VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Mon, March 28 2005, 1:39:29
Author: Katerina
Subject: Re: Not an integral
In reply to: Peter van der Hoog 's message, "Re: Not an integral" on Sun, March 27 2005, 18:31:29

>>How can u be so sure in it when u didn't live there?
>Common sense.

I think it would be too primitive interpretation: just a few restricted groups of ppl. Even Bandar-logs in "Mawgly" did not consider "the whole world" as their tribe. More important thing u missed: when a social adaptation is just an evolutionary advantage, why human kids, brougt up by animals never socialised in human society?

>And that's why you think it has relevance to
>understand genocide? Please explain.

Any closed system has tendency to self-destruction and in this respect genocide is understandable.

>Headline in paper: "Man bites dog". Fla's reaction:
>What surprises me is that a man bit a dog, normally
>dogs bite men.

That is just an incorrect analogy. She commented the results of the experience with anorectic girls u gave.

>>Fitness and beaty don't always go together. Fitness is
>>more or less objective and beauty is subjective. You
>>may talk for hours about centimeteres and kilos but
>>still u can't measure beauty with them. Is Sophia
>>Loren with her large mouth and nose less attractive
>>than Britney Spears or another barbie? Gimme a break.
>>On the contrary fitness can be measured in the number
>>of push-ups and pull-ups that u can do or the power of
>>ur hand or whatever.

>Blah, blah, blah. It is clear to see the Koran is the
>only book she bases opinions on.

What it has to do with her religious views? She gave a good example that proves that beauty is subjective and istead of making comment on it u make an irrelevant personal remark. "It is clear u Jews hate Russian Orthodox Church". Her another statement "beauty is not the same with fitness" u also ignore.

I am sure she will
>ignore scientific proof that people do have a
>universal perception of beauty, f.e. symmetry and the
>Golden Ratio is considered in all cultures as
>attractive.

Looks like real life often ignores it.

>>Besides i find it too high of a price to pay to be
>>"realistic" - here I am using this word the way the
>>author of the statement is using it of course - u
>>gotta be unattractive, unfit and psychically
>unstable.
>
>Maybe she is joking here? Otherwise she completely
>misses the point.

She made such a conclusion from ur words that anorectics were more "realistic".

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.