499 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Yeah, that's great.

So thinking less of someone because of they look how they look is a problem. Is that right? The act of thinking it alone is unjustified? Regardless of how someone actually acts, they aren't allowed to think it?

Is that what you're saying?

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:51 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Is the problem that people say potentially hurtful things and do potentially hurtful things?

Or is the problem that people think them?

All of the above really. You're presenting them like they're 3 distinct actions but they're interlinked. People say and do hurtful things because they think hurtful things, they think hurtful things because they see them being done and talked about, it becomes acceptable. "Hurtful things" being a euphemism here. For instance someone makes a sexist joke, to him (or her) it's just a joke, meant as such, not thought about. But wonder about why it's funny and it points to some deeply held prejudicial stereotypes. People keep propagating this without thinking (and that, the not thinking, is the cardinal sin here) and it breeds an environment that fosters this kind of thing.

So threads like this become a whole lot more than just some people whinging about how they dislike a woman's face. Thinking someone is fugly is one thing, beauty is one of the most subjective things in the world, the reasons for thinking someone is another thing and then thinking someone is flawed or somehow inherently wrong because they don't line up with those reasons is another thing and the real problem. And that's what people do in threads like these, whether they realize it or not.

No offense but that just sounds like a lot of BS to mask the simple fact of "I don't like certain jokes about women" that other people find funny, and so want them to be punished for finding it funny.

[durasteel]

For the record, I think "hurtful things" about almost everyone I encounter. I put effort into self-censorship.

I'm inclined to think that's how things ought to be, really. I would hate to live in a world of psychics.

[Fredward]

David7204 wrote...
Yeah, that's great.

So thinking less of someone because of they look how they look is a problem. Is that right? The act of thinking it alone is unjustified? Regardless of how someone actually acts, they aren't allowed to think it?

Is that what you're saying?

Think what you want David, all I want is for people to think about why they think like they think, yah know?

Darth Brotarian wrote...
No offense but that just sounds like a
lot of BS to mask the simple fact of "I don't like certain jokes about
women" that other people find funny, and so want them to be punished for
finding it funny.

And you're totally entitled to think that.

[David7204]

I have thought about it. A great deal. And you know? I think less of people who are unattractive. And while I'm not rude or cruel or disrespectful towards them, I am less likely to become friends with them. Or work alongside them. Or if they're female, to begin a relationship with them.

Obviously, attractiveness is never the only factor, and plenty of unattractive people are overwhelmingly better than plenty of attractive people. It's not at the top of the list. But it is on the list.

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:10 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

I feel anyone who wants to police peoples thoughts and make them feel bad for even having thoughts or opinions against the norm, wwithout even having said thoughts be criminal or harmful intents, just having opinions about people thst aren't positive, really really lame.

Worse then thst, you seem to wish to make people feel bsd for even instinctively finding something interesting or funny ij the fact of the difference present, and trust me, thst part of humor is instinctual of human beings.

So in other words, I find it more appalling thst someone desires to censor nonharmful thoughts because they don't agree with the sense of humor then a person telling a sexist joke about a man or a woman to people and them finding it funny.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Cassandra Saturn already goes through so much on these forums, but now even a thread about her face?

Just because she is a MtF, doesn't give you all the right to be such judgemental and discriminatory pigs about it. I'm disgusted, BSN.

[Inquisitor Recon]

CrustyBot wrote...
Just because she is a MtF, doesn't give you all the right to be such judgemental and discriminatory pigs about it. I'm disgusted, BSN.

The one you speak of is a furry, cursed be their kind.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

I have thought about it. A great deal. And you know? I think less of people who are unattractive. And while I'm not rude or cruel or disrespectful towards them, I am less likely to become friends with them. Or work alongside them. Or if they're female, to begin a relationship with them.

Obviously, attractiveness is never the only factor, and plenty of unattractive people are overwhelmingly better than plenty of attractive people. It's not at the top of the list. But it is on the list.

Wow. Thats goddamn cold as freaking ice. Not dating sure, you shouldn't be forced to be in a relationship with them if you don't want to. But not giving them the same chance you would someone else as a ally or comrade over just their looks? Somethings way screwy about that, what I would call harmful, and really naive.

[David7204]

Did you miss the big part where I said it's never the only factor, and it's not at the top of the list? So it's never "just" over their looks in the sense that I'm throwing a good person away for a lousy but attractive one.

But if I had a choice between hiring someone attractive and someone unattractive with equal skills and whatnot, I would hire the attractive one every time.

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

durasteel wrote...

For the record, I think "hurtful things" about almost everyone I encounter. I put effort into self-censorship.

I'm inclined to think that's how things ought to be, really. I would hate to live in a world of psychics.

It would be a world of corpses.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

All
of the above really. You're presenting them like they're 3 distinct
actions but they're interlinked. People say and do hurtful things
because they think hurtful things, they think hurtful things because
they see them being done and talked about, it becomes acceptable.
"Hurtful things" being a euphemism here. For instance someone makes a
sexist joke, to him (or her) it's just a joke, meant as such, not
thought about. But wonder about why it's funny and it points to some deeply held
prejudicial stereotypes. People keep propagating this without thinking
(and that, the not thinking, is the cardinal sin here) and it breeds an
environment that fosters this kind of thing.

Funnily enugh I don't see a problem with it. At all. You wont' ever get rid of prejudice and some prejudice is actually good. Besides, it's an inherent part of our nature and how our brains work, so you're not getting rid of it any time soon.

Thought police can go die in hell.

[Cainhurst Crow]

But it's one of the deciding factors yeah? What else is a factor ranked just about at the same level of importance as their appearance david? Just so I have a frame of reference to work with here.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Working around your natural prejudices when knowing how irrational they are, as in accepting it's part of you and not something you can get ride of, is a lot better then forcing yourself to pretend there is no differences.

It what separates true acceptance and pseudo-acceptance from each other.

[David7204]

Pretty much every other human quality. Intelligence. Charisma. Integrity. All the fancy words people put on college applications.

[Maria Caliban]

David7204 wrote...

Is the problem that people say potentially hurtful things and do potentially hurtful things?

Or is the problem that people think them?

All of the above.

David7204 wrote...

Yeah, that's great.

So thinking less of someone because of they look how they look is a problem. Is that right? The act of thinking it alone is unjustified? Regardless of how someone actually acts, they aren't allowed to think it?

Is that what you're saying?

Thoughts can be wrong, thoughts can be problems.

For example, if you find yourself thinking about how sexy six-year-olds are, there's a problem there, even if you never act on those thoughts. If you find yourself assuming that black men are criminals, there's a problem there, even if you never voice that thought.

This is can be true even when your thoughts concern only yourself. Some people have very low self-esteem and suffer from suicidal thoughts. That's a problem.

I suspect the issue is that you conflate 'having problematic thoughts' with 'being a bad person.' I doubt Froopydoopy is suggesting that thinking less of someone because they're unattractive means that you deserves to spend eternity in the fiery pits of Hades.

[David7204]

A world without 'human prejudice' is a world where no beauty can exist. (Except perhaps mathematical beauty, but screw that) Because who's to say that a sunset is more beautiful than a pile of vomit? They're both just arrangements of atoms.

[Hellion Rex]

David7204 wrote...

A world without 'human prejudice' is a world where no beauty can exist. (Except perhaps mathematical beauty, but screw that) Because who's to say that a sunset is more beautiful than a pile of vomit? They're both just arrangements of atoms.

How exactly does human prejudice foster beauty?

Modifié par eluvianix, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:44 .

[David7204]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Thoughts can be wrong, thoughts can be problems.

Not this thought.

The woman in question. The hypothetical woman I was talking to Froopy about who is overweight or maybe doesn't look feminine or whatever? Is she owed affection and love? Does she have the right to demand the same attraction as other people? Demand that others find her attractive? Is it her right to take it?

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:58 .

[David7204]

eluvianix wrote...

David7204 wrote...

A world without 'human prejudice' is a world where no beauty can exist. (Except perhaps mathematical beauty, but screw that) Because who's to say that a sunset is more beautiful than a pile of vomit? They're both just arrangements of atoms.

How exactly does human prejudice foster beauty?

Because there's a good chance that we only finds things beautiful because they adhere to certain patterns. A sunset is just a certain arrangement of atoms. Is there any intrinsic law of the universe or law of nature that dictates that arrangement is better than another arrangement? Or the arrangement of an ugly face vs. a pretty face? If we assume no, then there's nothing to give such things beauty except our prejudices of being human. So that must be the cause of it.

Of course, there's something to think about. What if all rational and thinking beings considered certain things beautiful? Such as the stars. If all rational life gravitates towards a certain conclusion, it stands to reason that the conclusion is based on logic, not culture. And that would indicate the existence of some sort of 'universal law.' For now, we can't say.

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:50 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Thoughts can be wrong, thoughts can be problems.

Not this thought.

The woman in question. The one who looks masculine? Is she owed affection and love? Does she have the right to demand the same attraction as other people? Demand that others find her attractive? Is it her right to take it?

What are you babbling about?

[Nightdragon8]

David7204 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Thoughts can be wrong, thoughts can be problems.

Not this thought.

The woman in question. The one who looks masculine? Is she owed affection and love? Does she have the right to demand the same attraction as other people? Demand that others find her attractive? Is it her right to take it?

..... how is that even part of anything we are talking about?

We don't even know what kind of character she is (speaking of those who didn't read the books and comics) so saying that is just proposfully trying to add fuel to the fire.

In general anone can demand all they want doesn't mean they are going to get it.

Does she "demand" to be loved by everyone? does she "demand" to be worshiped for how she looks? I doubt it.
The most I can guess is that she "Demand" respect. And once I hear her backstory I may give it to her.

[David7204]

I was talking about the hypothetical woman I was talking to Froopy about earlier. Not Cassandra.

[Nightdragon8]

David7204 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

David7204 wrote...

A world without 'human prejudice' is a world where no beauty can exist. (Except perhaps mathematical beauty, but screw that) Because who's to say that a sunset is more beautiful than a pile of vomit? They're both just arrangements of atoms.

How exactly does human prejudice foster beauty?

Because there's a good chance that we only finds things beautiful because they adhere to certain patterns. A sunset is just a certain arrangement of atoms. Is there any intrinsic law of the universe or law of nature that dictates that arrangement is better than another arrangement? Or the arrangement of an ugly face vs. a pretty face? If we assume no, then there's nothing to give such things beauty except our prejudices of being human. So that must be the cause of it.

Of course, there's something to think about. What if all rational and thinking beings considered certain things beautiful? Such as the stars. If all rational life gravitates towards a certain conclusion, it stands to reason that the conclusion is based on logic, not culture. And that would indicate the existence of some sort of 'universal law.' For now, we can't say.

funny enough there was a study done not that long ago (i think 10 years... god I'm old...) where they would take newborn babies, and show the babies 2 photographes side by side, 1 of the mother the other of an "atractive" woman. What they found out was that the baby would look at the attractive lady more so than the mother. And in the same study they put the mother up against a less attractive woman and found out the baby looks at the mother more. (memory is alittle foggy)

So yes we do have a predisotion from brith how what "pretty" is.