• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

lets test your judgement skills on what you see

We Never Know

No Slack
Is my braided beard real or fake?

Use that same judgement on everything you see or hear.
Unless you said my beard was real, then seek help :p
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20210801_044856.jpg
    IMG_20210801_044856.jpg
    243.1 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
with technology today that doesn't mean a darn thing lol

All I can say is, beware of a novice Photoshopper like myself, I can turn this:

40435f67781f2b2c98c4e4fc87ca91b5.jpeg

Into this:

Screenshot_20210730-073853~3.png

And I actually did, because it's my art, using a source image of my face.

I do try to be honest about when I use a filter of myself on a pic, I give people a heads up these days. However, there's always the chance I'll forget to convey in a post, so asking doesn't hurt either. When I'm being really serious about something though, I try not to use filters though, like when proving a point about my appearance.

Usually when I use filters though, it's mostly just to remove a bit of facial hair as I've had some bad luck with my epilator breaking, and I've got a new one coming now though. Us trans females can have slightly more facial hair problems than cis females.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
All I can say is, beware of a novice Photoshopper like myself, I can turn this:

View attachment 53330

Into this:

View attachment 53331

And I actually did, because it's my art, using a source image of my face.

I do try to be honest about when I use a filter of myself on a pic, I give people a heads up these days. However, there's always the chance I'll forget to convey in a post, so asking doesn't hurt either. When I'm being really serious about something though, I try not to use filters though, like when proving a point about my appearance.

Usually when I use filters though, it's mostly just to remove a bit of facial hair as I've had some bad luck with my epilator breaking, and I've got a new one coming now though. Us trans females can have slightly more facial hair problems than cis females.

Hopefully it works for you. I hate shaving but it is what it is.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I have a lot of Cherokee heritage so I can't grow a beard but the funny thing is what little beard I could grow is 5x the hair I have on by arms, legs, and chest.

Here's a chart that outlines the changes a trans female might experience while on feminizing hormones:

Screen-Shot-2018-01-28-at-5.56.15-PM.png


Source: Medical Management of MtF | Transgender Care Moncton

One thing though. I think when they listed male pattern baldness, they may have meant hair growth on the head or a reduction in male pattern baldness.

I find myself moving a bit faster than this chart, however I don't so much find myself at the 6-12 month mark. It wouldn't make sense for me to be there yet.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Is my braided beard real or fake?

Use that same judgement on everything you see or hear.
Unless you said my beard was real, then seek help :p

View attachment 53328

Well, I do believe I get your context, but there is a joke about real and context.

Here is how I was taught it.
Imagine a pond. Now it is not a real pond, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks. A real duck and a decoy duck. The decoy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

In fancy words, the word real has no objective referent, but depends on the context of the other words.
 
Last edited:

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I was joking about there being something wrong with the wolverine pic. It probably was a picture of a real, living wolverine, though I can't say for absolute sure.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well, I do believe I get your context, but there is a joke about real and context.

Here is how I was taught it.
Imagine a pond. Now it is not a real pond, but it is real that you can imagine it. In the pond are 2 ducks. A real duck and a decoy duck. The decoy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real decoy duck.

In fancy words, the word real has not objective referent, but depends on the context of the other words.


You might be interested in a book I'm reading, 'Helgoland' by Carlo Rovelli. He's a theoretical physicist but the book is philosophical in it's approach to reality, and our understanding of it. Anyway, here's an extract;

"In order to understand the relation between our mental life and the physical world...it is essential to take into account the fact we describe the physical world from the outside, while our mental activity is experienced in the first person, from within."

So far, so fairly straight forward, but then there's this;

"If we imagine the totality of things, we are imagining being outside the universe, looking at it from out there. But there is no 'outside', to the totality of things. The external point of view is a point of view that does not exist. Every description of the world is from inside it. The externally observed world does not exist: what exists are only internal perspectives on the world which are partial and reflect one another. The world is this reciprocal reflection of perspectives."

If I've understood the thrust of the book, Rovelli is arguing that there is no objective reality. Worth a read anyway, if you haven't already.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You might be interested in a book I'm reading, 'Helgoland' by Carlo Rovelli. He's a theoretical physicist but the book is philosophical in it's approach to reality, and our understanding of it. Anyway, here's an extract;

"In order to understand the relation between our mental life and the physical world...it is essential to take into account the fact we describe the physical world from the outside, while our mental activity is experienced in the first person, from within."

So far, so fairly straight forward, but then there's this;

"If we imagine the totality of things, we are imagining being outside the universe, looking at it from out there. But there is no 'outside', to the totality of things. The external point of view is a point of view that does not exist. Every description of the world is from inside it. The externally observed world does not exist: what exists are only internal perspectives on the world which are partial and reflect one another. The world is this reciprocal reflection of perspectives."

If I've understood the thrust of the book, Rovelli is arguing that there is no objective reality. Worth a read anyway, if you haven't already.

Well, I have already come across that one from other sources. As to the bold one, well, it depends on how you subjectively test subjective and objective, but yes - at least in some sense there is a irreducible subjective element to reality, that is necessary to be explained as a part of reality. If it is sufficient as the only necessary element, is a lot of fun.

Regards
 
Top