Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/7/2013 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 8:13:00 AM (view original):
Evolution is not fact. Sorry to burst your bubble junior.

But there's evidence (a lot of it) for evolution.

It only took 20+ pages, but could this finally be an admission that evolution isn't an indisputable fact?

Good for you.   You did form a sentence without the use of "science" or "evidence".

Now, on to the 2nd part, do you go out of your way to be an *******?
 

Posted by bad_luck on 2/5/2013 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 2/5/2013 2:38:00 PM (view original):

You're right, for the most part, supermodels look like any other attractive woman you'd see in a bar on a Saturday night or laying out by the pool in Vegas. But there are tiny differences in symmetry that make the supermodels more attractive. You're free to be attracted to anyone you want but don't pretend that supermodel looks are a dime a dozen, because they aren't.

I think they ARE a dime a dozen. Just because most people (and especially most men) act like slobbering cave men dragging a club when they see a woman they have been conditioned to believe is attractive does not mean she's anything special except by those same societal standards.

But to claim that society tells us what is attractive is naive.  Some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others.

Let me burst your bubble here: It's a FACT that society tells its people what to find attractive.

What you find attractive is based at least somewhat on cultural norms and the things you have been exposed to throughout your life within your particular culture and society. You have your own individual tastes, but they are influenced by what society says and demonstrates to be attractive or not attractive.

So when you say "some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others", this is only true because society has dictated it to be the case.

To make this more clear: Several hundred years ago large women were considered more attractive because society valued them as they were considered well-fed and therefore likely to be from affluence (as you wouldn't be well-fed if you couldn't afford the food back then).

Now those women are not considered to be supremely attractive at all by most of society. If you took the thin models considered supremely attractive today and put them in that society, they wouldn't be as attractive - not just to the society, but to the individuals within that society who have assimilated their own feelings on attractiveness from that society.

They really aren't a dime a dozen. Maybe the idea of who is hot is socially constructed, but the percentage of women who fit in that idealized description is extremely small.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/5/2013 12:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bistiza on 2/5/2013 12:02:00 PM (view original):
While most of society defines a good-looking woman by the same boring and bland characteristics, "biz" actually chooses to think for himself, and "biz" likes a woman who doesn't have cookie-cutter society-defined looks.

There's nothing special about most women who are models or are considered good looking. They all have the same essential body type and the same facial features. Sure, they're not ugly by any means, but I find it amazing how many people think they are incredibly attractive when they have "dime a dozen" looks. You just don't realize it because you're told they're supremely attractive, both by societal pressures and sometimes explicitly, and you can't see beyond it.

Completely disagree.

When I was in college I parked cars at a trendy hotel. One day a cab pulled up and a young woman got out. She was wearing jeans, a plain tank top, had no make-up on, and her hair in a pony tail. The entire place froze. Men, literally in mid-sentence, stopped and watched her walk through the lobby and up to the front desk to check in. She was stunning and no one had any idea who she was.

After she went up to her room, a bunch of us crowded around the concierge desk while he looked up her name in the hotel system and googled her. It was Petra Nemcova.

You're right, for the most part, supermodels look like any other attractive woman you'd see in a bar on a Saturday night or laying out by the pool in Vegas. But there are tiny differences in symmetry that make the supermodels more attractive. You're free to be attracted to anyone you want but don't pretend that supermodel looks are a dime a dozen, because they aren't.

Posted by bistiza on 2/6/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):

But to claim that society tells us what is attractive is naive.  Some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others.

Let me burst your bubble here: It's a FACT that society tells its people what to find attractive.

What you find attractive is based at least somewhat on cultural norms and the things you have been exposed to throughout your life within your particular culture and society. You have your own individual tastes, but they are influenced by what society says and demonstrates to be attractive or not attractive.

So when you say "some things (and some people) are inherently more attractive than others", this is only true because society has dictated it to be the case.

To make this more clear: Several hundred years ago large women were considered more attractive because society valued them as they were considered well-fed and therefore likely to be from affluence (as you wouldn't be well-fed if you couldn't afford the food back then).

Now those women are not considered to be supremely attractive at all by most of society. If you took the thin models considered supremely attractive today and put them in that society, they wouldn't be as attractive - not just to the society, but to the individuals within that society who have assimilated their own feelings on attractiveness from that society.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/7/2013 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 10:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/7/2013 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Jtpsops on 2/7/2013 8:13:00 AM (view original):
Evolution is not fact. Sorry to burst your bubble junior.

But there's evidence (a lot of it) for evolution.

It only took 20+ pages, but could this finally be an admission that evolution isn't an indisputable fact?

I've never claimed evolution was indisputable. All of the evidence points to it.

The old earth, on the other hand, is a fact.