499 réponses à ce sujet

[Axdinosaurx]

She looks the same to me, just much less makeup.

[FireAndBlood]

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 you must be a world class super model with that attitude.<_<

[David7204]

There's nothing shameful or arrogant in appreciating beauty.

There's plenty of hypocrisy in pretending you don't, however.

[Cainhurst Crow]

AresKeith wrote...

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?

People are trying to use the argument of "some thoughts are bad" to enforce their belief of "all thoughts I don't agree with are bad" in how they want people to treat woman who aren't considered beautiful, the source of this argument in question and all these statements.

Frankly someone going thoughts are wrong and problems to be pretty much a totalitarian. Their attempted use of equivilancy to pedophilia even more so.

[Ryzaki]

David7204 wrote...

There's nothing shameful or arrogant in appreciating beauty.

There's plenty of hypocrisy in pretending you don't, however.

No but saying you think less of someone because they're not beautiful is a bit...meh. The not wanting to be intimate is a bout obvious crap is obvious because attraction is a part of a relationship but not even friends? What exactly is it about looks that you need them to have that would have a outcome on a friendship? 

It's like me saying I don't want to be friends with attractive people because I think less of them. Like what do their looks have to do with it? 

[Muspade]

This is not about appreciating beauty.

It's about actively valuing the people who aren't as fortunate with their looks less than those are were and you actively judging, and being less likely to become their friend.

Don't change the subject.

Modifié par Muspade, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:21 .

[Marakov7]

I've said it before, but I think she looks great. Extremely realistic, in my opinion. She looks beautiful to me, but a lot of that has to with the "inner strength" feel I get from her. People tend to look a little "rougher" (men and women) when in a field environment as opposed to when in garrison as she was in DA2. I think that whoever did the art for her has done a remarkably good job. I sincerely hope this is her look in DAI.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Cassandra looks great, this thread is dumb, and I hate all of you for making me agree with david in the slightest. It'll ruin my perfect track record.

And for the record, I too would think more of this persons worth,



Then I would this guys,



Because anyone can become fat just by not excising and eating poorly. But maintaining a defined healthy physique requires more work, more care, and generally more effort.

And considering the main thing being brought up has been weight, I think this is a fairly good example.

[David7204]

Ryzaki wrote...

David7204 wrote...

There's nothing shameful or arrogant in appreciating beauty.

There's plenty of hypocrisy in pretending you don't, however.

No but saying you think less of someone because they're not beautiful is a bit...meh. The not wanting to be intimate is a bout obvious crap is obvious because attraction is a part of a relationship but not even friends? What exactly is it about looks that you need them to have that would have a outcome on a friendship? 

It's like me saying I don't want to be friends with attractive people because I think less of them. Like what do their looks have to do with it? 

It's a two way street.

If I think more of someone who is beautiful, which I do, that fundamentally must mean I think less of people who aren't. There's no way around it.

[Fredward]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
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.

You don't seem to be following. I don't begrudge people their thoughts. I begrudge it when people believe/think in a way that reflects popular sentiment without ever questioning it. Also laughing at sexist jokes is not instinctual. At all. It's a cultural thing. Anyway thought police is about as far away from the whole liberal/individuality thing I have going as it gets. In fact I can even argue that you finding sexist jokes funny (which isn't bad in and off itself, it's even funnier if you realize why its funny) is just you bending to cultural hegemony, a thought police all it's own. Much more subtle enforcement than you'd usually associate with the fuzz but anyway...

The problem I have with these kind of "nonharmful thoughts" is that they're never questioned. People don't think, they just accept. If you can show me that you believe it for actual reasons, that thought went into your worldview I could respect it. I expect some semblance of thought went into David's views since he said so and I like giving people the benefit of the doubt. I don't like his view, mind, but I can respect it. I can't respect someone who just regurgitates views and thoughts that don't even originate with them.

Maria Caliban wrote...
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.

Tis correct. People do this a lot. The whole conflating thing.

[Ryzaki]

Wut.

Cassandra CLEARLY isn't overweight.

So how exactly did weight get dragged into this arguement?

[Cainhurst Crow]

The fact that you want people to actively police their senses of humor makes you as far away from liberal/individuality as you can possibly get. To the point they need to monitor their reactions to jokes and make sure they think long and hard before allowing themselves to laugh.

Your making people question the reason why they find things funny, by implication making them need to justify their reaction being one of humor, instead of just allowing them to enjoy a joke, is wanting people to police their thoughts. And seeing as how that is the crux of your argument in trying to break a "cultural hegemony", a word which for all we know has no true power or meaning outside of academic philisophical theorizing, makes it clear what your meanings are.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:31 .

[Ryzaki]

David7204 wrote...
It's a two way street.

If I think more of someone who is beautiful, which I do, that fundamentally must mean I think less of people who aren't. There's no way around it.

So you put attractive people on a pedestal pretty much. (Which to be fair most people do). I'm still beyond baffled as to what looks have to do whatsoever with how likely you're to be friends with someone. Unless you're trying to be one of those "friends" that aim to be FWB.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wut.

Cassandra CLEARLY isn't overweight.

So how exactly did weight get dragged into this arguement?

It was in the very beginning to be honest.

Honestly am i the only one who backtracks through threads to see how these arguments get going?

[Muspade]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Cassandra looks great, this thread is dumb, and I hate all of you for making me agree with david in the slightest. It'll ruin my perfect track record.

And for the record, I too would think more of this persons worth,

Then I would this guys,

Because anyone can become fat just by not excising and eating poorly. But maintaining a defined healthy physique requires more work, more care, and generally more effort.

And considering the main thing being brought up has been weight, I think this is a fairly good example.

Not exactly what I refer to when I speak of people who aren't born beautiful since being fat is a transformative trait and not a permanent one.

Modifié par Muspade, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:30 .

[David7204]

Ryzaki wrote...

No but saying you think less of someone because they're not beautiful is a bit...meh. The not wanting to be intimate is a bout obvious crap is obvious because attraction is a part of a relationship but not even friends? What exactly is it about looks that you need them to have that would have a outcome on a friendship? 

It's like me saying I don't want to be friends with attractive people because I think less of them. Like what do their looks have to do with it? 

I drove five hours today.

There was a sunset.

All I did was look at it. I didn't touch it. Didn't get in a relationship with it. Didn't sleep with it. Didn't marry it. In an hour, it was gone, and I'll never see that particular sunset again.

All I got to do was look. But I'm still glad it existed. It made those five hours of tedium a little better.

Is the appreciation of beauty something that gets turned on like a switch when a relationship becomes romantic? No. It doesn't work that way. Like that sunset, even if all I ever get to do is look, I'm still glad it exists. I'm glad to have a beautiful woman exist and brighten the universe with her presence, even if all I do is look. I'm glad to work with such people or be friends with them.

And that has to mean I'm less glad for people who aren't as beautiful. And thus, it must mean I think less of them.

Modifié par David7204, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[Muspade]

David7204 wrote...

And that has to mean I'm less glad for people who aren't as beautiful.

You are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity.

Carry on.

[Fredward]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
The fact that you want people to actively police their senses of humor makes you as far away from liberal/individuality as you can possibly get. To the point they need to monitor their reactions to jokes and make sure they think long and hard before allowing themselves to laugh.

~sigh~ The sad thing is that it isn't even their sense of humor. And they shouldn't have to police their sense of humor, that implies artifice. Creating another external construct to regulate people's behaviour is hardly solving the problem now is it? I just want people to think. Not sure why I bother since from what I've seen from your posts you are literally the embodiment of the issue.

Muspade wrote...
You are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity.

Carry on.

It'd be nice if you pointed out a flaw in his reasoning instead of just dissing him. All he's saying is that beauty puts something a rung higher than the average, that is what beauty entails after all, something above average. It's not that he values the average less just that he values it less in comparison to something that is beautiful. Which only make sense.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:36 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

It doesn't mean you have to be less glad people who aren't beautiful exists though. It just means you can appreciate the beautiful things in this world and leave it at that.

There shouldn't even be this dichotomy in the first place. You can value beauty, feel neutral about other things, and not make it all a less or more relationship.

[Ryzaki]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
It was in the very beginning to be honest.

Honestly am i the only one who backtracks through threads to see how these arguments get going?

That's not really the very beginning if it's on page nine.

And I'm sure you're not. I usually do it myself but this subject is giving me too many facepalms.

I just don't see how one can look at say Aveline vs Isabela and decide that Isabela has more value because she's more attractive.

Or maybe I'm too used to average plain people being screwed over by attractive people and that colors my perception. My mother was beautiful and a complete POS but no one ever seemed to give a damn.

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

It doesn't mean you have to be less glad people who aren't beautiful exists though. It just means you can appreciate the beautiful things in this world and leave it at that.

There shouldn't even be this dichotomy in the first place. You can value beauty, feel neutral about other things, and not make it all a less or more relationship.

If I value beauty and feel neutral about unattractiveness, that means I value beauty more.

Which means I'm going to value such relationships more.

[Ryzaki]

David7204 wrote...
I drove five hours today.

There was a sunset.

All I did was look at it. I didn't touch it. Didn't get in a relationship with it. Didn't sleep with it. Didn't marry it. In an hour, it was gone, and I'll never see that particular sunset again.

All I got to do was look. But I'm still glad it existed. It made those five hours of tedium a little better.

Is the appreciation of beauty something that gets turned on like a switch when a relationship becomes romantic? No. It doesn't work that way. Like that sunset, even if all I ever get to do is look, I'm still glad it exists. I'm glad to have a beautiful woman exist and brighten the universe with her presence, even if all I do is look. I'm glad to work with such people or be friends with them.

And that has to mean I'm less glad for people who aren't as beautiful. And thus, it must mean I think less of them.

No that's fair enough. It's a sunset that looks nice and whatever.

This is my issue

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.

This is where I get confused. You have a looks requirement from friendships? For work relationships? (also you get to pick who you work with you lucky bastard).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:39 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

B4 this thread being locked...

I agree with David7204 about appreciating beauty.
I agree with Darth Brotarian for his conclusions.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
The fact that you want people to actively police their senses of humor makes you as far away from liberal/individuality as you can possibly get. To the point they need to monitor their reactions to jokes and make sure they think long and hard before allowing themselves to laugh.

~sigh~ The sad thing is that it isn't even their sense of humor. And they shouldn't have to police their sense of humor, that implies artifice. Creating another external construct to regulate people's behaviour is hardly solving the problem now is it? I just want people to think. Not sure why I bother since from what I've seen from your posts you are literally the embodiment of the issue.

It is not the thinking and reflecting part I have an issue with, it's all the implications you lace in your post and proposition that taint your words. Hinting that sexists jokes wouldn't exist if our society didn't exists the way it did. Perhaps our sexists jokes wouldn't exists, but that hardly means anything since you never specified a limit on what sexists jokes would come or go with the alteration of culture in the first place, you just used a generalization that hints that all sexists jokes would vanish if people simply contemplated and, by the extension and implication of your words, had to justify why they thought those jokes were funny.

You imply people find them funny because they have no choice but to find them funny. I myself call bull**** on the entire notion that a persons sense of humor is something that need be contemplated deeply in the first place. That by requiring people to do that, you are essentially missing the point of what humor is by treating it as some quantifyable trait with physical worth that can be mathematically deduced, and that people just need to become smart enough to grasp that.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:39 .