yes, both! would be fine too.Justintruth wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2019 1:18 pmOr at the United Nationsgaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:39 amyes, you do him him honour in providing the link and his name.Justintruth wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:39 am
http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petro ... -obituary/
i personally honour him for having a mind of his own in a time when it was easier to just be a robot.
he save millions IMO.
not being hypoberipic(sp) here.
IMO than man deserves a statue in "Moscow Square".
How should society be organised, if at all?
I think beauty serves a survival purpose in mate selection, so beauty and ugl both are consequential and very important.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:02 pm
The rest of the things that some call beautiful and some call ugly are not inconsequential, but individually decided. If it were inconsequential, beauty would not create joy in me. That's a consequence all right. I would not want to deprive myself of the enjoyment in my life of the things I consider beautiful.
It's just that not all people in mankind can agree what beautiful is, and what components of a creation make it beautiful or ugly.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests