|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is she beautiful? |
| Yes |
|
38% |
[ 21 ] |
| No |
|
61% |
[ 34 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 55 |
|
| Author |
Message |
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
 Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Big_Bird"]
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Bogey's probably straight out of uni, given his posting style, and needs a couple more years to ripen. On top of that, the very beautiful bottom he's chosen for his avatar means that when I'm in the public library, I have to scroll past his posts very quickly because it's too inappropriate to display it on my monitor.
You would like it to be an excuse, because, from what I've skimmed, it seems Bogey's views are somewhat aligned with yours. [I'm not entirely sure of that, and I can't be bothered to verify it]. That way, you can kid yourself that your argument is so watertight that Big_Bird is not able to refute it.  Wrong.
Simple. Your definition of beauty is too narrowly defined. You can not accept that beauty does not always refer to sexual attractiveness, especially when it comes to straight men apraising a woman. You try to speak for all men and claim that this is so, and yet Kirby and Kuros are the counterexamples that disprove your argument.
Another example of beauty is the touching scene of a wrinkled old grandparent holding their grandchild. Nothing sexual about it. Gary Oldman playing a frail aging and heartbroken Beethoven -another example. There is so much beauty to be found in this world, that you seem incapable of seeing. I imagine you think I'm just being daft. But you are just blind to it. |
straight out of uni.. HA.. I wish
I am old enough to be a biological father to many people straight out of uni. Ergo I am not only ripe.. but ready to be thrown to the scrapheap.. where old vegetables go to rot away. hahaha
once again your argument is straying away from what the argument SHOULD be.
btw.. I readily grant your point that beautiful doesn't necessarily mean fuckable, when referring to a person (for a guy).. I find many Korean women beautiful for e.g. but don't get the urge to fornicate with them.. because many of their bodies are too "flat", whereas in brazil there are certain "raimundas" that I wouldn't call beautiful but make me go "schwiing".
It's a personal preference... other guys feel differently but I would grant the point about beautiful vs "want to fornicate with".
but having astutely made that reference you then wander off into the wilderness. Let's return to the dictionary definition of 'aesthetics'. It COULD be argued that the old woman is aesthetically pleasing to the eye, because it would be ridiculous to hold an old person to the same standards as someone 50 even 30-,20 years younger. Ergo, for an old woman one COULD argue that she is indeed asthetically pleasing to the eye, ergo "beautiful"
(though there will always be a male/female divide in this no matter how much you want it to go away)
but here is where you drop the ball... once again.
wrinkled old grandparent playing with child.. "beauty in this world"
etc etc etc
what COULD be referred to as "beautiful" is the picture of the grandparent PLAYING with their child.. and other scenes of "beauty" as you call them.. a sunset, sunrise. a landscape.. an act of kindness from one human being to another.
Indeed these could be BEAUTIFUL.
I don't think many will argue the point.
but that is NOT THE SAME as putting up a picture of a man or woman, with nothing else in the picture. and then putting up the question
is SHE/HE beautiful??
when you do this you are asking for (and have received) a person's perception of their PHYSICAL beauty.
there is nothing else in the picture to "judge" and or consider than the person's physical appearance. I know nothing about her character. whether she plays with her grandchildren, or whether she is kind and graceful.. etcetc
for all I know she might be a wicked harpy shrew who boils little children in vats of witch stew.
all I see is her physical appearance. Hence, that is what he/she will be judged by. (with an allowance for age if you'd like)
Entiendes?
all of your other "explanations" (ditto Magnus Kirby's) are complete non sequitours and avoid the original question.
Last edited by bogey666 on Sat May 31, 2008 11:56 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What was your original question? I've no patience to review all your scrawl.
btw, you can father a biological child in your teens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
What was your original question? I've no patience to review all your scrawl.
btw, you can father a biological child in your teens. |
yes, I'm aware of the age of puberty. Now you know my minimum age baseline, eh?
obviously you have no knowledge of the rules of rhetoric and debate. never took a debate course, class obviously.
to summarize it best as I can.. read my last paragraph.
putting up a picture of an act.. of two people interacting (such as old grandparent playing with kid, act of kindness, etc etc) or sunset/landscape/sunrise is different from putting up a picture of a person with nothing else in the pic and asking is she or he beautiful.
in the latter you are asking for perceptions of their PHYSICAL beauty.
I know nothing about them nor their potential acts of kindness. I only see their physical appearance.
your graceful, kind old lady might in reality be a witch cooking kids alive in a vat of stew.
that is what they are therefore judged by. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whatever Bogey. I'm sure you find yourself very interesting. Good night. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Whatever Bogey. I'm sure you find yourself very interesting. Good night. |
good night? it's 4:30 in the AFTERNOON. In Korea, anyways.
Please read up on debate point/counterpoint dear and how to be able to defend and support your argument.
if you have an answer to my last point about individual portraits vs pictures of people with something ELSE in the picture, please get back to me  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| big bird wrote: |
| I mostly stopped addressing his posts when I realised he was either a certified tw@t, or only 17 years old |
You used that as an excuse to not address his points because you can't, you mean. |
No, it's not an excuse. It's fact. There are certain posters I don't bother to read, and I consigned him to that category several nights ago, after a silly exchange we had on this thread. Time is too short when you are a mother of 2 tiny children, and a postgraduate student to boot, to waste time on anything you find tiresome and tedious. Bogey's probably straight out of uni, given his posting style, and needs a couple more years to ripen. On top of that, the very beautiful bottom he's chosen for his avatar means that when I'm in the public library, I have to scroll past his posts very quickly because it's too inappropriate to display it on my monitor.
You would like it to be an excuse, because, from what I've skimmed, it seems Bogey's views are somewhat aligned with yours. [I'm not entirely sure of that, and I can't be bothered to verify it]. That way, you can kid yourself that your argument is so watertight that Big_Bird is not able to refute it. Wrong.
| The resident evolutionary psychologist wrote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| BTW, a few posters here, including Kuros and KM have done a good job of arguing against your point very well. Therefore I don't feel inclined to address it |
What were their most compelling points? |
Simple. Your definition of beauty is too narrowly defined. You can not accept that beauty does not always refer to sexual attractiveness, especially when it comes to straight men apraising a woman. You try to speak for all men and claim that this is so, and yet Kirby and Kuros are the counterexamples that disprove your argument. You have exchanged Allah or Jehovah for that great evolutionary psychologist in the sky, and you worship him endlessly. You try to relate everything you do to passing on your genes. But not all of us see the world as you. You basically chastise me for not treating all the male posters here as if they were nothing more than life support systems for their penises. I do believe that some men are more highly evolved than that, and can also enjoy and appreciate the world outside a sexual context.
When I watched Troy the other night, I really enjoyed watching Brad Pitt and Eric Bana. Both of them appeared very beautiful in that film, and I soaked up their pleasing forms with my eyes. But I didn't find myself fancying them. Peter O'Toole is still a very beautiful man, even now, and I enjoyed him too. Again, I felt no sexual attraction. I also enjoyed the beauty of the actress who played Helen (even though even she wasn't quite as beautiful as breathtakingly beautiful Brad Pitt). I don't associate beauty with sexual attraction, as you do. Not everyone is you. Not everyone experiences the world as you do. Not even other men.
Another example of beauty is the touching scene of a wrinkled old grandparent holding their grandchild. Nothing sexual about it. Gary Oldman playing a frail aging and heartbroken Beethoven -another example. There is so much beauty to be found in this world, that you seem incapable of seeing. I imagine you think I'm just being daft. But you are just blind to it. |
I see. So the counterexample to my argument you find most compelling is one I've debunked.
Anyway, you sinking to the depths of posting reams and reams of name-calling, condescension about Bogey666's age, completely refusing to discuss his points (yet replying nonetheless) and the ever-present screaming toddlers and "busy" excuses basically mean you've turned into Vicissitude. You and this thread of wretchedly bad quality can have nothing other than rancorous mental dumpster juice to spew forth.
The old lady in the OP has long gray hair - meaning absolutely nothing in the way of good taste - and has long nails (heinous on any woman above middle age). There are few more pitiable sights than an old woman who still thinks she can cut it in terms of beauty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KirbyMagnus
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| big bird wrote: |
| I mostly stopped addressing his posts when I realised he was either a certified tw@t, or only 17 years old |
You used that as an excuse to not address his points because you can't, you mean. |
No, it's not an excuse. It's fact. There are certain posters I don't bother to read, and I consigned him to that category several nights ago, after a silly exchange we had on this thread. Time is too short when you are a mother of 2 tiny children, and a postgraduate student to boot, to waste time on anything you find tiresome and tedious. Bogey's probably straight out of uni, given his posting style, and needs a couple more years to ripen. On top of that, the very beautiful bottom he's chosen for his avatar means that when I'm in the public library, I have to scroll past his posts very quickly because it's too inappropriate to display it on my monitor.
You would like it to be an excuse, because, from what I've skimmed, it seems Bogey's views are somewhat aligned with yours. [I'm not entirely sure of that, and I can't be bothered to verify it]. That way, you can kid yourself that your argument is so watertight that Big_Bird is not able to refute it. Wrong.
| The resident evolutionary psychologist wrote: |
| Big Bird wrote: |
| BTW, a few posters here, including Kuros and KM have done a good job of arguing against your point very well. Therefore I don't feel inclined to address it |
What were their most compelling points? |
Simple. Your definition of beauty is too narrowly defined. You can not accept that beauty does not always refer to sexual attractiveness, especially when it comes to straight men apraising a woman. You try to speak for all men and claim that this is so, and yet Kirby and Kuros are the counterexamples that disprove your argument. You have exchanged Allah or Jehovah for that great evolutionary psychologist in the sky, and you worship him endlessly. You try to relate everything you do to passing on your genes. But not all of us see the world as you. You basically chastise me for not treating all the male posters here as if they were nothing more than life support systems for their penises. I do believe that some men are more highly evolved than that, and can also enjoy and appreciate the world outside a sexual context.
When I watched Troy the other night, I really enjoyed watching Brad Pitt and Eric Bana. Both of them appeared very beautiful in that film, and I soaked up their pleasing forms with my eyes. But I didn't find myself fancying them. Peter O'Toole is still a very beautiful man, even now, and I enjoyed him too. Again, I felt no sexual attraction. I also enjoyed the beauty of the actress who played Helen (even though even she wasn't quite as beautiful as breathtakingly beautiful Brad Pitt). I don't associate beauty with sexual attraction, as you do. Not everyone is you. Not everyone experiences the world as you do. Not even other men.
Another example of beauty is the touching scene of a wrinkled old grandparent holding their grandchild. Nothing sexual about it. Gary Oldman playing a frail aging and heartbroken Beethoven -another example. There is so much beauty to be found in this world, that you seem incapable of seeing. I imagine you think I'm just being daft. But you are just blind to it. |
I see. So the counterexample to my argument you find most compelling is one I've debunked.
Anyway, you sinking to the depths of posting reams and reams of name-calling, condescension about Bogey666's age, completely refusing to discuss his points (yet replying nonetheless) and the ever-present screaming toddlers and "busy" excuses basically mean you've turned into Vicissitude. You and this thread of wretchedly bad quality can have nothing other than rancorous mental dumpster juice to spew forth.
The old lady in the OP has long gray hair - meaning absolutely nothing in the way of good taste - and has long nails (heinous on any woman above middle age). There are few more pitiable sights than an old woman who still thinks she can cut it in terms of beauty. |
If this thread is that wretched why do you keep posting? The no votes have won anyway.
Let. It. Go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stormy
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Location: Here & there
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| She looks nice, happy, gentle, friendly, but not beautiful under any definition, since beautiful is very strong. |
| Quote: |
| I think she wouldn't look remotely out of place in a George Romero film. Or she could be Norman Bates' mother (when she was alive). |
You think Norman Bates' mother was nice, gentle & friendly? Have you seen Psycho? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogey666
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Location: Korea, the ass free zone
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
btw Sir Magnus
you strike me as a reasonable and intelligent fellow.
I fully and freely grant your points about beauty being more than skin deep, and it being present in many aspects of life outside of human appearance.
That said , when someone posts a picture/portrait of a person with nothing else in the picture but their physical appearance..
and includes the caption "is he/she beautiful"?
would you not agree we are forced to go with the skin deep assessment of "physical beauty"? (perhaps with a curve grade for age?)
(I also grant physical beauty and fuckability are related but not identical. For eg.. some guys focus on face.. other guys focus on figure.. etc etc)
since everything/anything else about them (their character traits, etc is merely idle speculation?)
considering I find the answer to be fairly and logically obvious, the amount of faux (or non faux, whatever it was) "OUTRAGE" not only baffles me.
It amuses me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theholyinnocent
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bogey666 wrote: |
I fully and freely grant your points about beauty being more than skin deep, and it being present in many aspects of life outside of human appearance.
That said , when someone posts a picture/portrait of a person with nothing else in the picture but their physical appearance..
and includes the caption "is he/she beautiful"?
would you not agree we are forced to go with the skin deep assessment of "physical beauty"? (perhaps with a curve grade for age?) |
It's not just about beauty being "skin deep" at the time of the assessment. It's about differentiating between 'beautiful' and 'hot.' I showed the picture to my boyfriend and asked if he thought she was beautiful, and he said, unequivocally, yes. Same for Vanessa Redgrave in Atonement, which we just watched last night. He would never use the word 'hot' or 'sexy' in either of these situations, but even just presented with a physical image of a woman, ie when the assessment is just skin deep, MANY, MANY people -- and not just women -- are capable of seeing beauty in images whose lack of beauty you find "logically obvious." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
