Not everyone is beautiful

[Internet Jesus]

No, I just think it's a lame and ineffectual attempt to redefine beauty. There are multiple kinds of beauty, but if we were successful at redefining beauty as something that everyone has, then another word would be invented to take its place, because even if the media stopped showing us images of thin, tall, young, flawless-skinned, pale women with symmetrical features and flowing hair, and muscular, young, flawless-skinned pale men with symmetrical features and thick hair, we would still have both an internal and a social/collective idea of what an exceptionally physically attractive person looks like.

Fair enough, but then doesn't that imply this is a reaction that's as deeply ingrained in us as favoring one hand over the other, or sexual orientation, and therefore not really worth calling out save for a resigned it is what it is?

Or have I competely lost the thread here?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

No, I just think it's a lame and ineffectual attempt to redefine beauty. There are multiple kinds of beauty, but if we were successful at redefining beauty as something that everyone has, then another word would be invented to take its place, because even if the media stopped showing us images of thin, tall, young, flawless-skinned, pale women with symmetrical features and flowing hair, and muscular, young, flawless-skinned pale men with symmetrical features and thick hair, we would still have both an internal and a social/collective idea of what an exceptionally physically attractive person looks like.

Fair enough, but then doesn't that imply this is a reaction that's as deeply ingrained in us as favoring one hand over the other, or sexual orientation, and therefore not really worth calling out save for a resigned it is what it is?

Or have I competely lost the thread here?

You've lost the thread.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

I think you nailed it. It explains why I keep being baffled by the arguments that don't actually have anything to do with my OP. I'm like... wha?

[Internet Jesus]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Um.

Weren't you just telling me to calm the fuck down?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?

In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

[Internet Jesus]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Um.

Weren't you just telling me to calm the fuck down?

I was, but I wasn't getting bent out of shape.  This is just one of those things that I don't think I grok at an intuitive level.

And that's O.K.

Besides, have you ever had fried chicken and grape Faygo?  Fucking orgasmic.

[Internet Jesus]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?

In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."

No insult taken.

I think I see the point.  Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you.  Or not.  I still haven't decided.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?

In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."

No insult taken.

I think I see the point.  Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you.  Or not.  I still haven't decided.

Fuckers will turn into raisins and yank themselves straight up into your abdominal cavity.  No shit.

You have to screech really, really loud.  There's no other option.

[Internet Jesus]

Ah, we'll okay then, Nigel.  I'll shut the fuck up and go back to my fried chicken and grape Faygo then.  Carry on.

Not tying to insult you, here. I just can't actually figure out where or how you've lost it, or how the point you seem to be trying to make (if you were making a point) related to the topic of the thread, so I don't know how to steer you back onto it. Maybe read the OP again?

In a nutshell, my point was "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise."

No insult taken.

I think I see the point.  Which puts me in mind of the objection I was trying to make, but I don't want to be accused of trying to revive shriveled testicles. So I'll ponder what I was attempting to say and get back to you.  Or not.  I still haven't decided.

Fuckers will turn into raisins and yank themselves straight up into your abdominal cavity.  No shit.

You have to screech really, really loud.  There's no other option.

You keep saying that, but I haven't noticed any change recently.  I'll have to remember to ask my wife if she's noticed any shrinkage the next time she lets me have visitation with them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.

If there isn't an argument, generate one.  Any amount of gymnastics is permitted.  I mean, required.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.

If there isn't an argument, generate one.  Any amount of gymnastics is permitted.  I mean, required.

Maybe he was being ironic and I missed it.