debunking objectivity of looks

[limerence]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

 

[mohito]

The criteria is derived from the integrated body of knowledge generated by the three father forums also known as psl. The ratios are expressed as approximate ranges rather than precise values, but it doesn't diminish their objectivity. Premises 2 & 3 are easily refuted

 

[limerence]

The criteria is derived from the integrated body of knowledge generated by the three father forums also known as psl. The ratios are expressed as approximate ranges rather than precise values, but it doesn't diminish their objectivity. Premises 2 & 3 are easily refuted

if we dont see any invariant criteria if the criteria is variant then it cannot be objective.

 

[limerence]

The criteria is derived from the integrated body of knowledge generated by the three father forums also known as psl. The ratios are expressed as approximate ranges rather than precise values, but it doesn't diminish their objectivity. Premises 2 & 3 are easily refuted

a criteria in which we cannot accurately conclude what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn accurately is not a objective criteria.

 

[mohito]

if we dont see any invariant criteria if the criteria is variant then it cannot be objective.

Objectivity doesnt necessarily require criteria that are invariant across all frames. Things can be objective and relational at the same time

 

[limerence]

Objectivity doesnt necessarily require criteria that are invariant across all frames. Things can be objective and relational at the same time

if there is variance then there is potential to change, are you saying that your criteria has the potential to change?

 

[limerence]

Objectivity doesnt necessarily require criteria that are invariant across all frames. Things can be objective and relational at the same time

also if they were approximate ranges then we would know what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn, but we dont.

 

[mohito]

if there is variance then there is potential to change, are you saying that your criteria has the potential to change?

The changes are minimal and in very close ranges. They criteria here aren't some eternal rules but they are applied based on verifiable principles

also if they were approximate ranges then we would know what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn, but we dont.

Assessment (psl 2 or 3 or...) is based on proportional rating distributions, with the rank (ltn or mtn or...) determined by percentile standing within the population

 

[limerence]

The changes are minimal and in very close ranges. They criteria here aren't some eternal rules but they are applied based on verifiable principles


Assessment (psl 2 or 3 or...) is based on proportional rating distributions, with the rank (ltn or mtn or...) determined by percentile standing within the population

you can provide me what percentile a person in which you call mtn is but not in which constitutes the person who is in that percentile, or what constitutes mtn itself. if you say what qualifies is a mtn is based on the percentile they are in, then pls provide me the essential properties on what constitutes that percentile, and what properties they posses that we can find a distinction to disqualify them from that percentile.

 

[jaaba]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

I don’t even want to waste my breath on this thread

 

[mohito]

you can provide me what percentile a person in which you call mtn is but not in which constitutes the person who is in that percentile, or what constitutes mtn itself. if you say what qualifies is a mtn is based on the percentile they are in, then pls provide me the essential properties on what constitutes that percentile, and what properties they posses that we can find a distinction to disqualify them from that percentile.

Imo, psl 3 is mtn. There are various rating systems, but all of them are based on front facial ratios and how close they are to the ideal ranges

 

[killcry]

You look at someone and you determine if they are handsome or not. It’s that simple. Dnr

 

[Prøphet]

I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think it’s black and white either objective or subjective. I think that because we usually can agree on a rating (but not always), it means looks are somewhat objective. There is a general consensus on what is attractive and ugly, which is reflected by lookism / the societal treatment and feedback of individuals. Just because it’s not foolproof doesnt invalidate the entire thing

 

[TiktokUser]

properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

Quite literally false in all scenarios, even when not talking about the objectively of beauty.

If everyone who knows the rules agrees completely on the exact things that make something count as X, then we can say X is objective. or at at least in the sense that it doesn’t depend on personal feelings or opinions.

“Because there’s no uniformity on the essential rules/properties, we can’t conclude it’s objective.”

Yeah buddy, under your retarded worldview, you’d have to as well agree that the earths shape is subjective, and could be flat.

If you apply that same logic consistently then it would force pseudo intellectual conclusions in areas where we know objectivity holds:
flat earthers disagree on the essential properties of earths shape. They will use different “rules, like “trust your eyes over photos,” “NASA lies,” “gravity is fake,” “the horizon always looks flat,”

so under your own position, you would have to agree that the earths shape is subjective, because there is no true uniformity

There will never be perfect uniformity across the board on what counts as qualifying evidence or must have traits for a spherical earth

Your argument relies on you not fucking understanding objectivity actually requires, then strawmanning the position of beauty

 

[Tenres]

if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

Immediately disagree. The underlying proposition here is that "If a category is objective, humans will have found the way to objectively measure it" --> seems very speculative, especially if one could demonstrate that we are finding increasingly 'objective' ways (I.e., a methodology that maps onto what humans generally prefer better than prior methods).

herefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

Would need a definition on "we." If it just means the current people in the world who study looks, why can't they just be limited in knowledge. How does our current limitation mean that we can't later find an objective method. Things don't become objective in retrospect, so you are making a temporally universal claim: that there never was and never will be an objective method to quantify looks. I don't think that's justified here. For example, if we applied this to mathematics or logic, before they were formalized, your argument would entail they were subjective, and then became objective. Which contradicts both the meaning of objectivity, and what you claimed about objectivity.

Also you wouldn't need essential properties. For example beauty could be emergent from multiple different combinations of traits and ratios.

The last sentence seems to argue that we can't currently conclude that looks are objective, which is different from the claim they aren't. If you are to say "we can't conclude if looks are objective, so they aren't objective" then you are making an argument from ignorance.

That seems to what you did when you claimed the loem and the fact we can't currently demonstrate a completely objective system, that we need to accept the negation. I think you are confusing propositional truth value with propositional attitudes, it is either true or not true that looks are objective, but you can have a neutral propositional attitude on whether you belief its true or not depending on the available.

 

[HtnceI]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

Dnr, the more attractive you are the higher chance you are to be wanted

 

[limerence]

I disagree with your conclusion. I don’t think it’s black and white either objective or subjective. I think that because we usually can agree on a rating (but not always), it means looks are somewhat objective. There is a general consensus on what is attractive and ugly, which is reflected by lookism / the societal treatment and feedback of individuals. Just because it’s not foolproof doesnt invalidate the entire thing

it is black and white based on law of excluded middle.

 

[limerence]

Dnr, the more attractive you are the higher chance you are to be wanted

tell me you didn't read the thread without telling me you didn't.

 

[Prøphet]

it is black and white based on law of excluded middle.

There’s a spectrum between something being true 100 out of 100 times and 0 out of 100 times, if your statement is tell me looks are absolutely objective I disagree, in fact I disagree with anything being true at all under that logic, but for practical purposes I do believe looks are more often objective than not

 

[HtnceI]

tell me you didn't read the thread without telling me you didn't.

I did tell you JFL

 

[limerence]

Quite literally false in all scenarios, even when not talking about the objectively of beauty.

If everyone who knows the rules agrees completely on the exact things that make something count as X, then we can say X is objective. or at at least in the sense that it doesn’t depend on personal feelings or opinions.

Yeah buddy, under your retarded worldview, you’d have to as well agree that the earths shape is subjective, and could be flat.

If you apply that same logic consistently then it would force pseudo intellectual conclusions in areas where we know objectivity holds:
flat earthers disagree on the essential properties of earths shape. They will use different “rules, like “trust your eyes over photos,” “NASA lies,” “gravity is fake,” “the horizon always looks flat,”

so under your own position, you would have to agree that the earths shape is subjective, because there is no true uniformity

There will never be perfect uniformity across the board on what counts as qualifying evidence or must have traits for a spherical earth

Your argument relies on you not fucking understanding objectivity actually requires, then strawmanning the position of beauty

im talking specifically about about the meta-definition of objective retard, mind independent universal, we can identify what makes the earth round and the properties that makes the earth round, we caint with what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn so this is a false analogy. appeal to masses fallacy on first sentence just bc everyone agrees to x doesn't make x true you retard, thats not how we determine truth, if your criteria of epistemology is the more people agree with x that qualifies it with being true then your a retard, if we apply that same criteria with any other claim it fails, if everyone agreed that we were cows it wouldn't make it true. also you just said that if everyone agreed with x that would make it not depend on personal feelings, but thats quite literally the opposite. If everyone agreed with x, therefore x is true, quite literally means that that proposition is justified with everyone's opinion, truth is mind independent so it isnt justified based on what people think. Also you misunderstand what scientific theories are, they aren't claiming to be objective, they are probabilistic, they are saying this is the likely case. logic is an example of something that is objective, because it is a necessary condition in any possible world, and to reject logic you have to use logic to reject it. plato mentions this when talking to the sophists and they say "why dont we just reject logic" and he says you would have to use it to reject it in the first place therefore its true.

 

[limerence]

didnt even need the dnr its alr obv

View attachment 4562129 I did tell you JFL

 

[limerence]

You look at someone and you determine if they are handsome or not. It’s that simple. Dnr

if you read then you would understand how that doesn't justify objectivity this is why you read.

 

[limerence]

I don’t even want to waste my breath on this thread

thats not an argument btw.

 

[limerence]

I wanna clarify also im still somewhat blackpilled, agree with hypergamy and looks matter I just disagree that looks are objective in the sense I defined, if you define objective as most ppl believe in x therefore x is true, go ahead but that would be a fallacy.

 

[limerence]

There’s a spectrum between something being true 100 out of 100 times and 0 out of 100 times, if your statement is tell me looks are absolutely objective I disagree, in fact I disagree with anything being true at all under that logic, but for practical purposes I do believe looks are more often objective than not

there is an issue with this view of thinking nothing is true at all, if nothing is true, is the statement: nothing is true (true). if yes then you just used a truth statement to state truth statements dont exist.

 

[limerence]

Immediately disagree. The underlying proposition here is that "If a category is objective, humans will have found the way to objectively measure it" --> seems very speculative, especially if one could demonstrate that we are finding increasingly 'objective' ways (I.e., a methodology that maps onto what humans generally prefer better than prior methods).

Would need a definition on "we." If it just means the current people in the world who study looks, why can't they just be limited in knowledge. How does our current limitation mean that we can't later find an objective method. Things don't become objective in retrospect, so you are making a temporally universal claim: that there never was and never will be an objective method to quantify looks. I don't think that's justified here. For example, if we applied this to mathematics or logic, before they were formalized, your argument would entail they were subjective, and then became objective. Which contradicts both the meaning of objectivity, and what you claimed about objectivity.

Also you wouldn't need essential properties. For example beauty could be emergent from multiple different combinations of traits and ratios.

The last sentence seems to argue that we can't currently conclude that looks are objective, which is different from the claim they aren't. If you are to say "we can't conclude if looks are objective, so they aren't objective" then you are making an argument from ignorance.

That seems to what you did when you claimed the loem and the fact we can't currently demonstrate a completely objective system, that we need to accept the negation. I think you are confusing propositional truth value with propositional attitudes, it is either true or not true that looks are objective, but you can have a neutral propositional attitude on whether you belief its true or not depending on the available.

I get what your saying ill try to best articulate my view. all im using is (justified true belief) if we have to reasons to believe in something then its justified. also logic and mathematics are in different categories then scientific facts which are probable, versus logic which is required to even conclude scientific facts in the first place. logic is necessary in all possible worlds. Im just saying what is your good reason for thinking looks are objective. I understand that you can take a neutral stance on a propositional attitude , but a neutral stance would be subjective, until something is demonstrated to be objective. if the criteria for looks does not provide what qualifies ltn/mtn/htn, then we have to reason to believe in it, ie. justified true belief.

 

[limerence]

Immediately disagree. The underlying proposition here is that "If a category is objective, humans will have found the way to objectively measure it" --> seems very speculative, especially if one could demonstrate that we are finding increasingly 'objective' ways (I.e., a methodology that maps onto what humans generally prefer better than prior methods).

Would need a definition on "we." If it just means the current people in the world who study looks, why can't they just be limited in knowledge. How does our current limitation mean that we can't later find an objective method. Things don't become objective in retrospect, so you are making a temporally universal claim: that there never was and never will be an objective method to quantify looks. I don't think that's justified here. For example, if we applied this to mathematics or logic, before they were formalized, your argument would entail they were subjective, and then became objective. Which contradicts both the meaning of objectivity, and what you claimed about objectivity.

Also you wouldn't need essential properties. For example beauty could be emergent from multiple different combinations of traits and ratios.

The last sentence seems to argue that we can't currently conclude that looks are objective, which is different from the claim they aren't. If you are to say "we can't conclude if looks are objective, so they aren't objective" then you are making an argument from ignorance.

That seems to what you did when you claimed the loem and the fact we can't currently demonstrate a completely objective system, that we need to accept the negation. I think you are confusing propositional truth value with propositional attitudes, it is either true or not true that looks are objective, but you can have a neutral propositional attitude on whether you belief its true or not depending on the available.

Immediately disagree. The underlying proposition here is that "If a category is objective, humans will have found the way to objectively measure it" --> seems very speculative, especially if one could demonstrate that we are finding increasingly 'objective' ways (I.e., a methodology that maps onto what humans generally prefer better than prior methods).

Would need a definition on "we." If it just means the current people in the world who study looks, why can't they just be limited in knowledge. How does our current limitation mean that we can't later find an objective method. Things don't become objective in retrospect, so you are making a temporally universal claim: that there never was and never will be an objective method to quantify looks. I don't think that's justified here. For example, if we applied this to mathematics or logic, before they were formalized, your argument would entail they were subjective, and then became objective. Which contradicts both the meaning of objectivity, and what you claimed about objectivity.

Also you wouldn't need essential properties. For example beauty could be emergent from multiple different combinations of traits and ratios.

The last sentence seems to argue that we can't currently conclude that looks are objective, which is different from the claim they aren't. If you are to say "we can't conclude if looks are objective, so they aren't objective" then you are making an argument from ignorance.

That seems to what you did when you claimed the loem and the fact we can't currently demonstrate a completely objective system, that we need to accept the negation. I think you are confusing propositional truth value with propositional attitudes, it is either true or not true that looks are objective, but you can have a neutral propositional attitude on whether you belief its true or not depending on the available.

also saying something is possible doesn't justify it

 

[TiktokUser]

im talking specifically about about the meta-definition of objective retard, mind independent universal, we can identify what makes the earth round and the properties that makes the earth round, we caint with what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn so this is a false analogy. appeal to masses fallacy on first sentence just bc everyone agrees to x doesn't make x true you retard, thats not how we determine truth, if your criteria of epistemology is the more people agree with x that qualifies it with being true then your a retard, if we apply that same criteria with any other claim it fails, if everyone agreed that we were cows it wouldn't make it true. also you just said that if everyone agreed with x that would make it not depend on personal feelings, but thats quite literally the opposite. If everyone agreed with x, therefore x is true, quite literally means that that proposition is justified with everyone's opinion, truth is mind independent so it isnt justified based on what people think. Also you misunderstand what scientific theories are, they aren't claiming to be objective, they are probabilistic, they are saying this is the likely case. logic is an example of something that is objective, because it is a necessary condition in any possible world, and to reject logic you have to use logic to reject it. plato mentions this when talking to the sophists and they say "why dont we just reject logic" and he says you would have to use it to reject it in the first place therefore its true.

Good ol strawman retard. I never once appealed to popularity. The qualifier is “everyone who knows the rules,” which I’m pretty sure I made clear in my initial post. Your illiterate ass just can’t read

Everyone who knows the rules clearly points to competent, informed people who understand and apply the same shared criteria. The exact things that make something count as X

When qualified people who know the defining rules and properties uniformly apply those same, the result is independent of personal whims. That’s evidence for objectivity. You not knowing the criteria for LTN, MTN, and HTN doesn’t mean they don’t exist, that’s just your own retarded ignorance.

 

[pfl]

Cope

 

[limerence]

Cope

this isnt a refutation to my argument its just babble.

 

[limerence]

Good ol strawman retard. I never once appealed to popularity. The qualifier is “everyone who knows the rules,” which I’m pretty sure I made clear in my initial post. Your illiterate ass just can’t read

Everyone who knows the rules clearly points to competent, informed people who understand and apply the same shared criteria. The exact things that make something count as X

When qualified people who know the defining rules and properties uniformly apply those same, the result is independent of personal whims. That’s evidence for objectivity. You not knowing the criteria for LTN, MTN, and HTN doesn’t mean they don’t exist, that’s just your own retarded ignorance.

yeah bud this convo is out of your league just stop replying, you dont even know what objective means.

 

[iblameocclusalcant]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

Can you explain it in simple words ?

 

[Societal Reject]

There is an objective standard. Because someone thinks shit smells good doesn’t mean shit doesn’t stink. It means that persons olfactory receptors are faulty.

 

[killcry]

if you read then you would understand how that doesn't justify objectivity this is why you read.

Yes. The entire thread is pointless. The entire study of beauty is the fact that beautiful things exist and we look at them collectively. You need to be hung

 

[jaaba]

thats not an argument btw.

I’d be sat here for hours typing out why almost every sentence you wrote was flawed, so no I’m not going to argue

 

[limerence]

Good ol strawman retard. I never once appealed to popularity. The qualifier is “everyone who knows the rules,” which I’m pretty sure I made clear in my initial post. Your illiterate ass just can’t read

Everyone who knows the rules clearly points to competent, informed people who understand and apply the same shared criteria. The exact things that make something count as X

When qualified people who know the defining rules and properties uniformly apply those same, the result is independent of personal whims. That’s evidence for objectivity. You not knowing the criteria for LTN, MTN, and HTN doesn’t mean they don’t exist, that’s just your own retarded ignorance.

Can you explain it in simple words ?

yeah, we caint even identify it as objective, if we could then we would be able to recognize what makes it objective. therefore its more probable to not believe is objective until further evidence or proven.

 

[limerence]

Yes. The entire thread is pointless. The entire study of beauty is the fact that beautiful things exist and we look at them collectively. You need to be hung

lol giga-retard over here, just tell my you dnr, if we all looked at slavery as a collective to be right that wouldn't mean its objective. I just explained in the first sentence that just because a lot of people believe in x doesn't make x true, thats a mass appeal fallacy, keep coping.

 

[limerence]

I’d be sat here for hours typing out why almost every sentence you wrote was flawed, so no I’m not going to argue

lmao keep dreaming

 

[Alienmaxxer]

It literally doesn't matter. All that matters is what people subjectively think your attractiveness is, regardless if objective attractiveness does or doesn't exist.

Stacy won't have sex with you if she is "wrong" about how attractive you actually are.

In the case of attractiveness, all that matters is what people think for results. If everyone thought blackops2cel was a gigachad, blackops2cel would be a gigachad. It's a strange instance where 1+1 would actually be 5 if everyone believed 1+1=5.

Philosophical questions like this are useless and end in word salad and arguments without any semblance of conclusion anyways. What you should be asking is about the statistical distributions related to attractiveness like variance of rating, mean ratings, inequalities between male to female ratings, how distributions change when conditioned, etc. This is much more useful info, and allows much more complex and useful concepts to be formed than the binary objective/subjective, which has so much baggage attached to it.

 

[Alienmaxxer]

Also premise 2 is wrong: there is no reason something being objective should imply we know about it.

The world was still objectively round even while cavemen thought it was flat.

 

[Epola]

tell me you didn't read the thread without telling me you didn't.

he did tell you he didn't read it lmao

 

[g4rlic]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

Looks are subjective. Water. Changes absolutely nothing abt lookism.

 

[Mogwarts_Dropout]

Introduction:

people seem to be retards so before I continue I want to clarify
something. Ppl seem to conclude that if hypergamy exists or
if we can see effects of people vastly preferring a specific set
of physical characteristics that somehow means that looks must
necessarily must be objective, but this is simply not the case, if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective. furthermore any attempt to appeal to a specific scientific
theory must first be justified by providing your epistemic criteria in
which you conclude that this theory is true, failing to do so will be a
unjustified position.​

premise 1:
looks are either subjective or objective

premise 2:
if looks are objective then we would
have a objective criteria in which we can
conclude what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

premise 3:
we do not have a objective criteria
as to what qualifies a ltn/mtn/htn

conclusion:
looks are subjective

explanation for premise 1:
there is no in-between
objectivity and subjectivity, either something is
true in most cases/relative to a person or true in
all cases and absolutely true ie objective regardless
of human opinion, examples would be laws of logic
math, ect.

explanation for premise 2:
people can list thinks in which generally qualifies
a htn, strong jawline, good eye area etc, but these
properties are not necessary and can sometimes
be interchangeable for example someone with strong
eye area but weaker jaw, therefore if we can not
identify some sort of uniformity across the board
in terms of essential properties that qualifies what
a ltn/mtn/htn is then we cannot conclude if looks are
objective

explanation for premise 3:

people can say all they want we have the psl stanard
which is what determines what looks is but that is
a very nuanced claim to make. first we have to agree
on what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn which we cannot
considering the constant disagreements on ratings
if we need a system that points outspecific values that is
always the case to make a subject a ltn/mtn.htn,
which we dont have​

explanation for conclusion:
as justified with the law of excluded middle every proposition
is either true or its negation is true, since objectivity is not true
and cannot be demonstrated to be true therefore its negation
is true which is the subjectivity of looks.

what to do if you disagree:
if you disagree then comment below a critique on my argument
and which premise you have contentions with, if you agree with
all of the premises then the conculsion necessarily follows
making the argument valid. also the argument rests on premise
3 I think most people would agree with premise 1 and 2 but if
you can provide a objective criteria that can explain what
qualifies what constitutes a ltn/mtn/htn then conclusion
would follow that looks are objective so all you have to do is give
me that criteria.

Ahhh, thanks for telling me. Is this why 90% of gooks females worship white males and racemix the first opportunity their given the chance? Because it's all subjective and they just so happened to do that en masse consistently everywhere? Amazing!

 

[limerence]

Ahhh, thanks for telling me. Is this why 90% of gooks females worship white males and racemix the first opportunity their given the chance? Because it's all subjective and they just so happened to do that en masse consistently everywhere? Amazing!

tell me you didn't read anything without telling me you didn't.

 

[TiktokUser]

yeah bud this convo is out of your league just stop replying, you dont even know what objective means.

“Out of my league” You quite literally stramanned my position, then didn’t even bother to concede that you misread and misunderstood my argument. Now you’re trying to lecture me on what objective means. Holy fucking retard. You not knowing the looks scale doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist

 

[limerence]

It literally doesn't matter. All that matters is what people subjectively think your attractiveness is, regardless if objective attractiveness does or doesn't exist.

Stacy won't have sex with you if she is "wrong" about how attractive you actually are.

In the case of attractiveness, all that matters is what people think for results. If everyone thought blackops2cel was a gigachad, blackops2cel would be a gigachad. It's a strange instance where 1+1 would actually be 5 if everyone believed 1+1=5.

Philosophical questions like this are useless and end in word salad and arguments without any semblance of conclusion anyways. What you should be asking is about the statistical distributions related to attractiveness like variance of rating, mean ratings, inequalities between male to female ratings, how distributions change when conditioned, etc. This is much more useful info, and allows much more complex and useful concepts to be formed than the binary objective/subjective, which has so much baggage attached to it.

your a fucking idiot dont even talk to me, mathematics is not dependent on peoples consensus retard, it's true independent of human minds.

 

[limerence]

Also premise 2 is wrong: there is no reason something being objective should imply we know about it.

The world was still objectively round even while cavemen thought it was flat.

im saying that probalisticlly if we dont know something is objective then we shouldn't make it the case until we find evidence proving otherwise.

 

[Alienmaxxer]

your a fucking idiot dont even talk to me, mathematics is not dependent on peoples consensus retard, it's true independent of human minds.

I fully agree with what you just said. Reread what I wrote. I said looks is a domain where only what people subjectively think matters, and what people subjectively rate you in the domain of looks determines your actual looks value. The 1+1=3 thing was a metaphor to clarify what is going on.

 

[Alienmaxxer]

im saying that probalisticlly if we dont know something is objective then we shouldn't make it the case until we find evidence proving otherwise.

It's not a very convincing premise. There are other ways to know something is objective without fully knowing what it objectively is. The shape of a star we haven't seen is still objective even if we don't know the particular shape, for example.