"Giada, the inner beauty thing is just nonsense"

[Riverwolf]

Because if memory serves I saw you posting in support of evolution theory.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Subjective is subjective does not validate subjectivity.

Then you explain how something that requires a subject-object relationship could possibly be objective.

 

[Riverwolf]

The original post in the topic has a reference to natural selection theory.

Which I pointed out as being completely irrelevant, because natural selection doesn't really apply to those of us who live in urbanized areas.

Only creationism validates subjectivity as well as objectivity.

Evolution theory makes subjectivity into a subcategory of objectivity.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or how any of this relates to the topic at hand.

Do you know what "subjective" and "objective" mean?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I know what subjective and objective means, how to philosopically validate subjevtivity.

You have no idea how subjectivity relates to the topic?

Darwin also wrote on sexual selection, as well as on the expression of emotion in man and animal. Darwin did not accept subjectivity is valid as it is in common discourse. He basically implied everybody is wrong to say iloveyou in the way it is meant in common discourse.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's the result of acceptance of evolution theory that people ignore God the holy spirit, but they ignore the human spirit just as well.

If anything, gaining and holding an appreciation, knowledge, and understanding of science, life, the universe, etc. would being one closer to god rather than take them further from god.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If anything, gaining and holding an appreciation, knowledge, and understanding of science, life, the universe, etc. would being one closer to god rather than take them further from god.

Science yes, social darwinism not. To assert love and hate as fact is pseudoscience and destroys belief in the human spirit.

 

[Riverwolf]

I know what subjective and objective means, how to philosopically validate subjevtivity.

I don't need philosophy to validate subjectivity. It's part of English grammar.

You have no idea how subjectivity relates to the topic?

Beauty is subjective. That's how.

Darwin also wrote on sexual selection, as well as on the expression of emotion in man and animal. Darwin did not accept subjectivity is valid as it is in common discourse. He basically implied everybody is wrong to say iloveyou in the way it is meant in common discourse.

I don't really care what Darwin said. Not everything he said has held up.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science yes, social darwinism not. To assert love and hate as fact is pseudoscience and destroys belief in the human spirit.

You said evolutionary theory, which is not social darwinism. Social darwinism is the failed attempt to apply evolutionary theory to sociology and politics. If you're confusing the two then you're not in a position to discuss or debate either.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You said evolutionary theory, which is not social darwinism. Social darwinism is the failed attempt to apply evolutionary theory to sociology and politics. If you're confusing the two then you're not in a position to discuss or debare either.

.....who is confusing fact with opinion? Evolution scientists themselves or people reading their theory?

A normal interpretation of evolition theory is social darwinism, one has to consider evolution theory uses metaphoric language of succes, and distinguish the metaphore from what actually occurs.

 

[bobhikes]

This title is between brackets because it is a quotation from an Italian movie Come tu mi vuoi (transl. As you want me to look like).
It tells the story of a college girl named Giada who falls in love with a college young man. She does't care much about her looks, and she defends the importance of inner beauty.
This guys seems to like her, but then she finds out that he's ashamed of going out with her, because he doesn't want to be ridiculed by his friends (who think that Giada is really ugly and uncool) .
Then she decides to change her looks after her roommate tells her: Ah, Giada, the inner beauty story is pure bull...it. Only beautiful people can like each other. It's natural selection.

and in fact she changes her looks totally. This movie suggests us that inner beauty unfortunately is not sufficient in the world we live in

here is the before and after


thoughts?

Its not really about inner beauty. Its about her wants. I sure there were many guys that liked her for who she was but she gave them no time. They weren't what she wanted. She wanted a specific guy so she had to be specific. If I want a Cadillac (which I do) I will have to make sacrifices in my life to get one. I am not willing to make those sacrifices and drive a Hyundai and still have a happy life. Now I'm not saying the guy is a Cadillac but he is a specific individual with specific wants. If he wanted a blonde women, she would have to dye her hair blonde. That doesn't mean there aren't tons of men that would love her as a brunette but the one she wants prefers blondes.

 

[dust1n]

I am not expressing my view on what happens in real life. I am just analyzing what happens.as the movie does by portraying a fictitious but absolutely realistic situation
Generally pretty people seek pretty people. Of course there are rare cases (exceptions) in which pretty people fall in love with ugly people for their "inner beauty".
period.

I don't see why advocating women being prettier is the natural conclusion of whatever you feel you have analyzed correctly. Either you find someone pretty or you don't. It's people decision regarding how much time and effort one spends on their aesthetic appearance.

But I don't see why you think all men think is admirable... Because I certainly don't. And sometimes pretty people fall in love with ugly people who have no inner beauty. See any of my ex-girlfriends.

it's just reality- should we force pretty people to fall in love with ugly people because we think that this is unjust and unfair?

ugly people's life would be much easier if they were pretty. it's a fact

Of course one can flee from reality and think that life is less cruel than it really is. It's just illusion

I don't think anyone here is advocating forcing people to fall in love with anything.

Ugly people's lives might or might not be easier if they were pretty. No amount of attractiveness is going to solve any of my particular problems, but whatever. Ugly people's lives might or might be easier if they were to ignore douchebaggery as well. I'd suggest the second for all the ugly people.

 

[dust1n]

A normal interpretation of evolition theory is social darwinism...

Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. Social Darwinism owed more to Herbert Spencer's ideas, together with genetics and a Protestant Nonconformist tradition with roots in Hobbes and Malthus, than to Charles Darwin's research.[8] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.[9]

Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[10] Some scholars argue that Darwin's view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from the leading social interpreters of his theory such as Spencer,[11] but Spencer's Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society were published before Darwin first published his theory, and both promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.[12]

Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Estro Felino]

But I don't see why you think all men think is admirable... Because I certainly don't. And sometimes pretty people fall in love with ugly people who have no inner beauty. See any of my ex-girlfriends.
.

Okay...but we are speaking of the majority of males. Firstly I never criticize the males who choose women for their inner qualities, nor I criticized those men who don't like sexy provoking women.
Every man to his taste.

But most men are aroused by sexy provoking women with tiny waist and large breasts. Shall we crucify them?
Lots of men -even unwillingly- stare at women's breasts. It's a unwilling reflex, almost.

 

[Estro Felino]

Remember that in Europe not a few centuries ago, it was far sexier to be more corpulent than a skeleton.

well...in Italy it is still sexier to be a bellied male than a skinny one.

 

[Koldo]

well...in Italy it is still sexier to be a bellied male than a skinny one.

Fifty years from now, someone will attribute the rise of immigrants in Italy to this post.

 

[Koldo]

But I don't see why you think all men think is admirable... Because I certainly don't. And sometimes pretty people fall in love with ugly people who have no inner beauty. See any of my ex-girlfriends.

Provide photos, or it didn't happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

Speaking of inner beauty, I've had this stuff. It's fantastic, especially in chicken soup....

The label also reminds me of Lisa Simpson.

 

[Estro Felino]

Speaking of inner beauty, I've had this stuff. It's fantastic, especially in chicken soup....

The label also reminds me of Lisa Simpson.

speaking of toons, don't u think this would be the perfect teacher for your sons? I do.

 

[Revoltingest]

She reminds me of an art teacher back in 9th grade. I really liked art.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Okay...but we are speaking of the majority of males. Firstly I never criticize the males who choose women for their inner qualities, nor I criticized those men who don't like sexy provoking women.
Every man to his taste.

Sure you have. You've mentioned many times before what makes a "real man" and what makes a "real woman."

But most men are aroused by sexy provoking women with tiny waist and large breasts. Shall we crucify them?
Lots of men -even unwillingly- stare at women's breasts. It's a unwilling reflex, almost.

Women look at large breasts too. It's cultural conditioning, not a biological determining trait or bahevior.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sure you have. You've mentioned many times before what makes a "real man" and what makes a "real woman."

I said according to most Italians. Not in my opinion.
and by the way, It's not my fault if most men want sexy women and sometimes do any thing to sleep with them.
Maybe if Jacqueline Kennedy had been sexy enough, her husband, JFK, would have never slept with Marilyn Monroe.
Would you deny it that almost all men were crazy for her? I wouldn't.

Shall we crucify one of the best presidents of the American history, if not the best?