debunking objectivity of looks

[limerence]

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.

you caint know something is objective without identifying what makes it objective, thats just not true.

 

[nvr3noug6]

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​

we have different truth theories, does that mean truth is subjective? just because there is disscusions and debates going on in lookism communities does not mean there is no objective criteria, debates and discussions are exist in every religion and worldview that does not mean everything is subjective, btw you refute your own thread you mentioned at the start

if
all humans banded together and agreed 1+1=5 it wouldn't suddenly
be objective.

so if we cant agree on criteria does that mean there is no objective criteria?

 

[Alienmaxxer]

you caint know something is objective without identifying what makes it objective, thats just not true.

I already refuted that with the example in my post.

Anyways you aint repping me so i dont see why i should reply further

 

[catastropy]

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.

premise 3 presupposes that objectivity neccesarily requires agreement from all humans this conditional is already contradictory because it is dependent on the human brain not outside so it already breaks ur syllogism because objectivity can exist but the human mind can think otherwise but that simply doesnt matter because objectivity is out of the constraints of the brain so ur conditional for objectivity already has an error in reasoning therefore does not follow with the conclusion and it is hence a non sequitor

 

[limerence]

premise 3 presupposes that objectivity neccesarily requires agreement from all humans this conditional is already contradictory because it is dependent on the human brain not outside so it already breaks ur syllogism because objectivity can exist but the human mind can think otherwise but that simply doesnt matter because objectivity is out of the constraints of the brain so ur conditional for objectivity already has an error in reasoning therefore does not follow with the conclusion and it is hence a non sequitor

the objective criteria is not qualified based on majority opinion.

 

[catastropy]

the objective criteria is not qualified based on majority opinion.

Yes via this youve already conceded from ur argumentation

 

[vivex]

Liberal body positivity propaganda

 

[limerence]

Liberal body positivity propaganda

yeah just tell me you didn't read the thread, I agree with every single proposition of blackpill except for looks being objective, everything in blackpill can be true and looks can still be subjective at the same time. you just dont realize that.

 

[vivex]

yeah just tell me you didn't read the thread, I agree with every single proposition of blackpill except for looks being objective, everything in blackpill can be true and looks can still be subjective at the same time. you just dont realize that.

It’s still woke propaganda, most of them acknowledge that looks matter but they claim beauty standards are all arbitrary. Looks are mainly objective because all beauty standards across cultures are relatively consistent with each other. They all center around sexual dimorphism, health indicators, Dacia harmony etc. phenotypes and societal norms can dictate what is considered the ultimate standard.

 

[limerence]

It’s still woke propaganda, most of them acknowledge that looks matter but they claim beauty standards are all arbitrary. Looks are mainly objective because all beauty standards across cultures are relatively consistent with each other. They all center around sexual dimorphism, health indicators, Dacia harmony etc. phenotypes and societal norms can dictate what is considered the ultimate standard.

yeah your a retard once again, beauty standards can be consistent across the globe and still be subjective, if a set system is preferred that doesn't make it objective.

 

[limerence]

It’s still woke propaganda, most of them acknowledge that looks matter but they claim beauty standards are all arbitrary. Looks are mainly objective because all beauty standards across cultures are relatively consistent with each other. They all center around sexual dimorphism, health indicators, Dacia harmony etc. phenotypes and societal norms can dictate what is considered the ultimate standard.

what you just explained is literally subjective looks, a bunch of ppl agreeing on what they think is attractive, objective = stance independently true. Which we have no argument for evidence for.

 

[limerence]

It’s still woke propaganda, most of them acknowledge that looks matter but they claim beauty standards are all arbitrary. Looks are mainly objective because all beauty standards across cultures are relatively consistent with each other. They all center around sexual dimorphism, health indicators, Dacia harmony etc. phenotypes and societal norms can dictate what is considered the ultimate standard.

if your a retard who doesn't know what he's talking about and just watched a bunch of internet videos then dont comment on my thread I only engage with people that aren't giga retarded like you. complete sheep just following the crowd parroting information without even understanding what your saying.

 

[vivex]

if your a retard who doesn't know what he's talking about and just watched a bunch of internet videos then dont comment on my thread I only engage with people that aren't giga retarded like you. complete sheep just following the crowd parroting information without even understanding what your saying.

It’s very telling that u jus call me a retard instead of providing an argument against mine.

 

[vivex]

what you just explained is literally subjective looks, a bunch of ppl agreeing on what they think is attractive, objective = stance independently true. Which we have no argument for evidence for.

Even if that’s true how humans judge attractiveness will always be objective and is based on the things I just listed. lol regardless everyone agrees that the sky is blue, so is the color of the sky subjective???

 

[vivex]

yeah your a retard once again, beauty standards can be consistent across the globe and still be subjective, if a set system is preferred that doesn't make it objective.

Well the set system is preferred universally, which would make it objective

 

[limerence]

Well the set system is preferred universally, which would make it objective

its not preferred universally bc we see outliers there is no way you just said that universally is applied in all cases.

 

[limerence]

Even if that’s true how humans judge attractiveness will always be objective and is based on the things I just listed. lol regardless everyone agrees that the sky is blue, so is the color of the sky subjective???

you just asserted it being objective again without justification, this convo is out of your league hit up a philo 101 class and come back here lil bro.

 

[vivex]

O

its not preferred universally bc we see outliers there is no way you just said that universally is applied in all cases.

Outliers are the exceptions; that's the definition of an outlier. If something correlates, it's still correlated even if there are outliers, hence it's the objective truth in most cases.

 

[vivex]

you just asserted it being objective again without justification, this convo is out of your league hit up a philo 101 class and come back here lil bro.

If something is usually always consistent, then it would be only logical to believe it's the truth.

 

[zalcus]

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 feel like they are both objective and subjective. The more objectively attractive you are the wider audience you appeal to, but that doesn’t mean someone is obligated to find you attractive.

 

[vivex]

you just asserted it being objective again without justification, this convo is out of your league hit up a philo 101 class and come back here lil bro.

even if looks arent objective, that means nothing. What's considered attractive has always been consistent.

 

[Olympus]

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 it’s all hardwired into us to treat ugly people below us and they are genetically inferior and should literally die according to nature

 

[LTNUser]

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

Beauty is subjective after CL

 

[mrdouchebag]

Looks are objective with some subjectivity sprinkled in.
Most people have a range of attractiveness, not one single strict number.
For example if the average woman is a 5, her rating can realistically fluctuate from 3 to 7, depending on the man. Most men will find her dead average(5), some men will find her a bit above average(6) or a bit below average(4). Very few men will find her considerably above average(7) or considerably below average(3). But almost noone would rate her as a 2 or a 9, I mean it's possible, but so extremely unlikely unless the sample size is truly humongous, which has no practical use.
I think that's pretty much how it works.

 

[1966Ford]

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

Solid user. Real solid

 

[zalcus]

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 think looks are both objective and subjective, what u find attractive largely depends on culture and childhood but are you saying looks aren’t objective at all? Maybe we perceive them as objective because we are apart of one monoculture (not entirely of course)