K
Do you think it’s subjective or objective and why?
A
mostly objective there are some minor subjective preferences like which color of chad/stacy you prefer
ugliness is objective.
It's obviously objective. Most people will agree on what is generally attractive and generally ugly. Sure there may be some variation in what people think is the MOST attractive but they still agree on what is generally attractive and what isn't. If it was totally subjective then there would be people attracted to me and I would not be on this site.
K
Define ugliness
there is science behind beauty, symmetry is key
It's subjective for men because we have varied tastes when it comes to foids. Foids find certain traits like being rich, powerful, darktriad, etc etc attractive and so they are attracted to the same kind of men.
Assymetry, bad bones, bad hair texture, etc... lots of caracteristics
K
You can be symmetrical and ugly tho right?
Yes.
ok GrAY
GrAYs 
symmetry does a lot, but there might be some cases where it is not enough
K
people prefer different types of hair texture, and what are bad bones?
beauty is objective
it is a physical trait of a person. if it was subjective you would just make it up in your head, and it wouldn't be physical
it is a physical trait of a person. if it was subjective you would just make it up in your head, and it wouldn't be physical
When people say attractiveness is subjective they mean that whatever variant of chad a foid prefers can vary
Ye
Rice is objectively ugly.
There is no quality of object to be "beauty" by itself. It is subjective by itself, but not for itself (genetic coding)
Slavic extremely straight thin hair.
K
Is Micheal cera a Chad? Because I’ve heard that there’s women attracted to him
You cannot measure beauty without perception.
ltn with celebrity halo
you can't measure much without perception
Completely subjective it all depends on what an individual is attracted to.
A celeb or rock singer doesn't need to be particularly attractive to have groupies
Therefore, there is no objective reality to beauty.
Beauty does not exist without perception.
GrAYs
then nothing would have objective reality jfl
irl even a question like 'is humbert humbert a character in nabokov's book lolita' has an objectively correct answer, and that can't be measured without um senses, literacy, basic familiarity with a novel, and so on
Everything. Proportionaly would exist without perception, gravity and all the objective things.
Reality does not start from human beings, but we are a part of it. So beauty, does not exist outside of us and cannot be measured outside us beause it is coded in our brains, and therefeore, is dependant the subject. The same that dogs have their instincts and we ours.
so everything is subjective? idk but that is objectively not clear english, even tho language would not exist sans perception
and humans have objective traits. you can get stung by a stinging nettle, you can't get stung by a pixel. that's bc of traits that are at base objective, and the 'subjective' element is only a result
I say again, brocel. In this case, beauty has no nature beyond our perception. We are genetically programmed to find certain things beautiful and others ugly; but that is our programming, and not reality. We say that beauty is subjective because it starts from the perception of the object, not that beauty exists outside the being that perceives. Therefore, beauty cannot be an object, because it is not a quality in itself of any object. In the same way, we call a stone "Stone" but the stone does not cease to exist if it is not named.
In a human being you can study proportionalities and geometric properties, and what matches in correlation for what is valued and what is not, we conclude "beauty", but outside of the human, beauty is not measurable, does not exist.
It exists in brackets, from 1-10, chink to chad, chink to failed normie on this forum. There are people who are objectively in certain brackets with minor variance but the vast majority believe they fit that bracket. There are certain features which objectively make you worse and certain ones which make you better, there are certain ratios which usually boost or detract from your rating. For example asian features drop your rating. Anyways if you’re on this forum and not short you likely have multiple major things making you ugly.
I think beauty or ugliness is pretty objective, most people seem to be in pretty general agreement about what's beautiful and what's ugly.
(Fake, virtue-signalling, body-positivity BS from soyfags notwithstanding.)
What's subjective is:
(Fake, virtue-signalling, body-positivity BS from soyfags notwithstanding.)
What's subjective is:
- Your personal "line" or "standards"... how ugly is TOO UGLY to be fuckable in your eyes?
- What do you claim / brag in public is your line?
Last edited:
K
Very subjective. Some foids prefer dark haired chads some prefer blonde. Some prefer muscular chads some foids prefer slim chads.
neither does language jfl
u can't say that parts of human existence aren't objective just bc they aren't stones. that's reductive scientism
language, knowledge and beauty are all things which can be described objectively
Ok then go and fuck an ugly landwhale prostitute and imagine she is a 10/10 gigastacy
it will b the same thing if beauty is 'subjective'
since beauty is primarily subjective and only exists in ur head, and requires nothing objective to stimulate it, that should b ez right?
if we don't have the word stone then it wouldn't make sense to talk abt a 'stone'. and this word only exists bc of perception
so when we talk abt stones that wld b 'subjective' too, bc if we didn't have perception then we simply couldn't say anything abt it. this definition of subjectivity is a pointless purity spiral. as wittgenstein noted trying 2 speak in language is already based on human activity
when ppl talk abt beauty they r obviously talking abt something outside them, that is y we say that sth is beautiful and not that we r beautiful. and the beauty does not exist w/o a beautiful thing, otherwise ppl could solve inceldom by imagining that a fleshlight or gloryhole is a stacy
if beauty was a trait of the observer then we would say they r beautiful, not the object
ok and those r objective traits
saying beauty is subjective is like saying that pushing a person in front of a moving train is only subjectively dangerous, or telling a starving person 2 eat food in their head. it is a moving train it will do that. ITcels always say this kind of thing, and feminists claim that landwhales are beautiful 2. but they r objectively wrong, not subjectively wrong which means nothing
Last edited:
Most GrAY thread i`ve ever seen
And have I told you that language has it? I have told you that language is a relationship between a mental concept and reality; The fact that we do not name things by a man does not mean that they do not exist. That is the point.
Language, knowledge and beauty are associations that our brain makes with material reality, not material reality itself, therefore, it cannot be objective (of object, inherent quality).
I have no problem doing it, but you pay. I'm short on money this month.
Saying that beauty is subjective means that beauty does not exist outside of ourselves, as a genetic programming. Therefore, certain traits are attractive and others are not, not because some traits are attractive in themselves (measurable quality outside of the human) But things are not beautiful because we are programmed to have neurochemical reactions to external stimuli.
Therefore, beauty is subjective, Which does not mean that different people can see something differently, but that this judgment of beauty only comes from humans, and without it, there is no beauty, because beauty is not a quality without perception, and therefore, it is not objective.
"Stone" is the term in the English language to talk about a certain geological phenomenon, "piedra" in Spanish, and "حجرة" in Arabic. This geometric structure exists independently of our perception. The opposite happens with beauty: beauty as a material reality does not exist in itself outside of perception and our genetic code.
Evidently. The point is not that we can say or not say anything about something, but whether or not something exists independently of our existence. Solipsism is simply the denial of reality.
This would not demonstrate that beauty is objective, but rather how we process information. That is why we say that there is no beauty outside of perception because there is nothing that is "beautiful" outside of human beings perceiving such things as such, which, as I repeat, is still subjective.
We say that something is beautiful because we are genetically programmed to find neurochemical stimulation in certain elements, not that an object is beautiful in itself. You perceive the object, you do not create its reality. Beauty is not a quality of an object itself independently of you,.
Also a snake can be proportional, or a centipede, or even helicobacter pylori, But those qualities do not make something beautiful in itself, But we are genetically programmed to respond neurochemically to certain stimuli.
Proportionality and beauty are not equivalent, although they are related.
The fact that you hit a person next to a train has a probability component that will cause the person you hit to be hit by the train or not. Movement and forces are exerted by physical elements that are independent of you, but have you as the material element that carries the action; What is dangerous is the survival instinct or the instinct of preservation, but there is no danger if there is no perception.
ITcucks can say that a landwhale is beautiful and they would be lying against their own instinct, because we are programmed to value things as beautiful or sexually attractive, but "beauty" or "ugliness" has no objective value outside of the human being. Therefore, we conclude that beauty is subjective, And the fact that it is subjective does not mean that each person determines reality, but rather that the judgment comes from the subject, and not from the object.
S
If attractiveness was subjective then there wouldn't be incels in the first place.
it is subjective, but there still is such thing as the average opinion, which is why incels exist
statements abt language can be objectively correct or incorrect, so it is objective like beauty
idk y u consider all humans to not b a part of objective reality
human life is 'subjective', when it becomes 'objective' by ur standards then it is dead. I don't think that only dead things and inanimate objects r objective, but u want to exclude most of human existence from objective reality. even tho the words and languages we use are all a part of human reality, so if u want 2 deny these things are objective then ur statements only have meaning subjectively and I could validly make up that u were saying anything I wanted
ok if u think an ugly fat whore can become a 10/10 gigastacy bc of subjectivity, then I will just let u believe that
I don't think it is worth discussing this issue further at that point, it is practically a discussion of the occult or of landwhale-alchemy
also I will not pay bc I do not believe that is possible, but an ugly whore may come cheap + be affordable
so good luck finding uggo gigastacy 2 fuck
who cares if they r honest, u r saying they r not objectively wrong.
also if beauty is subjective u cld only talk abt different people's beauty standards, not that ppl r ugly or beautiful, so they r correct abt that 2
which basically wld mean they r correct abt feminism, beauty standards + the blackpill.
ultimately it is a simple issue, feminists r wrong + there is no need 2 mindread 2 find out if they find fat foids attractive. maybe some feminists have weird brains or they r corrupted by (((porn))), u do not know all of them personally. but it does not matter bc the feminist belief that beauty is subjective = wrong
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
