Acceptable? Doable?
Boobies? Who said boobies?
becomes agitated, drools slightly
Hey, I don’t know. Liking a girl for looks is certainly doable, since it’s done all the time. It also must be acceptable, since a lot of people accept it.
What I’m getting at is that the only real meaning of, "It’s alright to … " is "I approve of … " You approve of using health as a criterion for affection, but not physical beauty. Other people approve of different things, but nobody really has insight into some abstract “alrightness”. These claims being made about what’s alright and not alright aren’t revealing any universal truths about what’s “alright”. Rather, they’re disguised attempts at seduction: literally, leading others to oneself and one’s own opinions.
What? Hell no! I approve of using both as criteria for affection, but health gives more insight into the lifestyle and activity of the person.
Glad we agree.
When the school right next to you is full of rich, attractive girls that bitch about every single thing under the sun, use people, and are fucking snobs, you realize that the attractive girls can be much, much worse. Why? They’re used to absolutely everything going their way.
Personally, I think that in order for you to be happy with someone, then your relationship has to satisfy you both emotionally and sexually. If someone simply doesn’t turn you on, then chances are the sex’ll be horrible and the relationship will fall apart anyway. If she (or he, whatever) just can’t listen or something then the relationship will fall apart.
It isn’t chauvanistic, it’s being practical. You want to be with someone who makes you happy. If you aren’t happy with someone that you don’t think you would want to be with because they don’t look right, then fine - that’s ok. Society has a tendency to make people who don’t date “ugly” people because they look bad, and labeling them as shallow. I disagree, in that if I’m looking for a realationship, I want to be happy. To be happy, I need someone who can withstand my emotional tidal waves and satisfy me in the sack. It’s not shallow - it’s covering the bases.
At least to me.
Oh, okay, that’s cool. I thought you meant <i>only</i> health was an alright criterion.
Hey hey hey, lets get this topic back on track.
BOOBIES.
Cammie boobies go up…
Cammie boobies go down…
Cammie boobies…
You yell at Kagon for attacking your <i>opinions</i>
But how is the word “always” an opinion? When you use a word like always, you’re implying that this is leaving the realm of your opinions and experiences and saying that this is what happens, regardless of what you, or I, or anyone else thinks. You’re making it into a law of action, and if you want to go around creating your own laws, you damned well better be prepared to defend them and not start screaming “leave my <i><b><u>OPINIONS</u></b></i> alone.”
Anyway, the very thought of attributing universal personality traits to people with certain physical features is preposterous. Attractive and ugly people might both be susceptible to different sorts of personality quirks in their life, but they are by no means universal, and personalities are obviously also the product of geography, family, religion, and other things. You bring the debate down to a lower level when you start making blanket statements like “I date attractive girls because unattractive girls have these awful personality traits.” instead of “I date attractive girls because I feel that physical attraction is important.” Notice how the second statement doesn’t bring into play your irrational “opinions” of what different kinds of girls are like, which are in the first place not true, and secondly they add absolutely nothing to the argument.
SHIT!!! YOU PROVED MY OPINION WRONG!!!
So sorry, but my “wrong” statements are the single only thing I’ve ever experienced, that deal with shallowness, in my life. I could tell you not to throw around your theory, and try to argue more practically.
And you’re preaching to the wrong guy about about galmorizing attractive women, seriously.
No one is arguing that you haven’t experienced these things in your life. But there is a reason that in formal debates your own personal experiences alone are generally not considered sufficient data for supporting blanket statements, though the combined experiences of many different people holds more weight. Rational deductions cannot be strictly a posteriori: they require something more. Maybe you should think for a second that there are other people in the world who have experienced different things, try to understand the different experiences they have, and then instead of saying “ugly girls always do this and this because that’s the only thing I’ve ever seen them done”, you can tell us that you’ve seen lots of unattractive girls doing this, and that’s why you think they might have a tendency toward this behavior, but let’s hear what Kagon has to say on the issue also because he is from a different place, and I might actually learn that people don’t always fit into the categories I place them in.
Yeah Hades. No one is trying to just throw your argument out the window as unimportant or uncredible, but you need to work on your choice of wording. That, to me, is what normally makes you come off as kinda rude when you debate.
Yeah Hades. No one is trying to just throw your argument out the window as unimportant or uncredible
I hope you’re not serious. Don’t throw around your complete blanket statements. Sorry to say, but what you’ve listed tends to be completely wrong.
I believe I’ve made my point.
And Zepp, you can uh, try to analyze me all day, but it doesn’t change my personal experiences.
Notice how the second statement doesn’t bring into play your irrational “opinions” of what different kinds of girls are like, which are in the first place not true, and secondly they add absolutely nothing to the argument.
Like here. Sorry, but you saying my opinions, which are based on personal experiences, aren’t “true,” kinda makes YOU the opinion=fact whore, not me.
Anyway, the very thought of attributing universal personality traits to people with certain physical features is preposterous.
I was listing trends, not attributing anything to every <b><u>single</u></b> person in a particular group. Quote the line where I said “every attractive girl, ever, never complains about ANYTHING.” I think you’ll have a tough time finding it: It’s not there. I just stated, that, IME (in my experience), every single girl who has ever complained about guys being shallow was unattractive, and a hypocrite because in doing so, they were proving to be the ones with, frankly, a shitty personality, whereas the pretty girls were always just pleasant, in almost every way. They were healthy and talkative and fun, not sitting around making femme lib websites against “shallow” male “pigs” who (this is clearly a crime here) aren’t attracted to the brooding cynicism of girls who can’t even give them a good fuck.
You bring the debate down to a lower level when you start making blanket statements like “I date attractive girls because unattractive girls have these awful personality traits.” instead of “I date attractive girls because I feel that physical attraction is important.” Notice how the second statement doesn’t bring into play your irrational “opinions” of what different kinds of girls are like, which are in the first place not true, and secondly they add absolutely nothing to the argument.
How is making a connection between personality and beauty “taking this argument down to a lower level?” I think the lowest level would be ignoring the fact that they’re inseperable, which is what a lot of people are trying to do. The only way to separate physical beauty and personality, IMO, is if the girl was blind, and therefore didn’t hold any spite or hatred toward attractive girls. And even then, a guy’s subconscious “rules” (HE might not know that he attributes pleasantness to more attractive women, but his mind does) would probably prevent him from approaching her.
Anyway, the very thought of attributing universal personality traits to people with certain physical features is preposterous.
I’m coming back to this because this is where I think you’re really mistaken. I wasn’t applying traits to people, I was applying people to traits. There IS a difference, because it doesn’t include every single person in a general group. Only the ones that the trait applies to.
For example, where you think I said “Every unattractive girl complains about guys being shallow,” I was ACTUALLY saying “Every girl I’ve seen who complains about males being shallow was unattractive.”
Can you see now, why most of your arguements are irrelevant? They’re based on things I didn’t even imply.
I’ve already heard what Kagon has to say, and it in no way conflicts with what I said. The difference is he’s talking about complaining in general, which yes, snobby little rich girls are prone to do. What I was saying, is that snobby little rich girls aren’t very prone to argue against the attention they’ll get from “shallow” males.
Fine, in your experience, this is what happens. That’s great. I’m happy for you. Now let’s go back to your original post.
You never say anywhere that these observations of yours are based on personal experiences. Here’s what you do say.
I only skimmed this thread… but here’s how I see it:
Looks and personality go hand-in-hand. Let’s compare:
Not-so-attractive girls…
- Are always the ones who complain about guys being shallow.
- Are always the ones who call attractive girls “slutty.”
- Are always the ones who accuse guys of ignoring personality.
- Don’t realize that by doing these three things, THEIR personality is the lacking one.
- Are therefore hypocrites.
Attractive girls…
- Don’t have anything to complain about.
- Are by no means brainless.
- Therefore are more pleasant to be around based on looks AND personality.
So yeah, looks reflect more than just aesthetics.
Every single thing you said in your last thread you didn’t do in your initial thread. Which is what I made my post about. I can’t read your mind. Everything I said was merely based off of these above words, and you telling kagon not to trample upon your “opinion”, a word you ironically never said in this initial post. Strange.
Also notice how I put “opinion” in quotation marks? I did this for a reason. Do you know what that reason is? Because I realize I wasn’t talking about your opinion, but I was talking about expanding your opinion into some sort of universal law. I never said your experiences were somehow “wrong.” I said that taking your experiences and applying them to universal laws that apply to everyone is wrong. Read my words very carefully. You want me to make an argument based on the things you think in your head, but I already said I can’t read your mind man. I can only argue based on what you say here. If you mean something different than what you actually said, then instead of telling me that everything I say is irrelevant because you actually meant something different, why don’t you just simply clarify yourself and spare us the lecture?
Well this proves that all girls are inherently evil.
I see. I read your statement:
“A socially intelligent person is more capable of misusing your trust than someone who isn’t. Hell, just a plain more-intelligent person is likely to be more capable. For that reason, I don’t think smarts are a factor to base trust upon.”
Apparently, I misunderstood what you were saying, my mistake.
I suppose I am taking both sides a bit, but I’m trying to emphasize my own point in the process. For me, it’s difficult to clearly put into words what I find important in a woman without sounding like an arrogant ass, which I apparently already sound like, so my apologies if someone’s offended. However, I will reiterate again, that I (Read: me, myself, and I) find it shallow to date a person based solely upon their looks. I just find other things equally (or more) important than looks.
I thought I painted a pretty clear in the previous post, guess it was lost in the other stuff I ranted about. To me, intelligence isn’t necessarily book smarts, such as knowing who the 21st president of the USA was, or knowledge of calculus. I define intelligence as common sense, street smarts, survival instinct, and a driving engine to succeed in whatever you do. I place so much importance on this because it’s what keeps the proverbial shit from hitting the fan, and it’s what keeps you alive if said shit does indeed splatter.
That’s just how I see things, so while you should know that I never mean to offend, don’t get your panties in a knot because I think on a different wavelength.
Every single thing you said in your last thread you didn’t do in your initial thread.
See, this really discouraged me from reading the rest of your post, because it’s flat out wrong. But I read it anyway, and discovered that most of the other stuff you said is also just plain wrong.
Everything I said was merely based off of these above words, and you telling kagon not to trample upon your “opinion”, a word you ironically never said in this initial post. Strange.
Do I honestly have to specify, on an <b><u>internet <i>rpg</i> forum</u></b> that every post I make about something as abstract as the connection between physical beauty and personality is my OPINION? I think I’m gonna have to modify my sig, just for people like you. What would you like better, “BY THE WAY, THIS IS MY OPINION LOSERFACE!!!” in size 7 rainbow font, or some kind of witty image?
why don’t you just simply clarify yourself and spare us the lecture?
Why don’t you just take what I say with a dash of salt? If I was someone else, and I read my post, deliberately twisting the ideas into something they’re not just because it was phrased a certain way would probably be the last thing on my list of priorities.
Stop calling my opinion wrong…you…you…FAGGGHGHGH!!!
All of this is very interesting I assure you, but I don’t have any idea what I’m wrong about. Let’s see.
In stating your opinion, you said that certain types of girls are <i>always</i> have a certain type of personality? Nope, I’m not wrong about that.
When Kagon attacked your position, saying that it was wrong, you defended yourself with “well, it’s just my opinion.” But when your opinions are absolutes, they most definitely can be wrong. Was I wrong about that? Nope, don’t think so.
When I started arguing with you over your initial post, you started changing your words around to mean something completely different. Such as
For example, where you think I said “Every unattractive girl complains about guys being shallow,” I was ACTUALLY saying “Every girl I’ve seen who complains about males being shallow was unattractive.”
Fine, if you want to change your argument, I have no problems with that. But I didn’t “think” you said that. I “know” you said that, because I can refer back to your initial post and see that, amazingly enough, those were the words you said. So was I wrong to ask you to stop lecturing you and just tell me what you think? No sir.
Yes, I think that your opinions in your initial post, as they are worded, are wrong. Apparently so do you, because you don’t think that, you think something else. I don’t see why you have such a problem with me using that word when you use it in almost every sentence of yours. If you don’t want to “debate” on an internet rpg forum, then go to the media forum or something where no matter what you say, everyone will tell you its beautiful and no one will want to hurt your feelings. Because what’s the impression you give when you have to say something like “well it’s just an internet rpg forum, why do you have to make me think ;; ;; ;; ;;”? I could say it, but you sure would hate me for using that word.
Don’t diss the Media forum.
But I have to agree with zeppelin here on abosolute opinions. I have met a lot of hot girls who are right bitches and always complain. Although I know quite a few who aren’t. But ugly people I know are for the most part alright about that themselves.
No, see Zepp, I didn’t change my argument, and if you actually did look back, you’d see that:
I only skimmed this thread… but here’s how I see it:
Looks and personality go hand-in-hand. Let’s compare:
Not-so-attractive girls…
- Are always the ones who complain about guys being shallow.
- Are always the ones who call attractive girls “slutty.”
- Are always the ones who accuse guys of ignoring personality.
- Don’t realize that by doing these three things, THEIR personality is the lacking one.
- Are therefore hypocrites.
Attractive girls…
- Don’t have anything to complain about.
- Are by no means brainless.
- Therefore are more pleasant to be around based on looks AND personality.
So yeah, looks reflect more than just aesthetics.
Point out where I said anything but “the ones who do [x] are always [y].” Because I sure as hell didn’t say “[y] always does [x].” Point it out. Do it. Seriously. I challenge you to twist my words around enough so that they mean what you’re saying, without actually twisting them around.
In conclusion, cut the bullshit.
You wrote “Not-so-attractive girls” and “Attractive girls”, not “All not-so-attractive girls I’ve met” or even “Not-so-attractive girls I’ve met”. Not specifying makes the term a general and universal statement.