Originally posted by leonheartmm
what disturbs me about that reply is that its exactly the kind that youd expect from a eugenic supporting genocide or a member of the KKK rationalising ethnic cleansing. the examples are numerous.
Well list them then. Saying someones like a KKK member supporting ethinic clensing because they said they like boobs is a bit steep dont you think?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
that to me is just plain wrong.
You really don't say anything that I care to comment on but this time, "you gone and done it wrong".
If you want to get "plain" about it, then his thinking is correct.
Remember, we are animals too. Animals have a natural tendency to select mates based on the best genetic profile; in a women, that happens to be symmetry mixed with an appealing body fat percentage with large hips to bare children AND these females exhibit strong characteristics of estrogen!...Badda boom...science...not macho-ism.
Does this justify a married man checking out a women as she walks by..sort of but that doesn't change the fact that he is an inconsiderate bastard.
you IDIOTS{lol, i know im gonna get like 5 flaming replies after this}, i want saying that there are no biogical markers for beauty. not at all. what i WAS saying was that your better off making a thread about the most beautiful women{even there theres room for prejudice and hurting the less fortunate in looks} as opposed to a threas about UGLY women.
if sum1 called brad pitt the best looking guy in the world{hypothetically} ud be like. ok so what. im not terrible myself, its ok to not be the BEST. but if sum1 told u u were the WORST looking{or in that category. unattractive/unneeded} one in the world youd CERTAINLY have a problem with it. it isnt nice to call people UGLY.
a lot of beauty is in the eye of the beholder and face isnt everythign at all. plus even the biological markers are seriously obscured by social views. for instance phermones/beards/chest, back pubic hair are also strong biological markers of sexually adequate males with high testosterone for women. but HOW many women do you know who wud actually prefer them in society???
same with women, i have NO definite preferences. sumtimes you find that the most biologically unlikely traits come together in such a lovely way/combination that you cant help but adore a girl. same with things like heigh etc. as far as i know ive never been inclined towards anything like that. beauty is more complex than just the perfect combination of biological markers{which is WHY even though most plastic surgeries try to replicate them artificially, more often than not the woman comes out looking worse and less attractive}
Originally posted by leonheartmmhave you ever touched a woman? and your sis's barbie dolls dont count.
you IDIOTS{lol, i know im gonna get like 5 flaming replies after this}, i want saying that there are no biogical markers for beauty. not at all. what i WAS saying was that your better off making a thread about the most beautiful women{even there theres room for prejudice and hurting the less fortunate in looks} as opposed to a threas about UGLY women.if sum1 called brad pitt the best looking guy in the world{hypothetically} ud be like. ok so what. im not terrible myself, its ok to not be the BEST. but if sum1 told u u were the WORST looking{or in that category. unattractive/unneeded} one in the world youd CERTAINLY have a problem with it. it isnt nice to call people UGLY.
a lot of beauty is in the eye of the beholder and face isnt everythign at all. plus even the biological markers are seriously obscured by social views. for instance phermones/beards/chest, back pubic hair are also strong biological markers of sexually adequate males with high testosterone for women. but HOW many women do you know who wud actually prefer them in society???
same with women, i have NO definite preferences. sumtimes you find that the most biologically unlikely traits come together in such a lovely way/combination that you cant help but adore a girl. same with things like heigh etc. as far as i know ive never been inclined towards anything like that. beauty is more complex than just the perfect combination of biological markers{which is WHY even though most plastic surgeries try to replicate them artificially, more often than not the woman comes out looking worse and less attractive}
Originally posted by Bardock42http://www.jour.sc.edu/news/csj/CSJAug05.html
I think you completely and thoroughly and mind-bogglingly misunderstand him.Reading his replies that is in no way what he says.
Originally posted by Bardock42whatever the case, he makes it sound like we are terrible for having preferences, comparing us to the damn KKK. sure, I like shirt petite women, gimmee a white hood and a flaming cross. Why didn't you light him up for that airhead response?
I think you completely and thoroughly and mind-bogglingly misunderstand him.Reading his replies that is in no way what he says.
Oh yeah, thats right.
Originally posted by Rogue JediBecause that is not what he said, but just what you misinterpreted. If he had said something stupid like that I would have told him.
whatever the case, he makes it sound like we are terrible for having preferences, comparing us to the damn KKK. sure, I like shirt petite women, gimmee a white hood and a flaming cross. Why didn't you light him up for that airhead response?Oh yeah, thats right.
Originally posted by lord xyz
http://www.jour.sc.edu/news/csj/CSJAug05.html
Originally posted by Rogue JediYes, but to be fair that just happened because you didn't understand his post.
did you even see the KKK remark?
Originally posted by Bardock42or he could have just intelligently rectified the problem instead of making that obscene claim. seems the adult thing to do.
I am not 100% sure what you are trying to tell me, but I can surely separate an enumeration with and to intensify its meaning. Yes, but to be fair that just happened because you didn't understand his post.
Originally posted by Rogue JediTrue, but wouldn't if have been just as mature by you not to misinterpret his post, ask him offensive and stupid questions and keep beating on one point that he didn't even make.
or he could have just intelligently rectified the problem instead of making that obscene claim. seems the adult thing to do.
Originally posted by Bardock42Your post needed commas to be correct grammar. I can't stand it when people don't use commas when they're supposed to, it causes me to re-read them. That article was about commas, because you need to use them. It's easier to read.
I am not 100% sure what you are trying to tell me, but I can surely separate an enumeration with and to intensify its meaning. Yes, but to be fair that just happened because you didn't understand his post.
Originally posted by Bardock42so its now immature to "misread" one of his posts? even if I responded with an answer that has nothing with the thread subject, why compare REGULAR EVERYDAY PEOPLE to the KKK?
True, but wouldn't if have been just as mature by you not to misinterpret his post, ask him offensive and stupid questions and keep beating on one point that he didn't even make.
Originally posted by Rogue JediNo, it is immature to do that repeatedly.
so its now immature to "misread" one of his posts? even if I responded with an answer that has nothing with the thread subject, why compare REGULAR EVERYDAY PEOPLE to the KKK?
And he did not compare you to the KKK and the nazis, he compared the arguments you used to arguments they would use. There is a difference.