo]

Not sure what was meant by the statement, that will have to be clarified.
So what do you consider would be an example of someones own will being overwritten by someone else's without restircitons.

Not being able to refuse orders. That is what i meant by that statement.

Once you become a soldier, no matter what you want to do, you have to carry out your orders nearly without restrictions. If you don't want to do A, but your order is to do A, then you have to do A.

When you raise your right hand and took the oath of enlistment or oath of office for an officer you knew what you what was expected of you and what you were "getting yourself into". You also found out that when you violate regulations that there will be consequences, which seem to be missing in today's world.

Which is exactly what Luis was talking about. You find it natural to accomplish your missions even if you are completely clueless on what is going on in the big scheme.

 

[LuisDantas]

Exactly. Soldiers effectively surrender their best judgement to the chain of command.

Which is a great idea if the only desired goal is a display of unified purpose. But there is a price to be paid, and I don't think it is a price worth paying at this point in History.

 

[Skwim]

IMO
I believe that tattoos are a fad that in later years will eventually come to haunt the vast majority of those who have them; particularly those with tattoos that are exposed when wearing normal clothing.
Cute and cleaver as they may seem now, I can't see their appeal lasting into later years. In fact, I predict a huge growth in the tat-removal business.

My advice to the highly decorated: Start saving now.

 

[Aquitaine]

If they're banning tattoos because they breach "uniformity", then does that mean the military should adopt a Gender-Neutral approach to their uniforms, instead of skirts for women/ trousers for men etc?

 

[averageJOE]

Not being able to refuse orders. That is what i meant by that statement.

Once you become a soldier, no matter what you want to do, you have to carry out your orders nearly without restrictions. If you don't want to do A, but your order is to do A, then you have to do A.



Which is exactly what Luis was talking about. You find it natural to accomplish your missions even if you are completely clueless on what is going on in the big scheme.

Exactly. Soldiers effectively surrender their best judgement to the chain of command.

Which is a great idea if the only desired goal is a display of unified purpose. But there is a price to be paid, and I don't think it is a price worth paying at this point in History.

You guys are aware that there is proper procedures for refusing to carry out orders, right?

 

[averageJOE]

If they're banning tattoos because they breach "uniformity", then does that mean the military should adopt a Gender-Neutral approach to their uniforms, instead of skirts for women/ trousers for men etc?

Yeah. They already do that.

The main reason is because the army has to reduce its numbers.

 

[LuisDantas]

You guys are aware that there is proper procedures for refusing to carry out orders, right?

I guess I am questioning whether the existing procedures should be considered proper.

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO
I believe that tattoos are a fad that in later years will eventually come to haunt the vast majority of those who have them; particularly those with tattoos that are exposed when wearing normal clothing.
Cute and cleaver as they may seem now, I can't see their appeal lasting into later years. In fact, I predict a huge growth in the tat-removal business.
My advice to the highly decorated: Start saving now.

Some tats are timeless though.....

 

[averageJOE]

I guess I am questioning whether the existing procedures should be considered proper.

Yes. It's proper just like any employer can refuse to hire someone because they have tattoos up and down their arms and neck.

 

[Skwim]

Some tats are timeless though.....

There are always exceptions.

Thanks.

 

[Mister_T]

Tattoos 50 years ago and tattoos now are very different. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone 50 years ago with a full sleeve as oppose to just a small picture or some letters on their arms, nowdays they're very common. The military is very strict, very rigid and very uniform. When you're serving, you have to dress a certain way, have your hair cut a certain way, talk to your superiors a certain way, etc.

You're there to serve and take orders, that is the nature of the job. There are employers here for civilians that don't allow you to have tattoos exposed in order to have the job, I'm not surprised the military would impose a limit on tattoos either. Times change and policies change along with it.

 

[Koldo]

You guys are aware that there is proper procedures for refusing to carry out orders, right?

As far as I am aware, in my country, soldiers are only allowed to refuse orders if they result in a crime.

What's it like in your country?

 

[esmith]

I think it's a bad idea just because tattoos can serve as an easy way to identify a body. Personally I think having some ink should be encouraged just encase the identity of your remains comes into question. Even if it's just something like your kid's names across your back, or a Bible verse on your arm, or even your blood type, in that environment it just seems like a good idea to have at least a few tattoos.

Tattoos are allowed as long as they are not visible while wearing a military uniform. So, if a service member wants a tattoo under those guidelines it is permissible.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. It's proper just like any employer can refuse to hire someone because they have tattoos up and down their arms and neck.

I must not have made myself clear.

The Armed Forces are not just like any employer. They are a branch of the government and have special privileges. And for that reason alone they are allowed to make such demands from its soldiers.

To say that there are proper protocols for dealing with disobedience, lack of unity or whatever is a bit misleading until and unless we establish that the existing protocols are in some meaningful sense proper.

I don't think that has been established, nor do I see how the military expectations and protocols as they exist now could be fairly considered proper. They are a relic from WW2 and before, and they badly need to go through major reconsideration, precisely because they think nothing of treating soldiers as a "property" of sorts.

 

[esmith]

I must not have made myself clear.

The Armed Forces are not just like any employer. They are a branch of the government and have special privileges. And for that reason alone they are allowed to make such demands from its soldiers.

To say that there are proper protocols for dealing with disobedience, lack of unity or whatever is a bit misleading until and unless we establish that the existing protocols are in some meaningful sense proper.

I don't think that has been established, nor do I see how the military expectations and protocols as they exist now could be fairly considered proper. They are a relic from WW2 and before, and they badly need to go through major reconsideration, precisely because they think nothing of treating soldiers as a "property" of sorts.

You seem to paint a broad picture of policies and procedures that you find objectionable, yet you fail to elaborate your opinion.
Just what expectations and protocols do you not see as "proper" and of those what would you change and why?

 

[LuisDantas]

You seem to paint a broad picture of policies and procedures that you find objectionable, yet you fail to elaborate your opinion.

Most of it should be fairly obvious. Basically, I seriously question the moral legitimacy of the existence of what we call Armed Forces.

Just what expectations and protocols do you not see as "proper" and of those what would you change and why?

Those that make it possible for soldiers to follow orders and attempt to kill and humiliate foreigners just out of matters of nationality or obedience to orders.

I would probably demand the extinction of the Armed Forces entirely.

 

[esmith]

Most of it should be fairly obvious. Basically, I seriously question the moral legitimacy of the existence of what we call Armed Forces.



Those that make it possible for soldiers to follow orders and attempt to kill and humiliate foreigners just out of matters of nationality or obedience to orders.

I would probably demand the extinction of the Armed Forces entirely.

I think I see your vision for how you would like to see humanity coexist. Unfortunately when you give up the ability to defend oneself there will always be those that want what you have or what they think you have. Your wish to live in a utopia that has no greed or violence has a probability of close to zero in you or your children's children lifetime.