this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
68 points (77.0% liked)

Controversial - the place to discuss controversial topics

498 readers
295 users here now

Controversial - the community to discuss controversial topics.

Challenge others opinions and be challenged on your own.

This is not a safe space nor an echo-chamber, you come here to discuss in a civilized way, no flaming, no insults!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, "trust me bro" is not a valid argument.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe you’re responding to an argument I didn’t quite make.

I wasn’t saying “any external change = validation.” I was talking specifically about physiological body modification done to fit in or ‘pass’ … that’s a much narrower category than general self-expression via…

Ah, that's my bad, i read it as all body mods are external validation driven.

Clothes, hairstyles, accessories, etc. aren’t comparable. Those are temporary, low-stakes, and reversible. I’m talking about chronic physical changes to the body.

Stakes are relative in this case, just because you care about the permanence or reversibility of a modification doesn't mean others do.

but yeah, it's not an exact match.

And even then, I didn’t claim external validation is the only reason, but just that it’s a common psychological driver in some cases. So no, the logic doesn’t expand to “everything non-functional.” That’s a mischaracterization.

see above

On the “God’s design” point, you’re also stretching it into areas I wasn’t talking about. Medical interventions like glasses, mobility aids, or corrective surgery (like cleft lip repair) are about restoring function or alleviating harm.

This we'll have to disagree on, unless you have a convincing way of explaining why we can't improve on gods design with stylistic choices, but medical intervention is ok.

I realise how that sounds (to me at least) but your phrasing didn't leave any leeway in that it didn't really specify what about gods design could possibly be improved upon.

It also gets into conversation about what exactly constitutes harm, psychological harm exists and can be just as devastating as physical harm.

Not to mention that psychological harm can cause physical harm, i don't mean self-harm (though that's a thing also) i mean detrimental physiological changes brought about by negative psychological pressure.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

My answer to this would be contingent upon your answer to "what about god's design is possible for us to improve upon?".

If you want to challenge the position, that’s fine, but it should be the position I actually stated, not a broader version of it.

That's fair, though as i said your position was unclear in that the statement seems to be an absolute with no specification as to boundaries.

I did go back and adjust my statement to ask a question around boundaries in the original reply, I’m not sure if you replied before or after this.

If you don't mind giving me some clarification on where those boundaries exist i can be more specific.

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol. It was more rhetorical shorthand, and yeah, a bit tongue-in-cheek(I'm atheist). The actual point I care about isn’t at all theological, it’s about where we draw the line between restoring function and altering a healthy body for social or aesthetic reasons.

That's my boundary.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The “God’s design” line wasn’t meant as a literal argument! Lol.

That's a very poor choice of phrase for a conversation with no cues outside of text.

And you've managed to go through my entire previous reply without mentioning that you didn't actually mean it, which is additionally confusing.

So i'll assume function restoration and harm reduction are the line for you, now i can answer the statement i skipped.

My counter would be the opposite. And this is really the core. If cleft lips became a fad and people willingly cleft their own lips when they were normal before. That’s insane, IMO. That’s jumping off the cliff because Bobby Jones did.

I wasn't comparing cleft lip restoration to tattoos, piercings or split tongues because that's a terrible comparison, one is functionally restorative and the others are aesthetic aside from the split tongue which is also functionally additive.

I was using it as an example as to why "god's design" is a poor argument.

As it seems "god's design" wasn't an actual argument you were making, this is less relevant.


I would point you back to my arguments about psychological harm reduction in it's many forms, some of which are societal in nature (fitting in, for example).

I'm not advocating for caving to peer pressure against someone’s will, I’m saying that voluntary personal choices that include societal considerations can contribute to a foundation of long term psychological harm reduction.

In simpler terms, finding your people and fitting in can help you feel better both mentally and physically.

As you've stated you're not forcing your opinion on others, we can agree to disagree on where the lines are with no real consequences.

Might be worth considering that not all harm is physical or immediate, when assessing what constitutes harm reduction.

[–] fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It just wasn't meant literally. Again, it's rhetorical. That's still an argument...

It's not a great argument if taken literally but that's also why it was chosen, the ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Indeed, there are endless gods, and which one I may have been referring to absolutely isn't relevant(I'm not making a theological argument.) When you understand that, it becomes a stronger argument.

I'm essentially arguing that people should embrace their nature rather than deny it or subvert it.

Replace god with nature, basically.

If you need to pave paradise and put up a parking lot to fit in, I guess you'll have your reward? But it'll also be your undoing.