Re: Why is everything so Ugly now?
Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:53 am
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
If that is what 'that word' PRESUMES, to you, then okay. But 'it' does NOT PRESUME 'that' to EVERY one.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:17 amTrolling presumes an intent to fool or misdirect people.Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:58 pmLook AT the heading of your threads, and the words that you USE in your threads, you are 'fishing' for people TO BITE.
you ASK QUESTIONS, in the HOPE that you WILL GET OPPOSITION. So then you can EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS, in the hope that you WILL GET TO SHOW that you ARE right and they are wrong, which you HOPE would make you look FAR MORE SUPERIOR than "others" are, which is what you 'currently' BELIEVE is true, right?
If you SAY and BELIEVE so, then okay.
LOL DEFINE and EXPLAIN the word 'Beauty'.
Okay. What is your OWN 'suspicion' HOW and WHY so-called 'Western society' (whatever that even MEANS or REFERS TO, EXACTLY) has, supposedly and allegedly, DECAYED, SO QUICKLY, from YOUR perspective, with regards to some so-called 'thing' as 'Beauty'?
Okay, so you have been talking ABOUT and refer TO some 70 or so years, ONLY.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 8:05 am I suspect that the 1950's Beauty standards are now reserved only for the wealth, white, coastal liberal self-proclaimed 'Elitists'. So they are allowed to adulate, honor, preserve, and have (sexual) access to Beauty, but no longer the middle class or the poor. Thus the 1950s Beauty standards have become private, and hidden, rather than publicly displayed as before.
There IS A SAYING, 'Beauty is in the 'eye' of the beholder'.
The amount of times people, SAY what they do NOT MEAN, or, MEAN what they do NOT SAY, in WRITTEN FORUMS, is pretty amazing considering how much EASIER and SIMPLER it is to be UNDERSTOOD WHEN, and IF, people just SAID and MEANT what they ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT.
Fair enough. Maybe I'm wrong.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:53 amI ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MESSED 'that' UP. I was MEANT TO have SAID and WRITTEN, 'right' INSTEAD OF 'left', and, 'left' INSTEAD OF 'right'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pmThat is true, in some ways,Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:08 pm
AND ANY one here could have CHOSEN OTHER pictures in the same date range, and then WROTE, 'Why is everything so Beautiful now?', and you STILL would have AGREED that the individuals pictured on the left are generally more 'beautiful' (or less 'uglier') than the ones in the pictures on the right.
WHY are you UNDER some sort of DELUSION that 'this' IS 'ugly'? Some people might see 'this' as 'beauty' or 'beautiful'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm however, in terms of media and culture, beauty (especially for women) was highlighted or emphasized more (to whatever extent) in the early to mid part of the 20th century in the US than it is today. If there were people who deliberately tried to be ugly (tattoos, body piercing, deviance in various forms)
WHY can you NOT JUST SEE and UNDERSTAND that 'beauty', and thus 'ugliness', IS IN 'the eye of the beholder', as some say, or IS 'absolutely RELATIVE TO 'the observer'?'Attractiveness', or more Correctly and more Accurately, 'attraction', itself, IS an INNATE 'instinct', which has been around FOREVER, and which is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NECESSARY in the Natural Order of 'things'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
they were not featured in fashion as prominently then as now. It seems to me that there are a few constants in terms of beauty that are more or less biologically (reproductively) bounded.
'Beauty' and/or 'ugliness' ONLY came-into-being with the evolution of human created 'arts', 'modifications', and/or 'creations'.What about the MOST so-called and so-labeled 'mentally productive' and thus 'MOST mentally healthy' female but who is also in the MOST largest female body?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
I suspect a physically and mentally productive or healthy female is always going to be viewed by the majority of males as more attractive and an extremely obese and unhealthy individual is going to be seen as less attractive.
Do you find 'this one' MORE or LESS 'attractive'?
AND, more or less 'attractive' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?
Furthermore, are 'you' YET AWARE that what you find 'attractive' "others" may well NOT AT ALL, and vice-versa?Thus, 'this' 'diagnosis of human thinking and perception', which you have just shared here with us, might be the very reason WHY 'you' are NOT sexually attractive to ANY woman. 'you' may well appear to have NO need to be 'sexually active' ANYMORE.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm I suspect that overeating is a biological indicator to us that there is no need to become sexually active.
By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the human bodies that weigh more than others are ACTUALLY an indication of NO need to become sexually active or are NOT sexually active?REALLY?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm There is plenty of food and no need to overpopulate to the point where food would become scarce. However, if there is widespread scarcity and shortage, then sexuality is heightened to accommodate for shortened life expectancy and infant mortality.
Here we have a GREAT example of WHERE, WHEN, and HOW these people, back then, WOULD say just about ANY 'thing', which they HOPED WOULD 'fit in WITH' what they were ALREADY currently ASSUMING or BELIEVING was true.
Saying, 'I am wrong', or 'I'm wrong', is NOT even 'Right', and thus IS 'Wrong', itself.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 2:21 pmFair enough. Maybe I'm wrong.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jul 02, 2023 12:53 amI ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MESSED 'that' UP. I was MEANT TO have SAID and WRITTEN, 'right' INSTEAD OF 'left', and, 'left' INSTEAD OF 'right'.
WHY are you UNDER some sort of DELUSION that 'this' IS 'ugly'? Some people might see 'this' as 'beauty' or 'beautiful'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm however, in terms of media and culture, beauty (especially for women) was highlighted or emphasized more (to whatever extent) in the early to mid part of the 20th century in the US than it is today. If there were people who deliberately tried to be ugly (tattoos, body piercing, deviance in various forms)
WHY can you NOT JUST SEE and UNDERSTAND that 'beauty', and thus 'ugliness', IS IN 'the eye of the beholder', as some say, or IS 'absolutely RELATIVE TO 'the observer'?'Attractiveness', or more Correctly and more Accurately, 'attraction', itself, IS an INNATE 'instinct', which has been around FOREVER, and which is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NECESSARY in the Natural Order of 'things'.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
they were not featured in fashion as prominently then as now. It seems to me that there are a few constants in terms of beauty that are more or less biologically (reproductively) bounded.
'Beauty' and/or 'ugliness' ONLY came-into-being with the evolution of human created 'arts', 'modifications', and/or 'creations'.What about the MOST so-called and so-labeled 'mentally productive' and thus 'MOST mentally healthy' female but who is also in the MOST largest female body?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
I suspect a physically and mentally productive or healthy female is always going to be viewed by the majority of males as more attractive and an extremely obese and unhealthy individual is going to be seen as less attractive.
Do you find 'this one' MORE or LESS 'attractive'?
AND, more or less 'attractive' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?
Furthermore, are 'you' YET AWARE that what you find 'attractive' "others" may well NOT AT ALL, and vice-versa?Thus, 'this' 'diagnosis of human thinking and perception', which you have just shared here with us, might be the very reason WHY 'you' are NOT sexually attractive to ANY woman. 'you' may well appear to have NO need to be 'sexually active' ANYMORE.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm I suspect that overeating is a biological indicator to us that there is no need to become sexually active.
By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the human bodies that weigh more than others are ACTUALLY an indication of NO need to become sexually active or are NOT sexually active?REALLY?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm There is plenty of food and no need to overpopulate to the point where food would become scarce. However, if there is widespread scarcity and shortage, then sexuality is heightened to accommodate for shortened life expectancy and infant mortality.
Here we have a GREAT example of WHERE, WHEN, and HOW these people, back then, WOULD say just about ANY 'thing', which they HOPED WOULD 'fit in WITH' what they were ALREADY currently ASSUMING or BELIEVING was true.
Why do you load your questions with conditionals, Age? Confirmation Bias on display?
IF there ARE ANY 'conditionals', then NAME 'them'.
IF 'this' was even REMOTELY TRUE, then you could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY INFORM the rest of 'us' 'what' ACTUAL 'confirmation bias', 'on display', you ARE ACTUALLY SEEING here.
LOL Well then 'this' does NOT APPLY AT ALL TO 'Me'.
WHY 'necessarily'?
Is this ALL 'birds' or just SOME?
if the truth be known i find more of what you call 'Beauty', (with a capital 'B' for some reason), in water and even in soil, then I would EVER in some shining piece of rock. But, 'each to their own', as some say.
MAYBE IF 'you' STOPPED viewing 'things' from a LEARNED self-projected view of 'negative' AND 'positive', then you WILL, ALSO, START SEEING 'things' for what 'they' Truly ARE, EXACTLY.
ONCE AGAIN, you WANT to BRING OUT the 'Superior' word, (with a capital 'S'), AGAIN, as though 'this' somehow RELATES TO 'you', and YOUR SUPERIORITY OVER the rest of 'us'.
LOL
I'm giving up on you Age.
Let us NOTE, and REMEMBER, the VERY NEXT SENTENCE I wrote, after this one of mine, which you quoted here.
LOL AND I WILL CONTINUE TO DENY what I DO NOT HAVE.Wizard22 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 06, 2023 8:02 am You are not self-conscious, do not have a self-consciousness. If you did, then you would be able to address my and other people's arguments against you. Instead you predictably react in a playing-stupid fashion, which is hard to distinguish whether you are just pretending in the first. Furthermore, if you were self-conscious, then you would understand how socially awkward and obnoxious you are with your presented "style". On top of these, you show no real interest in learning anything, or accepting positions debating your own. So you are close-minded. This was further proved by me, when you repeatedly denied before that you have "no beliefs whatsoever".
YES 'it' IS, REALLY.
Yes, after all 'they' were made for 'you', human beings, to take A LOOK AT "yourselves". Which some might say, 'Could be a good metaphor here'.