Discussion I still think attractiveness is subjective

[lowz1r]

Objective attractiveness can be defined as the probability that any given person from the human population will find you attractive.

Your objective attractiveness is basically how well people perceive you visually or the amount of sexual attraction you receive from the opposite gender.

This is why arguments like: "but muh everyone has different tastes!" are invalid.

The less amount of people find you attractive, the less attractive you are objectively speaking.

 

[Copexodius Maximus]

some parts of attractiveness are subjective but some parts are objective

 

[Balding Subhuman]

There is some subjectivity to it but in all reality it is mostly objective. Its like when people say that bald men are attractive, because there's like 3% of women over 30 who think bald men look better than men with hair, therefore they think that looks are "subjective and everyone has their own tastes." Its some gigacopium for people who don't want to admit the truth to themselves and others for whatever reason.

Or they say stuff like "height doesn't matter because there are women who date shorter men." Yeah, probably like 5 women out of 100 are willing to do that, and even then only because the woman herself is tall and can't bag a taller guy, or she's desperate and needs an emotional tampon and a betabuxxer. Doesn't mean that she finds the guy attractive.

Symmetry, proportional features except for certain body parts, health and virility is objectively attractive. A woman liking guys with long hair and men who wear ear rings, subjective.

 

[Moroccancel]

statements abt language can be objectively correct or incorrect, so it is objective like beauty

The problem with this statement is that you are considering that language shapes reality, and reality does not shape language. You can feel hot, you can feel in love, you can be suffering from an illness, and beyond yourself or any smiling subject, that value of "experience" without a nervous system. Beauty, as I repeat again, has no objective nature if there is no perception.

who cares if they r honest, u r saying they r not objectively wrong.

47503, member: 54441"]
idk y u consider all humans to not b a part of objective reality
[/QUOTE]
Reality is objective, as we live surrounded by objects and elements that we differentiate from other subjects, or subjectivisms. Proportionality is an objective fact, beauty is not, which is determined under our genetic coding.

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

No, what you want to do is give objective value to the experience and through the experience you want to give identity and ontology to what surrounds you. Beauty in itself does not exist except in reaction to a certain phenomenon, that is, intrinsically related to your genetic code, not a property in itself. Beauty has no identity outside of the perceiving subjects, unlike gravity, uniformly accelerated rectilinear motion, or the speed of light in a vacuum. Human life is objective, beauty is not, which does not exist outside the percieving

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

You are not being intellectually honest in this debate, brocel. I have not said that an ugly and fat woman has the potential to be a 10/10 gigastacy, I have told you that if you pay, I would fuck the landwhale because I, volcel I am not.

That's different than claiming that without our genetic coding, a landwhale or a Stacy They would have the same sexual value as a white wall, or a marble floor, making beauty eminently subjective because there is no beauty without the subject.

ITCucks use the assertion that beauty is subjective because they stupidly want to impose that there will always be someone who sees ugliness as beauty in a platitude to cope and gaslight the brocels.


I say that beauty is subjective, from the Kantian analysis of aesthetics, because beauty does not exist outside the subject and therefore, we cannot speak of objectivity in itself. For practical purposes, human beings live cloistered to their genetic programming.