Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Jul 14, 2008 13:42:28 GMT -5
It's the same thinking as when you criticize Madonna or Keanu or some other low-talent dope and the inevitable sneer is, "Well s/he's a millionaire so they must have done something right." Because, yeah, income = talent. Duh. Constantine, Scanner Darkley, point break, and Bill & Ted disagree with that "no talent dope" sentiment seriously, Keanu rocks
|
|
Sajoa Moe
Patti Mayonnaise
Did you get that thing I sent ya?
A man without gimmick.
Posts: 39,683
|
Post by Sajoa Moe on Jul 14, 2008 14:00:32 GMT -5
SCREW HER BOOBS! WE'VE GOT A MATCH!
|
|
Marvelously Mediocre
Fry's dog Seymour
Beggin' for a little SWAGGAH!
Haha. What a story Mark.
Posts: 21,224
|
Post by Marvelously Mediocre on Jul 14, 2008 14:04:22 GMT -5
From another thread. Naturally, all of you guys are dating incredibly beautiful women, and Candice Michelle just can't compare...right? I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS KIND OF THINKING. And it's on the internet all over the place, even on this board, when you guys talk about divas. HOW DOES NOT FINDING A GIRL ATTRACTIVE RELATE TO ACTIVELY SLEEPING WITH BEAUTIFUL WOMEN?When I see a bad movie, I'm still allowed to criticize it, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BAD. I don't need to go out and make a great movie to have an opinion on cinema, do I? It just really bothers me that this kind of thinking is used, because it's really aggressive, as opposed to constructive. It basically says "NO, MY OPINION IS RIGHT, AND YER DUM AND YOU DONT HAVE ANY TEH SEX WIT NOBODY SO FOREVER YOU LOSE AND IM A BIG WINNAR ON THE INTERNET ALWAYS." If I think John Cena has always looked funny and kind of ugly like a caveman with legs that are too short like a gorilla, THEN THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I don't need to be dating George Clooney (or, for example, I don't know, Edge) to think that he's ugly. I put this in the WWE forum because that's where I see it the most, and I'm wondering, seriously, help me out: HOW DOES THIS LOGICAL FALLACY RUN RAMPANT THROUGHOUT EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT WOMEN'S ATTRACTIVENESS?i love you
|
|
|
Post by TripleMerc on Jul 14, 2008 14:10:07 GMT -5
From another thread. I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THIS KIND OF THINKING. And it's on the internet all over the place, even on this board, when you guys talk about divas. HOW DOES NOT FINDING A GIRL ATTRACTIVE RELATE TO ACTIVELY SLEEPING WITH BEAUTIFUL WOMEN?When I see a bad movie, I'm still allowed to criticize it, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BAD. I don't need to go out and make a great movie to have an opinion on cinema, do I? It just really bothers me that this kind of thinking is used, because it's really aggressive, as opposed to constructive. It basically says "NO, MY OPINION IS RIGHT, AND YER DUM AND YOU DONT HAVE ANY TEH SEX WIT NOBODY SO FOREVER YOU LOSE AND IM A BIG WINNAR ON THE INTERNET ALWAYS." If I think John Cena has always looked funny and kind of ugly like a caveman with legs that are too short like a gorilla, THEN THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I don't need to be dating George Clooney (or, for example, I don't know, Edge) to think that he's ugly. I put this in the WWE forum because that's where I see it the most, and I'm wondering, seriously, help me out: HOW DOES THIS LOGICAL FALLACY RUN RAMPANT THROUGHOUT EVERY ARGUMENT ABOUT WOMEN'S ATTRACTIVENESS?i love you Times 2.
|
|
|
Post by machinegun on Jul 14, 2008 14:12:27 GMT -5
SCREW HER BOOBS! WE'VE GOT A MATCH! I'VE GOT A REPUTATION.... OF A BADASS
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jul 14, 2008 14:23:56 GMT -5
The REAL insult here is that we're all nerds who have no game and can't get women.
Well, maybe most of you are, but not me!
I think I could get Candice if I tried out all my suave pick-up lines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2008 14:25:46 GMT -5
SCREW HER BOOBS! WE'VE GOT A MATCH! Damn you! I have a good mind to edit that post just so I can claim that And I agree with the sentiment but it's not limiting to guys........Whenever I criticise a band or actor I don't like it's according to females "Because you're jealous that they are successful and/or good looking"..........Which would be a valid point except for the fact that for that to be true I'd have to hate all male bands/celebrities So whilst I agree with Kneelift's sentiment, I just wanna point out it's not limited to guys
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Jul 14, 2008 14:47:26 GMT -5
The thing is, is that beuty is in the eye of the beholder. That's what this is all about. The guy saying that "hmm...you must be dating a real super model in order to think she's ugly" is comming from someone with the perspective that the "ugly girl" is really good looking. The other person who dosen't understand that logic has the perspective that the ugly person, is infact, "ugly", and therefore, dosen't understand why the first person thinks that you have to "know better" or "have experience with more beautiful", yet, first the person actually does not think that in the way that the seconmd person believes him to think that, because the conversation has one common factor, and one x-factor. Sinse beuty is in the eye of the beholder, it becomes the x-factor, and sinse the other topic is right there to see, it becomes the common factor. So in this conversation, the "ugly girl" is the common factor, Let's say, Candice Michelle for example. She's there for everyoen to analyze, everyone knows what they're looking at whan they see her. Some will say she' beautiful, some will say she's ugly. Now, when someone talks about people that are "more beautiful", they are imagining what they determine is beutiful, but therefore, there's no standard, because It's aleays beautiful because THINKS they're talking about the same thing, yet, they're talking about different things, and so therefore the conversation will becaome a lost cause. It's not a guy or girl thing.
In this scenerio, the person who feels that the woman is attractive but the woman is being berated and therefore says the line that was said (apparently everyone here is dating beautiful girls and candice dosen't measure up) ( and then the response, how does dating beautiful women relate to thinking one is ugly?) , the first guy could NOT then make the counter argument "why do you assume that beautiful is more beautiful than candice?", because that would make no sense.
There were a number of mistakes here, and we'd best understand it if we worked backwards. First, the reason why the last comment didn't make any sense is because It's like asking if you can taste the color blue. It's a play on words that's not meant to be used in that way, which means, that somewhere along the line, a relative term was used as a non-relative term and accepted as such, but then WAS used in a relative sense in a statment that was filled with non-relative terms, and therefore, the relative term was also treated as a non relative term even though it was used in a relative sense, and then the relative term went back to not being relative again. In short, one word was used to decsribe a universal standard observed by everyone, then was used in an imaginary sense, and then the same word was used again twice, one in it's earlier observed sense, and one in it's imaginable sense. That word was "beautiful". The last argument used the word beautiful in it's now two differnt meanings, but that's because it unknowingly "split" during the conversation.
The word beautiful "split" during the comment "how does dating beutiful women relate to recognizing ugliness?", that's because the word beautiful was only used once, and therefore, people assumed that it had the same meaning here as it did during the firt line, and that, it did not.
During the first line "apparently everyone has dated beautiful women and candice dosen't measure up" the word beautiful, or what is meant to be beautiful, was a relative term here, and only had meaning in the mind of him and him alone, yet, because there was no standard other than a positive standard, everyone related to what beautiful is, but they didn't know that it was a differemnt meaning from his. But whenever "Candice" is mentioned, there is a standard, because everyone has their observations fixed on the same thing. therefore, the only way to view this argument is the correct light is to take away the relativeness of the word beautiful, and create a fixed observation of what it is, and then review the entire argument the way it was meant to be view, and It probably wouldn't make any sense, but everyone would know why. It'd say that the argument would have actually developed differently.
So If we assign a standard of Beauty, like slot of people do in an argument, we'd just say that beauty is "Trish Stratus level" or simply "Trish Stratus".
Here's what it would have looked like without changing anything:
- "apparently everyone here is dating trish stratus and therefore candice dosen't measure up
-"how does dating trish stratus relate to thinking candice is ugly?"
-"why do you assume that trish stratus is more beautiful than candice?"
Now, lets say that beautiful is bertha faye.
- "apparently everyone here is dating bertha faye and therefore candice dosen't measure up"
-"how does dating bertha faye relate to thinking candice is ugly?"
-"why do you assume that bertha faye is more beautiful than candice?"
See now, if you strip the word beautiful from it's relative startus, the first guy CAN finish the argument with the line "why do you assume that beaustiful is more beautiful than candice".
So, with the relative argument, the original poster of this thread could be said to be correct, but without the relative argument, it could be said that the original poster of the comment sould be correct. Therefore, because of the relative nature of the word beautiful, and people's inability to understand it's relative nature, no one is correct, and beauty is still relative. It's definitely not a guy or girl thing. It's not a truth thing either, as there is such thing as ultimate truth, it just dosen't apply to everything. Somethings in this world are relative, and somethings in this world are not relative. Some things are universally true, but just how to approach it is relative. Beauty is one of those things that is relative, but just has a good majority of the population in agreement to what the fundamentals of it is supposed to be.
"Ugly" is the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Sumbody Gon' Get Dey Kneelift on Jul 14, 2008 15:13:47 GMT -5
Although I agree with the sentiment behind this thread, I don't think it's fair to lump all guys together in this thinking. The original person who made that quote about Candice doesn't necessarily reflect the brains of all guys. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, it just seems the gripe would be better directed at the person who made the Candice comment and not all guys everywhere. No, I totally understand, trust me. I just generalized for context. Also, I should note, who people would and wouldn't have sex with is often only very tangentially related to who they find attractive.
|
|
|
Post by jamofpearls on Jul 14, 2008 15:18:18 GMT -5
Give em hell jumping knee lift. I used to deal w/ this all the time when i was younger. Guys would ask who my celeb crushes were, I would say Jenean Garafalo, Natalie Merchant, Debbie Harry, and Sherilyn Fenn. They would tend to make fun of me for not saying what was regular at the time...ie, Pamela Anderson, or the rest of the cast of Baywatch. Actually, most guys I knew back then didn't know who any of women on my list were. They just thought i was stupid or gay or whatever, for not finding Pam Anderson attractive.
|
|
PKO
King Koopa
Posts: 12,617
|
Post by PKO on Jul 14, 2008 15:22:36 GMT -5
The thing is, is that beuty is in the eye of the beholder. That's what this is all about. The guy saying that "hmm...you must be dating a real super model in order to think she's ugly" is comming from someone with the perspective that the "ugly girl" is really good looking. The other person who dosen't understand that logic has the perspective that the ugly person, is infact, "ugly", and therefore, dosen't understand why the first person thinks that you have to "know better" or "have experience with more beautiful", yet, first the person actually does not think that in the way that the seconmd person believes him to think that, because the conversation has one common factor, and one x-factor. Sinse beuty is in the eye of the beholder, it becomes the x-factor, and sinse the other topic is right there to see, it becomes the common factor. So in this conversation, the "ugly girl" is the common factor, Let's say, Candice Michelle for example. She's there for everyoen to analyze, everyone knows what they're looking at whan they see her. Some will say she' beautiful, some will say she's ugly. Now, when someone talks about people that are "more beautiful", they are imagining what they determine is beutiful, but therefore, there's no standard, because It's aleays beautiful because THINKS they're talking about the same thing, yet, they're talking about different things, and so therefore the conversation will becaome a lost cause. It's not a guy or girl thing. In this scenerio, the person who feels that the woman is attractive but the woman is being berated and therefore says the line that was said (apparently everyone here is dating beautiful girls and candice dosen't measure up) ( and then the response, how does dating beautiful women relate to thinking one is ugly?) , the first guy could NOT then make the counter argument "why do you assume that beautiful is more beautiful than candice?", because that would make no sense. There were a number of mistakes here, and we'd best understand it if we worked backwards. First, the reason why the last comment didn't make any sense is because It's like asking if you can taste the color blue. It's a play on words that's not meant to be used in that way, which means, that somewhere along the line, a relative term was used as a non-relative term and accepted as such, but then WAS used in a relative sense in a statment that was filled with non-relative terms, and therefore, the relative term was also treated as a non relative term even though it was used in a relative sense, and then the relative term went back to not being relative again. In short, one word was used to decsribe a universal standard observed by everyone, then was used in an imaginary sense, and then the same word was used again twice, one in it's earlier observed sense, and one in it's imaginable sense. That word was "beautiful". The last argument used the word beautiful in it's now two differnt meanings, but that's because it unknowingly "split" during the conversation. The word beautiful "split" during the comment "how does dating beutiful women relate to recognizing ugliness?", that's because the word beautiful was only used once, and therefore, people assumed that it had the same meaning here as it did during the firt line, and that, it did not. During the first line "apparently everyone has dated beautiful women and candice dosen't measure up" the word beautiful, or what is meant to be beautiful, was a relative term here, and only had meaning in the mind of him and him alone, yet, because there was no standard other than a positive standard, everyone related to what beautiful is, but they didn't know that it was a differemnt meaning from his. But whenever "Candice" is mentioned, there is a standard, because everyone has their observations fixed on the same thing. therefore, the only way to view this argument is the correct light is to take away the relativeness of the word beautiful, and create a fixed observation of what it is, and then review the entire argument the way it was meant to be view, and It probably wouldn't make any sense, but everyone would know why. It'd say that the argument would have actually developed differently. So If we assign a standard of Beauty, like slot of people do in an argument, we'd just say that beauty is "Trish Stratus level" or simply "Trish Stratus". Here's what it would have looked like without changing anything: - "apparently everyone here is dating trish stratus and therefore candice dosen't measure up -"how does dating trish stratus relate to thinking candice is ugly?" -"why do you assume that trish stratus is more beautiful than candice?" Now, lets say that beautiful is bertha faye. - "apparently everyone here is dating bertha faye and therefore candice dosen't measure up" -"how does dating bertha faye relate to thinking candice is ugly?" -"why do you assume that bertha faye is more beautiful than candice?" See now, if you strip the word beautiful from it's relative startus, the first guy CAN finish the argument with the line "why do you assume that beaustiful is more beautiful than candice". So, with the relative argument, the original poster of this thread could be said to be correct, but without the relative argument, it could be said that the original poster of the comment sould be correct. Therefore, because of the relative nature of the word beautiful, and people's inability to understand it's relative nature, no one is correct, and beauty is still relative. It's definitely not a guy or girl thing. It's not a truth thing either, as there is such thing as ultimate truth, it just dosen't apply to everything. Somethings in this world are relative, and somethings in this world are not relative. Some things are universally true, but just how to approach it is relative. Beauty is one of those things that is relative, but just has a good majority of the population in agreement to what the fundamentals of it is supposed to be. "Ugly" is the same thing. That was pretty much amazing. Well said. I agree with the original poster to an extent. When a conversation is going on about someone's attractiveness (say Candice just for the sake of it) and someone say something like: "I don't really find her attractive" and someone else replies "You must be dating an incredibly beautiful woman, and Candice Michelle can't compare right?" that's out of order and just stupid. But when the previous comments have consisted of talking about how "terrible", "ugly", "disgusting" and "horrible" she looks it's fair game to reply with that comment. That may just be because when I talk about someone's physical appearence I don't use words like ugly or disgusting and try to be polite. I'd never be that rude about someone in real life (so I wouldn't on the internet). All the poster (who said the sentence in question) did was try to defend someone, albeit someone who would never see the comment. If someone is being rude in the first place, then expect someone to say something rude back.* * And even though the people may have been stating their opinions, there are more polite ways of doing it than saying someone looks disgusting. You could say you "don't think they look very good at all". I realise that no-one is likely to ever do this, but I just think it's rude to use words like "disgusting" and "horrible" in reference to someones appearence especially.
|
|
|
Post by Dynamite Kid on Jul 14, 2008 15:34:48 GMT -5
Look at you making a logical post, it's not like your dad was Einstein or something!
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jul 14, 2008 15:39:17 GMT -5
I think it's wrong when people use terms like "disgusting" when talking a single picture or something, just because, and I'm sure we've all experienced this, pictures don't always come out very flattering.
However, I agree with the general point here.
Not to get overly dirty, but I think it's kind of like the principle of different things seeming attractive or unattractive depending on circumstances. For example, just because I don't "right click --> save" pics of a woman who looks a certain way doesn't mean I wouldn't find her attractive in real life.
Hell, I tend to like curvy/toned girls (hence why I find a female wrestler like, say, Cheerleader Melissa attractive), but I could go out to a bar tonight, meet a girl who's very slender, and find her really attractive. It's circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Next Level was WRONG on Jul 14, 2008 16:13:37 GMT -5
Personally, whilst never having used the sentence in question myself, I have always found it to be a simple, effective way of silencing people whenever there's a slew of jackasses that have decided that they need to inform the world that they believe someone is a "butterface",or "not attractive in the least", or "looks like a tranny" or something equally as annoying and pointless.
Without dumbed-down child-like logic like this this, threads would have page after page of "nobody asked you" "its my opinion, I have a right to waste every-ones time with it blah blah blah" followed by flaming, high tempers and probably me being banned.
If that sentence gets posted in a thread, I'm usually thankful its there, because what I really want to say is kinda frowned upon by the mods here.
|
|
|
Post by 01 Mark! on Jul 14, 2008 16:18:32 GMT -5
Give em hell jumping knee lift. I used to deal w/ this all the time when i was younger. Guys would ask who my celeb crushes were, I would say Jenean Garafalo, Natalie Merchant, Debbie Harry, and Sherilyn Fenn. They would tend to make fun of me for not saying what was regular at the time...ie, Pamela Anderson, or the rest of the cast of Baywatch. Actually, most guys I knew back then didn't know who any of women on my list were. They just thought i was stupid or gay or whatever, for not finding Pam Anderson attractive. LOL @ HEPITATIS B In a serious note I also hate how most guys I know think that blonde AE wearing white girls are automatically attractive. I seriously dont get how some people are attracted to genericness
|
|
|
Post by Long A, Short A on Jul 14, 2008 16:22:21 GMT -5
SCREW HER BOOBS! WE'VE GOT A MATCH! Damn you! I have a good mind to edit that post just so I can claim that And I agree with the sentiment but it's not limiting to guys........Whenever I criticise a band or actor I don't like it's according to females "Because you're jealous that they are successful and/or good looking"..........Which would be a valid point except for the fact that for that to be true I'd have to hate all male bands/celebrities So whilst I agree with Kneelift's sentiment, I just wanna point out it's not limited to guys Yeah girls do it too, but we don't do it the same way guys do. I've notices that if a girl doesn't find a popular guy attractive, her humanity and sexuality isn't questioned. I haven't been roasted because I'm not gone over Cena or Orton. Plus many people use terms like hate and jealousy way, way too liberally nowadays. The "you must date a supermodel" argument is just part of the trend.
|
|
|
Post by stinger on Jul 14, 2008 16:23:56 GMT -5
As the author of the post in question, I'd like to explain my rationale. I made no comment as to how attractive I thought Candice is. I was criticizing the idiots who get on here and make derogatory comments about the way people look. I made the comment to get people to realize how silly it is to talk about how ugly when they obviously have nothing better to do than sit at home and start threads about how ugly they think someone is after ogling 20 or so pictures of them in a bikini on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by BRAINFADE on Jul 14, 2008 16:43:43 GMT -5
JUMPINGKNEELIFT! *clap clap clapclapclap* JUMPINGKNEELIFT! *clap clap clapclapclap*
|
|
pks
Don Corleone
Is against Geoffrey, smurfing and admin favoritism.
Posts: 1,363
|
Post by pks on Jul 14, 2008 16:44:18 GMT -5
I find most the girls in wrestling ugly, and almost mannish.
But man do I love some indie girls and joshis.
|
|
wwerules60
El Dandy
"Bring what? a vomit bag? a fig newton?"
Posts: 8,999
|
Post by wwerules60 on Jul 14, 2008 16:58:46 GMT -5
I agree with the original poster. But it does get old when every day there is a new _________ is so ugly thread. A lot of the times it comes off as someone trying to be a "rebel" and not find the woman attractive when everyone else does. I'm not saying that is always the case but sometimes I get that feeling.
|
|