Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Two vast and trunkless legs of stone => Topic started by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM

Title: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability".  I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Western Standards of Beauty (female): 

1.  Emaciated woman that looks like someone stapled cantalopes to the chest of a 14 year old boy.  Not my thing, but there you have it...Or

2.  Rubenesque curves that are constantly 2-3% away from actually being fat.

3.  Perpetually 25 years old.

Western Standards of Beauty (male):

1.  Flat stomach that you could play the xylophone on.

2.  GI Joe face.

3.  Perpetually 30 years old.

In both cases, an impossible standard is set up.  It's just another trap for you to obsess over.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 21, 2012, 08:18:40 PM
While we pay lip service to the notion that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," it's pretty evident that society at large has decided it will tell us what is and is not beautiful, at least when it comes to the human form, and I think TGRMY's descriptions are spot-on about this decade's arbitrary definitions of beauty. But is there some kind of beauty in human form that transcends cultural definitions like these? Is there some shape that would be instantly recognized as "beautiful" by all people from all cultures in all eras?

I actually don't think there is, given the immense range of forms that are now and have historically been considered beautiful. Beyond the laughably obvious features that are common to all beautiful people ("is not dead," and "is not suffering from open infected sores on 90% of his/her body," etc.), I'd say our entire concept of what we find beautiful is completely programmable. This is confirmed by how easy it is to overcome your initial impression of someone's looks when you get to know them better: an apparently unattractive woman can become Venus with the right kind of smile or a tendency to laugh at the right kind of jokes, and a goddess whose hair glistens in the sunlight like she stepped out of a Tampax commercial can be transformed into a grunting troll with no more than a sneer.

Since beauty is programmable (and not only by culture, but by ourselves), I'd lump beauty in with other programmable perceptions like happiness and freedom, and I'd say it is our responsibility to recognize that and treat beauty or lack of beauty no more important a place in our criteria when judging others as any other attribute.

Sorry, kinda mixed the two threads here.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability".  I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Western Standards of Beauty (female): 

1.  Emaciated woman that looks like someone stapled cantalopes to the chest of a 14 year old boy.  Not my thing, but there you have it...Or

2.  Rubenesque curves that are constantly 2-3% away from actually being fat.

3.  Perpetually 25 years old.

Western Standards of Beauty (male):

1.  Flat stomach that you could play the xylophone on.

2.  GI Joe face.

3.  Perpetually 30 years old.

In both cases, an impossible standard is set up.  It's just another trap for you to obsess over.

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

Sure, they have to market to the women who like the older guys.  But these days, almost every male shown in a movie or TV show is about 30.

Also, on this subject, ever notice a common thread in the pics of women that Hrap always posts?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 21, 2012, 08:26:25 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability".  I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Western Standards of Beauty (female): 

1.  Emaciated woman that looks like someone stapled cantalopes to the chest of a 14 year old boy.  Not my thing, but there you have it...Or

2.  Rubenesque curves that are constantly 2-3% away from actually being fat.

3.  Perpetually 25 years old.

Western Standards of Beauty (male):

1.  Flat stomach that you could play the xylophone on.

2.  GI Joe face.

3.  Perpetually 30 years old.

In both cases, an impossible standard is set up.  It's just another trap for you to obsess over.

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

People Magazine does that "World's Sexiest Man" thing every year. I think one year they picked Sean Connery...when he was about 80.  :lol:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

Sure, they have to market to the women who like the older guys.  But these days, almost every male shown in a movie or TV show is about 30.

Also, on this subject, ever notice a common thread in the pics of women that Hrap always posts?

Titties.  There was that one time he did the worlds tallest supermodel, who had the visible outline of a penis in the picture.

I would, rather than focusing on TV shows for my data on this, instead look to people cast in commercials.  A TV character is who we would like to be, if we could lose ourselves in the fantasy.  A person on a commercial is who we see ourselves as (because then it's easier to get our money).

Neither is reflective of reality, but one is a more accurate assessment of where our heads actually are than the other.  Ultimately I'm driving at using both the TV characters and the guys in the Viagra/cialis ads as being what our standard for male beauty is.......  All just variations on the same theme of course.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

Sure, they have to market to the women who like the older guys.  But these days, almost every male shown in a movie or TV show is about 30.

Also, on this subject, ever notice a common thread in the pics of women that Hrap always posts?

Titties. 

Nope.  They're all about 19 years old.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

Sure, they have to market to the women who like the older guys.  But these days, almost every male shown in a movie or TV show is about 30.

Also, on this subject, ever notice a common thread in the pics of women that Hrap always posts?

Titties. 

Nope.  They're all about 19 years old.

I never really noticed that.  But then again I never really paid that much attention to Rap. He just always struck me as the guy who tries to play the dozens, but fucks it up horribly.  No one calls him on it, because no one really wants to get into it with him, and they need him around for something.

I'd trade him for Huey any day of the week, but that's because I happen to like Huey.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:41:16 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:39:09 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:36:19 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:34:15 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:22:36 PM

I'd stipulate to this, save for the age thing.  At least for males.  While there's plenty of evidence to be had for a female standard of beauty being pegged at a certain age, I'm not completely convinced that the male age requirements are set.  Look at some of the older gentlemen who are held out as standards of masculinity far beyond the 30 year mark.......

Sure, they have to market to the women who like the older guys.  But these days, almost every male shown in a movie or TV show is about 30.

Also, on this subject, ever notice a common thread in the pics of women that Hrap always posts?

Titties. 

Nope.  They're all about 19 years old.

I never really noticed that.  But then again I never really paid that much attention to Rap. He just always struck me as the guy who tries to play the dozens, but fucks it up horribly.  No one calls him on it, because no one really wants to get into it with him, and they need him around for something.

I'd trade him for Huey any day of the week, but that's because I happen to like Huey.

Huey's his son, right?  He hasn't been on the board in ages.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:54:25 PM
That's the story we've been told.  And Tiamat is Huey's wife.  Honestly though I'm not sure how much of that is truth and how much of it is something else.  As with most of the stories were told about the posters there.....
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:57:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yep.

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:57:59 PM
Why I bothered posting the OP is beyond me.  Slow learner, I guess.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:59:56 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:57:59 PM
Why I bothered posting the OP is beyond me.  Slow learner, I guess.

Oh, I don't know, Texas Faeries made a good point a few posts back, before you and I turned this into the bitching about other people we know thread.  It can be rescued.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.

Get down off your cross so we can use the wood for something useful, Roger.  Like making a Trojan bunny.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 09:01:11 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.

Get down off your cross so we can use the wood for something useful, Roger.  Like making a Trojan bunny.

Fuck you.  Get your own tree.

TGRR,
CAN'T GET THE LAST NAIL IN.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 21, 2012, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.
I was, actually, in the process of commenting initially. And then I decided it would be better to sit on the idea for a little while because that's how I do sometimes.
But sure, that kind of comment really makes me want to post in serious reply.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 09:06:15 PM
Personally, I use the word beautiful to describe anything that incites joy and inspiration. Physical or non-physical. There are beautiful landscapes, experiences, people, concepts, poems, feelings, etc.
That was part of what made me stumble in the last thread - because calling a person beautiful who isn't physically attractive could still be valid to me.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.
I was, actually, in the process of commenting initially. And then I decided it would be better to sit on the idea for a little while because that's how I do sometimes.
But sure, that kind of comment really makes me want to post in serious reply.

In a hundred years, people will still be discussing it.  No, really.  And I'm really fucking dumb and I have no idea when I'm being given the long look down the nose for the last three months or so. 

Now I just need someone to piss down my neck, so I can have them tell me it's raining.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 09:10:20 PM
Quote from: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 09:06:15 PM
Personally, I use the word beautiful to describe anything that incites joy and inspiration. Physical or non-physical. There are beautiful landscapes, experiences, people, concepts, poems, feelings, etc.
That was part of what made me stumble in the last thread - because calling a person beautiful who isn't physically attractive could still be valid to me.

And there's the disconnect in the other thread.  There are two definitions of beauty, at least, and people keep talking about your definition, when the thread was about beauty/attractiveness rather than beauty/aesthetics. 

Hot person walks by:  Beautiful --->  subject of other thread.

Elegant mathematical proof:  Beautiful --->  not the subject of the other thread.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 21, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
This is one of those debates that I think is going to be an issue of informal/personal usage versus dictionary definitions. And I think Roger said what I would've on the subject.



Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.
I was, actually, in the process of commenting initially. And then I decided it would be better to sit on the idea for a little while because that's how I do sometimes.
But sure, that kind of comment really makes me want to post in serious reply.

In a hundred years, people will still be discussing it.  No, really.  And I'm really fucking dumb and I have no idea when I'm being given the long look down the nose for the last three months or so. 

Now I just need someone to piss down my neck, so I can have them tell me it's raining.
I know they will and I haven't been looking down my nose at you. You sometimes irritate me but I still like and respect you, so I'm sorry if I've been coming off that way.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 21, 2012, 09:18:58 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
This is one of those debates that I think is going to be an issue of informal/personal usage versus dictionary definitions. And I think Roger said what I would've on the subject.
Also, related to Rog's post in response to you, Epi, I think it might be good to separate your informal usage of "beautiful" from the more formal kind of "beautiful" Nigel used.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
This is one of those debates that I think is going to be an issue of informal/personal usage versus dictionary definitions. And I think Roger said what I would've on the subject.

It's also people arguing just to argue, because the original statement Nigel made was put in strong tones, and strong tones are taken as a challenge, especially when they come from women.


Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:16:09 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 09:04:19 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: Internet Jesus on October 21, 2012, 08:58:15 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 21, 2012, 08:56:53 PM
Hrap? Someone at CG?

Yes.  Sorry to get so inside baseball here.

May as well use the thread for something.   :lulz:

It's not like Garbo was gonna comment on the OP.  I'm "part of the problem", you see.
I was, actually, in the process of commenting initially. And then I decided it would be better to sit on the idea for a little while because that's how I do sometimes.
But sure, that kind of comment really makes me want to post in serious reply.

In a hundred years, people will still be discussing it.  No, really.  And I'm really fucking dumb and I have no idea when I'm being given the long look down the nose for the last three months or so. 

Now I just need someone to piss down my neck, so I can have them tell me it's raining.
I know they will and I haven't been looking down my nose at you. You sometimes irritate me but I still like and respect you, so I'm sorry if I've been coming off that way.

Okay, a mistaken impression then.  I apologize.

But I'm not sure how I could be considered "irritating".  I have the sunniest fucking disposition of anyone on this board, or any other.  I'm like Jesus.  Or that Gandhi guy.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Epimetheus on October 21, 2012, 09:28:19 PM
I don't know if y'all remember, but I agreed with Nigel in that thread.

ftr, this isn't a personal definition vs REAL definition thing. (My definition is in dictionaries, and I'm sure all of yours are too.) It's just an issue of clear communication of which definition is being used - which in that thread came down to reading what Nigel actually wrote, which made it very clear.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 21, 2012, 09:31:07 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Okay, a mistaken impression then.  I apologize.

But I'm not sure how I could be considered "irritating".  I have the sunniest fucking disposition of anyone on this board, or any other.  I'm like Jesus.  Or that Gandhi guy.
Happens. I know I sometimes come off wrong, lol.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 21, 2012, 11:02:08 PM
There are many definitions of beauty, most of which are made clear by the context in which they're used.

As far as human physical beauty goes, you may have a strikingly beautiful person who is emphatically NOT sexually attractive, but the type of beauty that is idolized in Western culture at this point in time is a fairly specific type, as Roger pointed out. Fuckable. Not just fuckable, but idealized fuckable, media-fuckable.

Ideas about desirable-beauty change over time and vary from culture to culture.

The Flathead indians strapped a board to their babies' heads so they would have a flat, sloping forehead. That was beautiful.

To the Mursi, this is desirable-beautiful:

(http://deanstarnes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Mursi-Lip-Stretcher.jpg)

In Mauritania, young girls are force-fed to fatten them up because obesity is desirable-beautiful: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18141550/ns/health-health_care/t/mauritania-struggles-love-fat-women/#.UIRwFIXOScs

Foot-binding, head-binding, corseting, neck rings, extreme pallor, fat, emaciation, weakness, scarification, tattoos, and other seemingly random and often painful attributes have been, at different times, considered desirable-beautiful among various cultures. Most of them seem to have little or nothing to do with health, and some of them decrease the chances of successful reproduction.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 21, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.

This is why I don't really ever bother with trying to define some kind of objective or specific definition of "beauty". It varies too much over time and cultures. It's like trying to define "art"; largely useless, and inevitably devolves into wankery that derails the conversation.

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 21, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.

This is why I don't really ever bother with trying to define some kind of objective or specific definition of "beauty". It varies too much over time and cultures. It's like trying to define "art"; largely useless, and inevitably devolves into wankery that derails the conversation.

Hence this thread.

Like I said, beauty for me is something that I enjoy looking at or thinking about or experiencing.  I can't define it for MYSELF, let alone objectively.

But this sort of thing belongs over here in this thread.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 21, 2012, 11:58:56 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.

This is why I don't really ever bother with trying to define some kind of objective or specific definition of "beauty". It varies too much over time and cultures. It's like trying to define "art"; largely useless, and inevitably devolves into wankery that derails the conversation.

Hence this thread.

Like I said, beauty for me is something that I enjoy looking at or thinking about or experiencing.  I can't define it for MYSELF, let alone objectively.

But this sort of thing belongs over here in this thread.

I agree, completely.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 08:57:33 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.

This is why I don't really ever bother with trying to define some kind of objective or specific definition of "beauty". It varies too much over time and cultures. It's like trying to define "art"; largely useless, and inevitably devolves into wankery that derails the conversation.

Nail on head. Beauty is a reaction you have to something that happens. Art is a reaction you have to something that's made. Both subjective, regardless of how popular the opinion.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Sano on October 22, 2012, 02:07:05 PM
Well, I don't think discussing the meaning of beauty is useless even if you agree you can never quite get at it because a better-informed opinion about something is always, you know, better... There certainly is a lot of writings in the subject of beauty and/or art, and this is actually my main reason for studying philosophy.

Anyway, there's a case to be made that beauty (more specifically, an "aesthetic experience) occurs at least in part at a lower level than something so highly structured than the ego, so it isn't necessarily subjective.

And even if it's completely subjective or if the "hardware information" can be overridden by society there's still some gain in talking about/studying it. I mean, if you didn't you wouldn't even arrive at the conclusion that beauty is subjective.

Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 08:57:33 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 21, 2012, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 11:05:58 PM
In some cultures, women are partially crippled by having to wear high heels for extended lengths of time.  This makes them desireable.

In other cultures, women smear chemicals all over their faces, to change their complexion, or put unnatural colors around their eyes.  This makes them desireable.

Another culture has their women get their asses surgically altered, to meet an accepted standard of beauty.

It's a good thing we're not a primitive society like the Mursi or anything.

This is why I don't really ever bother with trying to define some kind of objective or specific definition of "beauty". It varies too much over time and cultures. It's like trying to define "art"; largely useless, and inevitably devolves into wankery that derails the conversation.

Nail on head. Beauty is a reaction you have to something that happens. Art is a reaction you have to something that's made. Both subjective, regardless of how popular the opinion.

Isn't that a definition?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 22, 2012, 02:14:13 PM
(http://www.stickboydaily.com/images/2009/05/ugliest-bride-ever-0.jpg)
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 22, 2012, 04:01:30 PM
I'm going to parallel TGRR's OP. 

Beautiful = A person having an aspect that makes them enjoyable to be around.

Pretty = A person who conforms to a social set of desirability/attractiveness.


GENERALIZATION: "Pretty" is mutable, whereas "Beautiful" can trancend social sets.

I think that a lot of people switch these two up when they're either using or hearing it.  So, in regards to Nigel's OP:

-It can be true that an unpretty person can beautiful.
-It can be true that an unbeautiful person can be pretty.
-It can be true that a pretty person can be beautiful.
-It can be true that an unpretty person can be unbeautiful.

So if you're trying to tell an unpretty person that they're pretty, that's going to come off as bullshit.
And if you're trying to tell an unbeautiful person that they're beautiful, that's also bullshit.

But if you tell an unbeautiful person they're pretty, they'll eat that shit up with a spoon.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
Beauty shifts, too. Person looks gorgeous, then you talk to them and it turns out they're a cunt - instant ugly, I can almost see them morph before my eyes. Likewise ugly person tells you their life story and it's sad as hell but they're still upbeat and they care more about other people than they do themselves and those squint eyes are suddenly sanctuary and they're beautiful cos they're not judging you.

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 22, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
Pent and LMNO, in spades.

And societal conditioning has limits. I'm not into commercial men, the ones you see in movies and ads. Never got what the big deal with Kevin Costner was, yuck. And guys in ads register in my mind as gay.

(http://www.businessoffashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/levis-s-s-09-ad-campaign-courtesty-of-levis.jpg)
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 22, 2012, 06:21:04 PM
More than a few of them are, actually.

But you should realize when I say "a social set of attractiveness", I don't mean the country's aggregate, I mean the genre's.

Punkers have a set of attractiveness.
Bankers have another.
Hippies like a certain look.
Bikers like another.

A goth will most likely think a pale girl with black shit all over her face and a velvet cape is "pretty".
A jock will go for the all-american blonde.

But they'll both enjoy the company of someone who is beautiful, regardless of how they're dressed.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 22, 2012, 06:34:48 PM
Thanks, that just made sense of it for me.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 06:49:49 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 22, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
Pent and LMNO, in spades.

And societal conditioning has limits. I'm not into commercial men, the ones you see in movies and ads. Never got what the big deal with Kevin Costner was, yuck. And guys in ads register in my mind as gay.

(http://www.businessoffashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/levis-s-s-09-ad-campaign-courtesty-of-levis.jpg)

I appreciate, fit, athletic looking bodies (male or female) from an aesthetic point of view and female ones turn me on a bit but the dude in that pic is a skinny, weak looking little fucker. Kinda puzzled as to who that's targeted at because presumably, for the same price, they could have hired someone similar but with a bit of muscle definition. has the "waif look" jumped from chicks to dudes or something? I must have missed that memo.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 22, 2012, 06:52:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 06:49:49 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 22, 2012, 06:15:54 PM
Pent and LMNO, in spades.

And societal conditioning has limits. I'm not into commercial men, the ones you see in movies and ads. Never got what the big deal with Kevin Costner was, yuck. And guys in ads register in my mind as gay.

(http://www.businessoffashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/levis-s-s-09-ad-campaign-courtesty-of-levis.jpg)

I appreciate, fit, athletic looking bodies (male or female) from an aesthetic point of view and female ones turn me on a bit but the dude in that pic is a skinny, weak looking little fucker. Kinda puzzled as to who that's targeted at because presumably, for the same price, they could have hired someone similar but with a bit of muscle definition. has the "waif look" jumped from chicks to dudes or something? I must have missed that memo.

I think it's spillover from the old Calvin Klein decadant junkie thing. They gave him a Beaver Cleaver haircut, though. Kind of throws the whole thing off.  :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 22, 2012, 06:58:23 PM
Twinks and hipsters.  Twinks and hipsters.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 22, 2012, 06:58:55 PM
Aaand LMNO beat me to the punch.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 22, 2012, 08:53:08 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:

He is, you know.  When I was out there, I had to beat the parking wardens off of him with a pry bar.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:56:10 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 22, 2012, 08:53:08 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:

He is, you know.  When I was out there, I had to beat the parking wardens off of him with a pry bar.

It's a good thing I supress my hunger by keeping that pry bar shoved halfway down my throat so I can remain so skinny.  It really helps to keep that thing handy.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:

My bad. I'm a fitness nazi. Srsly.  :oops:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 22, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Oh, I can see EoC flogging people with this for YEARS.   :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 09:13:36 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 09:01:02 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:

My bad. I'm a fitness nazi. Srsly.  :oops:

We've got to get our shit out in the open, P3nt.  Nigel said something like it in the other beauty thread, where we all make our appearance based judgments and the healthy thing about PD is that we recognize them and deal with them.  The other day I was in the deserted supermarket at 8:30 pm or so and I saw a pretty heavy woman walking with a double chocolate cake.  I immediately thought something like "she really doesn't need that" and then immediately after thought I'M A TERRIBLE FUCKING PERSON.  So I wasn't try to call you out, if it came across that way.

Quote from: Man Yellow on October 22, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Oh, I can see EoC flogging people with this for YEARS.   :lulz:

I think this comment has sailed past me.  Is it because I've mentioned this before?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 22, 2012, 09:21:09 PM
Hell yeah. I get caught fair and square with my monkey hanging out I'll be the first to jump down my throat... or maybe the second.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 22, 2012, 11:34:34 PM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:
Every body type is sexy, men and women all have their unique features. The only people I don't find beautiful are the ones that don't register, the boring ones who I can't distinguish or remember.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on October 23, 2012, 03:38:49 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability". I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Thank you for that. Reading through the quibbling in the other thread I kept thinking over and over why nobody had stipulated "visually". Sensually, smell plays a much bigger part than look in what I find attractive. I was beginning to think I was the only one.

Weird part is, the few things that really grab me visually, I could describe in perfect detail right down to my physiological response to them. Which smells attract or repel me, I couldn't even begin to generalize about even though when they hit me, they hit me like a fucking bar-stool. Probably has to do with being taught how to say, spell and identify colors in pre-K, and still not even being entirely sure if I could tell you what "acrid" means.

That also probably explains a lot about why I immediately wanted to jump on the OP in the other thread and start quibbling myself. My concept of visual beauty is so minute that I very, very rarely even think of it when I'm using the word beauty. My use of that word occurs much more in that alternate je ne sais quois sense, even when I'm explicitly using it to refer to sensual beauty.

This leaves kind of a tricky question, if the predominant understanding of "beauty" is visual physical attractiveness conforming to some objectively agreed upon standard, when I say "beautiful" in the sense I experience it, am I shooting off bad-signal without meaning to?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 23, 2012, 03:44:55 AM
Now that you mention smell, it's sound, too, the voice...
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Roly Poly Oly-Garch on October 23, 2012, 04:00:22 AM
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on October 22, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
I realize I've said it on the boards before, but it continues to bother me that we can't praise one type of attractiveness without degrading another.

If you're into big women, I'm pretty sure you're capable of saying that without equating anything else to ten year old boys.  It'd be like calling any average woman a fattie because you only dig supermodels.

You can include more people into a group without removing some from it, and without continuing the idea that people should be ashamed of their bodies.

And just so we're clear, I've got a body type similar to that dude if you add way more hair and I'm fucking gorgeous.   :lol:

Word!

(thread mingling) It's pretty fucking lame to me to see all this effort made to glorify the "+size" look and paint anyone who's skinny as some unhealthy anorexic basket case in the name of "promoting a healthy body image."

The fuck?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 23, 2012, 01:37:54 PM
Except a lot of young girls are harming themselves to be that skinny.

Some women have a naturally thin body type.  Many women abuse their bodies to try to look that way.

So when we talk about women who are ultra skinny, we're talking about a majority of women who are damaging themselves to look that way, with an outlier of high-metabolism fat-burners.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 05:50:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 01:37:54 PM
Except a lot of young girls are harming themselves to be that skinny.

Some women have a naturally thin body type.  Many women abuse their bodies to try to look that way.

So when we talk about women who are ultra skinny, we're talking about a majority of women who are damaging themselves to look that way, with an outlier of high-metabolism fat-burners.
beauty and healthy are not synonymous. I find a lot of body molding hot even when it goes wrong or could only be sustained fleetingly. the same could be said for finding beauty in anorexia or morbid obesity. beauty can be dangerous.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 23, 2012, 06:09:19 PM
That sounds a lot like you're ok with a culture promoting the damage of the physical and mental well-being of half the population for the benefit of a minority.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 23, 2012, 06:36:48 PM
Life is fleeting, some pursuits make it fleetinger. You want to juggle chainsaws and die in a mess of mangled shit when you're in your 20's? That's your prerogative and fuck anyone who tells you otherwise.

If, however, the reason you want to juggle chainsaws is because all the magazines tell you you're worthless if you can't keep half a dozen Husqvarnas in the air then there's a problem there.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 23, 2012, 06:42:36 PM
I think you said it better than I could, Pent.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 23, 2012, 06:47:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 06:09:19 PM
That sounds a lot like you're ok with a culture promoting the damage of the physical and mental well-being of half the population for the benefit of a minority.
This. I suggest you go observe people who are recovering from an eating disorder.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 23, 2012, 07:16:23 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 06:42:36 PM
I think you said it better than I could, Pent.

Don't beat yourself up over it. On a long enough timeline the law of averages dictates it had to happen. Should be back to normal soon enough  :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 06:09:19 PM
That sounds a lot like you're ok with a culture promoting the damage of the physical and mental well-being of half the population for the benefit of a minority.

I'm not ok with it. I'm just saying beauty and well being aren't the same. the pictures of the self immolation. are beautiful and terrible and powerful but not healthy.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 23, 2012, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 06:09:19 PM
That sounds a lot like you're ok with a culture promoting the damage of the physical and mental well-being of half the population for the benefit of a minority.

I'm not ok with it. I'm just saying beauty and well being aren't the same. the pictures of the self immolation. are beautiful and terrible and powerful but not healthy.

I wouldn't refer to them as beautiful.  Beautiful is something or someone I like to see, or an idea that gives me some sort of gratification.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 23, 2012, 07:24:03 PM
Bile fascination. Grotesque. But yeah, not beauty imo. But the emotional distress that accompanies this sort of thing makes my stomach turn far too much for me to even see those.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 09:50:26 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 23, 2012, 07:22:17 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 07:19:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 23, 2012, 06:09:19 PM
That sounds a lot like you're ok with a culture promoting the damage of the physical and mental well-being of half the population for the benefit of a minority.

I'm not ok with it. I'm just saying beauty and well being aren't the same. the pictures of the self immolation. are beautiful and terrible and powerful but not healthy.

I wouldn't refer to them as beautiful.  Beautiful is something or someone I like to see, or an idea that gives me some sort of gratification.
Beauty is something that has (to use a word I don't really like) a profound emotional significance for me. It may not be something I want to see, it is something I have to see. There is the delicate beauty the ones I love, who's tenderness and kindness carries with them in a sort of grace that I find beautiful.
Then there is the girl who was in the car crash who used to come into the shop I worked in who despite having no fingers, one eye and a harshly scarred face carries this confidence about her that makes her incredibly beautiful to me.

Maybe the fire image was a bad example, the physical aspect of it isn't the beautiful one it's the significance of it.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 23, 2012, 10:13:50 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on October 23, 2012, 03:38:49 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability". I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Thank you for that. Reading through the quibbling in the other thread I kept thinking over and over why nobody had stipulated "visually". Sensually, smell plays a much bigger part than look in what I find attractive. I was beginning to think I was the only one.

Weird part is, the few things that really grab me visually, I could describe in perfect detail right down to my physiological response to them. Which smells attract or repel me, I couldn't even begin to generalize about even though when they hit me, they hit me like a fucking bar-stool. Probably has to do with being taught how to say, spell and identify colors in pre-K, and still not even being entirely sure if I could tell you what "acrid" means.

That also probably explains a lot about why I immediately wanted to jump on the OP in the other thread and start quibbling myself. My concept of visual beauty is so minute that I very, very rarely even think of it when I'm using the word beauty. My use of that word occurs much more in that alternate je ne sais quois sense, even when I'm explicitly using it to refer to sensual beauty.

This leaves kind of a tricky question, if the predominant understanding of "beauty" is visual physical attractiveness conforming to some objectively agreed upon standard, when I say "beautiful" in the sense I experience it, am I shooting off bad-signal without meaning to?

I said physically beautiful, but no, I never got all the way down into the completely autistic semantic level and stipulated "visually physically beautiful according to the cultural standards of the moment".
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:26:16 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:13:50 PM
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on October 23, 2012, 03:38:49 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 21, 2012, 08:06:21 PM
A request was made for a second thread, to cover the definition.

My personal opinion: 

Beauty:  Something or someone that I can look at that gives me pleasure by looking alone.  Alternately, a concept or other intangible that's damn near perfect.

Attractiveness:  As Garbo said, "fuckability". I'm not visually-geared, so in THIS case, beauty is a combination of pheremones and what's in the person's head.

Thank you for that. Reading through the quibbling in the other thread I kept thinking over and over why nobody had stipulated "visually". Sensually, smell plays a much bigger part than look in what I find attractive. I was beginning to think I was the only one.

Weird part is, the few things that really grab me visually, I could describe in perfect detail right down to my physiological response to them. Which smells attract or repel me, I couldn't even begin to generalize about even though when they hit me, they hit me like a fucking bar-stool. Probably has to do with being taught how to say, spell and identify colors in pre-K, and still not even being entirely sure if I could tell you what "acrid" means.

That also probably explains a lot about why I immediately wanted to jump on the OP in the other thread and start quibbling myself. My concept of visual beauty is so minute that I very, very rarely even think of it when I'm using the word beauty. My use of that word occurs much more in that alternate je ne sais quois sense, even when I'm explicitly using it to refer to sensual beauty.

This leaves kind of a tricky question, if the predominant understanding of "beauty" is visual physical attractiveness conforming to some objectively agreed upon standard, when I say "beautiful" in the sense I experience it, am I shooting off bad-signal without meaning to?

I said physically beautiful, but no, I never got all the way down into the completely autistic semantic level and stipulated "visually physically beautiful according to the cultural standards of the moment".

I didn't bother reading that thread so I didn't see it.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.

OK, but even disregarding the effects of social programming, even given variances in individual taste, why is so much value being placed on beauty, that even the attempt to argue that human value is not dependent on beauty and that a person who is not beautiful is still a valid and valuable human being, is met with so much pushback?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:54:48 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.

OK, but even disregarding the effects of social programming, even given variances in individual taste, why is so much value being placed on beauty, that even the attempt to argue that human value is not dependent on beauty and that a person who is not beautiful is still a valid and valuable human being, is met with so much pushback?
I see people being valued on how pretty they are, and those bias and value judgements exist there, to me that's ugly v pretty. There plenty of ugly beautiful people who get their value considered lower and it's not OK. I agree the its ok not to be pretty meme should be pushed, ok not to be beautiful means something completely different to me.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Approaching this discussion from an alternative direction, the phrase "beautiful on the inside" clearly means "not physically beautiful." It could be said that it is trying to validate something that normally would be considered valueless because of a lack of physical beauty; but it is also translating "beauty" from a physical attribute to a spiritual one. It maintains that value is based on beauty, but it redefines beauty so that it is not a physical thing. In that way if you really believe someone is valuable because they are "beautiful on the inside," then unless you're talking about their internal organs, you have already moved past physical beauty as the main indicator of that person's value.

I think it's possible to use the phrase without being condescending or cynical, but i think specifying that they are "beautiful on the inside" is suspiciously redundant. Why not just describe the person as "beautiful," and let people who don't understand be confused until they figure it out? This happens quite often, where people are described as beautiful people when they are, at least in my opinion, not physically beautiful at all. I also think it may be important to continue to use the word "beautiful" in this context, in order to change the general associations of that word. Using semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 12:36:37 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.

Thanks for bringing it back on track. It was almost getting to "inner beauty".
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 12:49:35 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.

OK, but even disregarding the effects of social programming, even given variances in individual taste, why is so much value being placed on beauty, that even the attempt to argue that human value is not dependent on beauty and that a person who is not beautiful is still a valid and valuable human being, is met with so much pushback?

(As an aside, the social programming is still there. LMNO pointed out in one of these threads that we might like a different genre than what's presented as the dominant commercial images of beauty, but we still look for a lot of the same things. It gets ground in our heads.)

And I've caught myself feeding into it more times than I can count in just the last few days. Cheering up a woman whose boyfriend was chatting with somebody else by having a bitchfest riffing this other womans appearance to shreds (totally negates the "good intentions" points), randomly seeing pictures of unattractive people who have achieved things and thinking things like "beautiful mind"...this shit runs DEEP, it's going to take the forever to root it all out.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 12:57:19 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PM
Approaching this discussion from an alternative direction, the phrase "beautiful on the inside" clearly means "not physically beautiful." It could be said that it is trying to validate something that normally would be considered valueless because of a lack of physical beauty; but it is also translating "beauty" from a physical attribute to a spiritual one. It maintains that value is based on beauty, but it redefines beauty so that it is not a physical thing. In that way if you really believe someone is valuable because they are "beautiful on the inside," then unless you're talking about their internal organs, you have already moved past physical beauty as the main indicator of that person's value.

I think it's possible to use the phrase without being condescending or cynical, but i think specifying that they are "beautiful on the inside" is suspiciously redundant. Why not just describe the person as "beautiful," and let people who don't understand be confused until they figure it out? This happens quite often, where people are described as beautiful people when they are, at least in my opinion, not physically beautiful at all. I also think it may be important to continue to use the word "beautiful" in this context, in order to change the general associations of that word. Using semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I think people were trying to do that for awhile in the late 60's. Not sure how it fell by the wayside.

NOT NECESSARILY STONED BUT BEAUTIFUL
                  /
(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1830315997/Jimi_20Hendrix__20Smoking_20_Smile__1295822438117_reasonably_small.png)
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 01:20:43 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PMUsing semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I'm wondering if I'm misreading this... do you really mean that you would like language to be less nuanced and able to make fewer distinctions?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)



Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 01:45:28 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:20:43 AM
Quote from: V3X on October 23, 2012, 11:13:03 PMUsing semantics to sidestep the definition of "beauty," no matter how you do it, will always end up equating to some word or phrase that means "valuable but not beautiful." I'd rather there be no room for that kind of distinction to exist in language.

I'm wondering if I'm misreading this... do you really mean that you would like language to be less nuanced and able to make fewer distinctions?

Doubleplus good!
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 02:44:28 AM
(Which is one reason I get irritated when people start arguing semantics when the meaning was amply contextualized.)
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 02:47:27 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.

Hmm.

A vehicle
A means of moving students from one district to another
A power distribution node
An ambulance
A bandwagon (ie, "get on the bus", "thrown under the bus")

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Don Coyote on October 24, 2012, 03:50:14 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 02:47:27 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 01:18:35 AM
Good points both, Vex and Stella, but Vex, I'd like to ask why you think it is important/worthwhile to change the general associations of the word "beautiful"? Wouldn't we then need a new word to describe things we currently refer to as beautiful?

Well, I tend to use the word in context, like they do in Spanish.  Or they would, if there was a Spanish word for beautiful.  Which there isn't.

There is only guapo, which can mean (depending on context):

1.  Any hot guy, or

2.  Roger (the literal definition)

:lulz:

And seriously, yes, context is everything. The word "bus" can have four vastly different meanings that I can think of off the top of my head, in English alone, depending on context.

Hmm.

A vehicle
A means of moving students from one district to another
A power distribution node
An ambulance
A bandwagon (ie, "get on the bus", "thrown under the bus")

To gather up dinningware in a restaurant
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 24, 2012, 04:13:46 AM
To cause to pop, as in "Imma bus a cap in yo ass."
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:29:46 AM
To kiss
A type of electronics thingie
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Don Coyote on October 24, 2012, 04:43:31 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.

I suspect this may be the root of the issue.

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 24, 2012, 06:42:58 AM
To my earlier point I think I was just saying you can call anyone beautiful, and let the context of the rest of your statement define it, but when you say "beautiful on the inside" you're providing the context of "but not on the outside" that overrides whatever other context might be there.

As for allowing the distinction in language it was a sloppy way of saying it might pay to intentionally leave out the "on the inside" part, because it forces the non-physical definition.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Freeky on October 24, 2012, 06:59:24 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:44:22 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 23, 2012, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 23, 2012, 10:23:17 PM
When we start going "OK, but *I* define beauty as this other thing that applies to anything I like and not to things I don't like", I think it's barstool time, because I think that anyone who does not have a cognitive disorder who has spent any amount of time observing Western society is capable of picking up on what "beauty" means in the context I brought it up in, in my thread, unless they are engaging in deliberate interactional vandalism.

I am not saying there's no place for a philosophy-wank thread on the True Meaning of Beauty, as well, but realistically, thanks to the magic of context, I don't think my post was actually ambiguous to those of us who participate in and observe Western culture and speak English as a first language, and I think it is disingenuous to pretend the meaning or intention are somehow ambiguous because, wait, but beauty has many meanings and we are all beautiful snowflakes and what is attractive is different to everyone.

And then there are cultural norms and shared realities and fashion magazines in your face everywhere, and again, the very fundamental basis of the point I was making is simple:

Not everyone is beautiful, and  that's OK. It does not make someone fundamentally bad, wrong, stupid, or worthless if they fail to meet someone's, ANYONE'S, definition of "beauty". I would far rather see THAT meme spread than the idea that everyone has validity because they're "beautiful" in some way to somebody.
The way the modern cultrual norms and fashion magazines define beauty is with boring looking people with boring looking features.
They aren't beautiful they are vaguely fuckable.
It's ok not to be physically like them, but it has very little to do with anything resembling beauty.

OK, but even disregarding the effects of social programming, even given variances in individual taste, why is so much value being placed on beauty, that even the attempt to argue that human value is not dependent on beauty and that a person who is not beautiful is still a valid and valuable human being, is met with so much pushback?

I can tell you what happened in my head only:

In this, I cannot shake my society's meme of people who are beautiful have more value than those who don't. There isn't a model in use that even comes close to your "it's okay if you're not beautiful." 

The meme "Everyone is beautiful in their own way" has a special significance for me personally. I really believe that most people are beautiful if you know what light you need to look at them in.

I have spent my teenage and adult years cultivating in myself something that could pass for pretty or beautiful, because it's damned hard to please anyone if you arent (there's that 'i live in this society" again.)

The societally pretty people I'm school were cruel and acted like because I don't look like them, I had less value. Living under the "Everyone is beautiful" mantra eases the sting of those memories.

To hear about how I am pretty or beautiful makes me feel good. Everyone loves to be flattered.

Earlier that very evening o had told my pregnant friend how beautiful she looked, and I wished that I could have been half as pretty as her during my pregnancy. I did of to make her feel good, because she has already gained a big babby bump, but is still true. In reply, she gave me a hug and told me I'm beautiful in my own way, which according to your op, what she actually told me wad "I feel sorry for you because you're fucking ugly. Happy birthday!"


So yeah, knee, meet jerk.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 24, 2012, 07:51:02 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.

I can assure you my posts werent a diversionary tactic, but I don't believe the word beauty means to you what it means to me. I agree with pretty and fuckableness being exactly what you are describing. There are really awful social connections and expectations associated with that.

The word beauty doesn't even carry the pretty context over here anyway the word is too antiquated for people to use, they will always go for something like hot or gorgeous or so on to describe those physical characteristics.

And Stella et all I was never talking about about inner beauty. What I am describing is still what other people see, it's just not what makes a person pretty.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Faust on October 24, 2012, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:29:46 AM
To kiss
A type of electronics thingie

Cause kissing and electronics are inextricably linked like beauty and appearance  :roll:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: LMNO on October 24, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
When best intentions are meant, I think "beautiful on the inside" means "not fuckable, but someone I like to hang around."

When being polite, I think it means "not fuckable, but you shouldn't feel bad about that."

And isn't that the direction Nigel was heading?

If not, I need to go back and re-read her posts.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on October 24, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
When best intentions are meant, I think "beautiful on the inside" means "not fuckable, but someone I like to hang around."

When being polite, I think it means "not fuckable, but you shouldn't feel bad about that."

And isn't that the direction Nigel was heading?

If not, I need to go back and re-read her posts.

That's what I got out of it.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 24, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Part of the kneejerk reaction here I think may be related to the non-physical use of the word "ugly" too. If someone is racist, homophobic, or otherwise an asshole, it's not uncommon for them to be described as having "an ugly side" or "ugly thoughts." That has no bearing on whether they're physically attractive one way or the other, but it adds a much more unpleasant level of nuance to the word "ugly." Context of course counts for a lot, but ugly and beautiful have both picked up some of those secondary meanings even in every day use. It should not be awful to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" to describe the one unattractive blond girl in accounting, but it absolutely is. That's why it's so common for people to try to soften the blow by complimenting some other aspect of their personality immediately if they ever so much as call someone "unattractive." Ugly is something that is wrong with a person and should be fixed so the rest of us don't have to put up with it, and I think that's part of the problem. You can work on fixing ugly thoughts, and you should, but no one should feel like they have to "fix" ugly physical traits or overcompensate for them.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.

"Challenged by a strong argument."
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 02:38:15 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:35:06 AM
Of course, sometimes it IS important in a conversation to stop and clarify definitions, especially when a point hinges on a definition that may be unclear. But when adequate context is provided and the point doesn't really hinge on semantic fine points, it's just a diversionary tactic... Perhaps because the topic itself is Uncomfortable? I don't know.

"Challenged by a strong argument."

:lulz: Yep.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 24, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Part of the kneejerk reaction here I think may be related to the non-physical use of the word "ugly" too. If someone is racist, homophobic, or otherwise an asshole, it's not uncommon for them to be described as having "an ugly side" or "ugly thoughts." That has no bearing on whether they're physically attractive one way or the other, but it adds a much more unpleasant level of nuance to the word "ugly." Context of course counts for a lot, but ugly and beautiful have both picked up some of those secondary meanings even in every day use. It should not be awful to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" to describe the one unattractive blond girl in accounting, but it absolutely is. That's why it's so common for people to try to soften the blow by complimenting some other aspect of their personality immediately if they ever so much as call someone "unattractive." Ugly is something that is wrong with a person and should be fixed so the rest of us don't have to put up with it, and I think that's part of the problem. You can work on fixing ugly thoughts, and you should, but no one should feel like they have to "fix" ugly physical traits or overcompensate for them.

No one really ever needs to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" OR "the pretty blond girl in accounting". Neither are appropriate in a work setting. As for the rest of your point, context. The fact that there are other meanings for the word is STILL beside the point. I do see your point about "fixing" ugly personality traits, but this is where I point out that I've had more than a few people tell me that my directness and willingness to put together a cogent argument and pick apart bad arguments are "ugly" personality traits. They're unladylike and Not Nice At All.

Fuck 'em.  :)
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:34:38 PM
Quote from: Faust on October 24, 2012, 07:53:18 AM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:29:46 AM
To kiss
A type of electronics thingie

Cause kissing and electronics are inextricably linked like beauty and appearance  :roll:

I think you are completely missing the point about words being given meaning with context. That's why we went on that tangent about the word "bus".
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Don Coyote on October 24, 2012, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 24, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Part of the kneejerk reaction here I think may be related to the non-physical use of the word "ugly" too. If someone is racist, homophobic, or otherwise an asshole, it's not uncommon for them to be described as having "an ugly side" or "ugly thoughts." That has no bearing on whether they're physically attractive one way or the other, but it adds a much more unpleasant level of nuance to the word "ugly." Context of course counts for a lot, but ugly and beautiful have both picked up some of those secondary meanings even in every day use. It should not be awful to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" to describe the one unattractive blond girl in accounting, but it absolutely is. That's why it's so common for people to try to soften the blow by complimenting some other aspect of their personality immediately if they ever so much as call someone "unattractive." Ugly is something that is wrong with a person and should be fixed so the rest of us don't have to put up with it, and I think that's part of the problem. You can work on fixing ugly thoughts, and you should, but no one should feel like they have to "fix" ugly physical traits or overcompensate for them.

No one really ever needs to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" OR "the pretty blond girl in accounting". Neither are appropriate in a work setting. As for the rest of your point, context. The fact that there are other meanings for the word is STILL beside the point. I do see your point about "fixing" ugly personality traits, but this is where I point out that I've had more than a few people tell me that my directness and willingness to put together a cogent argument and pick apart bad arguments are "ugly" personality traits. They're unladylike and Not Nice At All.

Fuck 'em.  :)

The last person to tell Nigel she was beautiful on the inside had his insides on the outsides so everyone could see how beautiful he was.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:38:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 24, 2012, 12:14:56 PM
When best intentions are meant, I think "beautiful on the inside" means "not fuckable, but someone I like to hang around."

When being polite, I think it means "not fuckable, but you shouldn't feel bad about that."

And isn't that the direction Nigel was heading?

If not, I need to go back and re-read her posts.

Basically.

And when it comes down to it, people who aren't beautiful on the outside find love, get laid, and have babies too, at quite an astonishing rate.

Basically, what I'm saying is fuck beauty-as-a-value-judgement. You're not "beautiful on the inside, where it counts" you're just a good person, and that's even better, without dragging in associated terms that still have connotations of aesthetic appearance as part of a value system.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 04:39:07 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on October 24, 2012, 04:36:29 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on October 24, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
Part of the kneejerk reaction here I think may be related to the non-physical use of the word "ugly" too. If someone is racist, homophobic, or otherwise an asshole, it's not uncommon for them to be described as having "an ugly side" or "ugly thoughts." That has no bearing on whether they're physically attractive one way or the other, but it adds a much more unpleasant level of nuance to the word "ugly." Context of course counts for a lot, but ugly and beautiful have both picked up some of those secondary meanings even in every day use. It should not be awful to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" to describe the one unattractive blond girl in accounting, but it absolutely is. That's why it's so common for people to try to soften the blow by complimenting some other aspect of their personality immediately if they ever so much as call someone "unattractive." Ugly is something that is wrong with a person and should be fixed so the rest of us don't have to put up with it, and I think that's part of the problem. You can work on fixing ugly thoughts, and you should, but no one should feel like they have to "fix" ugly physical traits or overcompensate for them.

No one really ever needs to say "the ugly blond girl in accounting" OR "the pretty blond girl in accounting". Neither are appropriate in a work setting. As for the rest of your point, context. The fact that there are other meanings for the word is STILL beside the point. I do see your point about "fixing" ugly personality traits, but this is where I point out that I've had more than a few people tell me that my directness and willingness to put together a cogent argument and pick apart bad arguments are "ugly" personality traits. They're unladylike and Not Nice At All.

Fuck 'em.  :)

The last person to tell Nigel she was beautiful on the inside had his insides on the outsides so everyone could see how beautiful he was.

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 07:17:40 PM
I see a kind of scale in the way the word is commonly used:

Attractive: "I'd hit it." Could be for whatever reasons, which might or might not have to do with physical appearance.

Pretty: Somewhat good-looking but not beautiful.

Beautiful: "I think this person makes most other people look like a bucket of shit."

:x
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Juana on October 24, 2012, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"
I think she's saying it should not be the ultimate value judgement, which "everyone is beautiful" makes it.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"

:? I think I was pretty clear that it shouldn't be a value judgement when it comes to fundamental human value. I am pretty sure I used those exact words.

It's appropriate as a value judgement if the value being judged is appearance. For instance, if you think your wife is beautiful, or in a beauty contest (which I think are fucking inane and moronic, but hey).
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 07:49:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 24, 2012, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"
I think she's saying it should not be the ultimate value judgement, which "everyone is beautiful" makes it.

Yes. This. Thank you.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
got it. makes sense to me.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:01:42 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on October 24, 2012, 07:47:06 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"
I think she's saying it should not be the ultimate value judgement, which "everyone is beautiful" makes it.

More like "If we say everyone is beautiful, then we aren't required to learn anything else about the people around us, because we can just staple a meaningless platitude (Beautiful) to them and consider them properly classified."

Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: PANGO! on October 24, 2012, 08:04:09 PM
HOW IS IT ENTIRE THREAD FOR "DEFINITION OF BEAUTY" TAKE 8 PAGES, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU PATHETIC DOGS HAS MENTIONED BREASTS?

NOW, PANGO REALIZE THAT SOMETIMES THE BEAUTY IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE FACE. BUT GENTLEMEN, BEAUTY IS LOVE, NO? AND WHO MAKE THE LOVE TO A FACE? NOT PANGO.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 24, 2012, 07:08:48 PM
are you saying that beauty should not be a value judgement at all, or just that it's too heavily weighted?

Does this also extend to other virtues?  specifically thinking about intelligence.
"god, he's dumb"
"yeah, but he's got street-smarts/common sense" or "yeah, but he's really nice"

:? I think I was pretty clear that it shouldn't be a value judgement when it comes to fundamental human value. I am pretty sure I used those exact words.

It's appropriate as a value judgement if the value being judged is appearance. For instance, if you think your wife is beautiful, or in a beauty contest (which I think are fucking inane and moronic, but hey).

Beauty contests are the PINKEST THING EVER INVENTED.

Hey, check out our contestants!  Listen to them demonstrate some cutesy talent!  Listen to their lofty-sounding yet impractical/impossible ideas of what to do with their crown!

"I want to use my Ms America title to work toward world peace!"

Then watch them SHUT THE FUCK UP and climb into a bikini, so we can all get what we really came here for!  Ah, yes, NOW the product is PROPERLY PACKAGED.

Let's hear what the judges have to say!
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
Bikini and HEELS. Because EVERYBODY wears stillettos to the beach.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
Bikini and HEELS. Because EVERYBODY wears stillettos to the beach.

It's a national fucking embarrassment.  Do they even put it on TV anymore?
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:31:09 PM
If they do, they need to dig up Bert Parks' festering corpse and prop him up behind the microphone.

You know, as a tradition thing.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 08:32:55 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 08:31:09 PM
If they do, they need to dig up Bert Parks' festering corpse and prop him up behind the microphone.

You know, as a tradition thing.

I would actually WATCH that.  :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
And I know what's going to happen when I start talking up this "physical beauty is a fucked up standard for judging the intrinsic worth of people":

"YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!!!!!"  :x
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Sita on October 24, 2012, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
Bikini and HEELS. Because EVERYBODY wears stillettos to the beach.

It's a national fucking embarrassment.  Do they even put it on TV anymore?
They do. According to their site you'll be able to watch it in January on ABC.

In case you want to torture yourself or something.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: Sita on October 24, 2012, 08:44:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
Bikini and HEELS. Because EVERYBODY wears stillettos to the beach.

It's a national fucking embarrassment.  Do they even put it on TV anymore?
They do. According to their site you'll be able to watch it in January on ABC.

In case you want to torture yourself or something.

I want to be Ms Arizona.  And if they say I can't because I'm a guy, I should sue the shit out of them.

TGRR,
Will do his little turn on the catwalk.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 08:54:29 PM
I'd watch THAT, too. On Pay-Per-View.  :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:54:29 PM
I'd watch THAT, too. On Pay-Per-View.  :lulz:

My talent is that I can play The Star-Spangled Banner on the harmonica...

















...With my ass.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: PANGO! on October 24, 2012, 08:04:09 PM
HOW IS IT ENTIRE THREAD FOR "DEFINITION OF BEAUTY" TAKE 8 PAGES, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU PATHETIC DOGS HAS MENTIONED BREASTS?

NOW, PANGO REALIZE THAT SOMETIMES THE BEAUTY IS NOT SO MUCH IN THE FACE. BUT GENTLEMEN, BEAUTY IS LOVE, NO? AND WHO MAKE THE LOVE TO A FACE? NOT PANGO.


:lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 09:08:06 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 08:58:55 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:54:29 PM
I'd watch THAT, too. On Pay-Per-View.  :lulz:

My talent is that I can play The Star-Spangled Banner on the harmonica...

















...With my ass.

STUNNING.

Are you ready for THE QUESTIONS? Like "Describe yourself in three adjectives and explain why." "What or who motivates you, and why?" "Tell me something that will make me remember you." "Do you think you can make an impact on society? How?"

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 08:35:25 PM
And I know what's going to happen when I start talking up this "physical beauty is a fucked up standard for judging the intrinsic worth of people":

"YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS!!!!!"  :x

:horrormirth: True story.

It's like the go-to for idiots on the internet who don't have a counterargument; they go right to "You're  just mad 'cause you're ugly!"

I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

And, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

They're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.

QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 09:16:38 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 09:08:06 PM
STUNNING.

Are you ready for THE QUESTIONS? Like "Describe yourself in three adjectives and explain why." "What or who motivates you, and why?" "Tell me something that will make me remember you." "Do you think you can make an impact on society? How?"

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

1.  Horrible, Sexy, and Drunken.  And SHUT UP, that's why.

2.  I am motivated by rage.  Because you're all stupid and shut up.

3.  I have more critters running around in my fur than Courtney Love does.  Try to forget THAT.

4.  Yes.  And I'm going to do it with a 9 pound hammer.

I have this shit DOWN.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on October 24, 2012, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.
WE HAVE A WINNAR. *throws rose bouquets*


QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.

THAT^

It's always something irrelevant. One of the facebook groups I go to is pretty heavily modded, as far as flaming people about appearance and the like. So I got told last night that I was "forceful" and my argument had a "weird passive aggressive vibe".

Not sure how a person can be both, simultaneously. I asked the person to point out what was "passive aggressive".

Crickets.  :lulz:

So yeah. If they can't argue a point, they're going to jump all over a nose that doesn't look like a fucking pencil.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.

QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.

I have also been accused of "never admitting I'm wrong", which is patent bullshit because I'M WRONG ALL THE TIME and I just say so, apologize if warranted, and move on, and then everyone promptly forgets about it.

It's great for creating the illusion that I'm right all the time and that I don't back down, but unfortunately, that is truly only an illusion.

That must be why my penis fell off. :(
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:52:24 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on October 24, 2012, 09:22:13 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.
WE HAVE A WINNAR. *throws rose bouquets*


QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.

THAT^

It's always something irrelevant. One of the facebook groups I go to is pretty heavily modded, as far as flaming people about appearance and the like. So I got told last night that I was "forceful" and my argument had a "weird passive aggressive vibe".

Not sure how a person can be both, simultaneously. I asked the person to point out what was "passive aggressive".

Crickets.  :lulz:

So yeah. If they can't argue a point, they're going to jump all over a nose that doesn't look like a fucking pencil.

I love how people can so easily decide that if your argument is better than their argument, you're actually just being mean.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Don Coyote on October 24, 2012, 09:53:48 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.

QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.

I have also been accused of "never admitting I'm wrong", which is patent bullshit because I'M WRONG ALL THE TIME and I just say so, apologize if warranted, and move on, and then everyone promptly forgets about it.

It's great for creating the illusion that I'm right all the time and that I don't back down, but unfortunately, that is truly only an illusion.

That must be why my penis fell off. :(

Maybe if you used something other glue made from the nails of hipsters, shit wouldn't be falling off you.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
All this is making me want to go troll some atheists. God, they're fun, especially when I point out that they're saying stupid things. It's like lighting an anthill on fire.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 09:56:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on October 24, 2012, 09:53:48 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 09:13:30 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:10:21 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've had people point out that my nose is big. A. as if I don't know, and B. as if it has a bearing on the validity of my words.

It must suck, being addicted to featureless, bland barbie doll faces.

QuoteAnd, adding to that, I've had many, many people inform me that I'm ugly on the inside because I poked holes in their arguments or pointed out that they said something that made them look foolish. Ugly, mean, angry, bitter, etc.

Yep, happens to me all the time.  Of course I AM a little ugly on the inside.  Or filthy.  One of the two.

QuoteThey're all ways of dismissing the person instead of the argument, and they don't even make any sense.

It beats saying "Oh, I was wrong.", which totally annihilates your e-cred and makes your peter shrivel up like a week-old hotdog.

I have also been accused of "never admitting I'm wrong", which is patent bullshit because I'M WRONG ALL THE TIME and I just say so, apologize if warranted, and move on, and then everyone promptly forgets about it.

It's great for creating the illusion that I'm right all the time and that I don't back down, but unfortunately, that is truly only an illusion.

That must be why my penis fell off. :(

Maybe if you used something other glue made from the nails of hipsters, shit wouldn't be falling off you.

Hipsters just don't have enough collagen. :(
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
That must be why my penis fell off. :(

And killed three passers-by on the ground.  :cry:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
All this is making me want to go troll some atheists. God, they're fun, especially when I point out that they're saying stupid things. It's like lighting an anthill on fire.

I like pointing out that "faithfool" is about the same as saying "faggot".
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 10:52:09 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:51:06 PM
That must be why my penis fell off. :(

And killed three passers-by on the ground.  :cry:

:lulz:
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 24, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
All this is making me want to go troll some atheists. God, they're fun, especially when I point out that they're saying stupid things. It's like lighting an anthill on fire.

I like pointing out that "faithfool" is about the same as saying "faggot".

They don't like having bigotry defined for them very much, I've found.  :lol:

Also, the "Look at how many people religion has killed! ATHEISM HAS NEVER KILLED ANYONE" argument goes silent really fucking fast when you point out things like, oh, Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot.

As far as I'm concerned, intolerant, militant Atheists are exactly like intolerant, militant any-other-us-vs-them group.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 24, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
All this is making me want to go troll some atheists. God, they're fun, especially when I point out that they're saying stupid things. It's like lighting an anthill on fire.

I like pointing out that "faithfool" is about the same as saying "faggot".

They don't like having bigotry defined for them very much, I've found.  :lol:

Also, the "Look at how many people religion has killed! ATHEISM HAS NEVER KILLED ANYONE" argument goes silent really fucking fast when you point out things like, oh, Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot.

As far as I'm concerned, intolerant, militant Atheists are exactly like intolerant, militant any-other-us-vs-them group.

ISMS KILL.  SO DOES NIGEL, BUT IF YOU'RE QUICK YOU CAN AVOID HER FOR A FEW YEARS OR SO.

DON'T DO ISMS.  RUN FROM NIGEL.

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.
Title: Re: So, we need a definition of beauty.
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 25, 2012, 03:22:09 AM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 11:59:02 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
Quote from: Man Yellow on October 24, 2012, 10:19:17 PM
Quote from: Man Green on October 24, 2012, 09:55:49 PM
All this is making me want to go troll some atheists. God, they're fun, especially when I point out that they're saying stupid things. It's like lighting an anthill on fire.

I like pointing out that "faithfool" is about the same as saying "faggot".

They don't like having bigotry defined for them very much, I've found.  :lol:

Also, the "Look at how many people religion has killed! ATHEISM HAS NEVER KILLED ANYONE" argument goes silent really fucking fast when you point out things like, oh, Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot.

As far as I'm concerned, intolerant, militant Atheists are exactly like intolerant, militant any-other-us-vs-them group.

ISMS KILL.  SO DOES NIGEL, BUT IF YOU'RE QUICK YOU CAN AVOID HER FOR A FEW YEARS OR SO.

DON'T DO ISMS.  RUN FROM NIGEL.

THIS MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS.

:lulz: