- Location
- United States
And again, this really seems like a big exaggeration to me.You are trying to explain feelings and trauma with logic while forgetting it is not logical.
Trauma doesnt go away after being explained that the circumstances for it to trigger dont require it. They still freak out regaurdless.
The similarities are enough that it is likely to cause problems in the mental and emotional health of our soldiers and thus is not worth it when a very good alternative is present. Dog tags hardened and engraved with their name, legion, rank, and so on seems much better than triggering traumatic memories.
It is a simple matter of "Is having all our troops marked worth triggering their own trauma and possibly interfering with their effectiveness worth it when there is an alternative that would work better available?"
EDIT:
No, I'm just standing my ground. Look back at what I said. I only mused on it, it was never an actual proposal. Going "so and so would be great" does not constitute a demand.I tried explaining that earlier but for some reason he seems really insistent on having all our soldier given a tattoo that says their rank and legion.... even though it risks triggering existing trauma and doesnt make much sense as they can be transferred and they can rise in rank making the tattoos need to be overwritten as tattoo removal doesnt exist yet.
You get to worry if I put it forth in a vote, which I haven't.I don't have a problem with a the legion developing a culture around tattoos, but I do have an issue with what @Duesal is suggesting, which are specifically mandatory tattoos with name, rank and the mark of the Legion.