Signs *Spoiler*

[Muslim]

as i said in my first post about supermodels

THE THIN BIT IS A TODAYS FRENZY IN OUR SOCIETY
meaning the "being thin" has nothing to do with health

only the proportions and bone structures.

as far as recessive/dominant goes

id rather take my chances with recessives than with dominants
finito

[JonnyBGood]

Muslim, do you consider art to have an objective value outside of how people view it? If so, where does it come from?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
a remake is not the "perfect" example of a twist in the end
yes, i have see the movie. No, that wasnt a good twist afterall and not a example of what I was refering to

I don't see where this "perfect" came into it, you just said A TWIST THAT WAS FORSEEN (or words to that effect).

You're also not giving any evidence that art isn't subjective.

Originally posted by Muslim
nothing to do with the point. rich people suicide a lot more than poor ones, so its not that much of a enviorimental issue

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You also haven't given any information to support what you've said.

Originally posted by Muslim
then arguiing with yourself would be your worst nightmare

I admit I'm wrong WHEN I'M WRONG.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
meaning the "being thin" has nothing to do with health

It has quite a lot to do with health.

As for Recessives vs dominants, where do you get your apparant opinion that everyone who isn't a supermodel has hideous genetic flaws?

[Muslim]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Muslim, do you consider art to have an objective value outside of how people view it? If so, where does it come from?

im not completely sure of what you are saying but here is an attempt to answer the question properly:
I think that many movies, Eg La heine, american X and anti-war movies have a big role on sharping peoples ideas about that world, becouse they affect directly society, by placing new ideas and concepts on the regular joe
In short, its objective that racism-like movies show that this behaviour only brings hatred, hunger, pain to the society, as the the antiwar movies and their relation with war
there is no discussion to that, so its objective (the purpuose of the movie)
Guernica (SP????) from picasso is also a good/excelent shown of objetive idea (war is terrible) and subjective ideas (the technique and the general aspect of the painting)
not sure if i answeared your question, sorry

[Ebany]

A lot of current supermodels have an almost boyish appearance that does not equate to being able to bear healthy children. Wide hips are good for carrying babies, (both before and after birth) - most supermodels have narrow hips (otherwise they would look even more ridiculous) which would be liable to cause problems during birth (if any of them bothered to do it naturally ofc).

And as for the genes, you can see anything that severe on any normal person just as well as you can on a supermodel (except maybe a bone wasting one would show up easier on a supermodel...). I wouldnt say that has anything at all to do with beauty. Would a supermodel having, say diabetes or leukaemia make them less beautiful?

[Muslim]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't see where this "perfect" came into it, you just said A TWIST THAT WAS FORSEEN (or words to that effect).

I was being ironic. You picked a remake to discuss about a twist in the plot. cant you see the irony in that?

I don't know what you're trying to say here. You also haven't given any information to support what you've said.

suicide rates amongst holland people are the highest of the world. they are rich and have everything (in comparison to the skinny somali) so where are you going with this suicide discussion? it has far less to do with genes than enviorement? or maybe is it the opposite? you brought this discussion up so tell me, why?

[/quote]
I admit I'm wrong WHEN I'M WRONG. [/b][/quote]
and it is never, right?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Muslim
im not completely sure of what you are saying but here is an attempt to answer the question properly:
I think that many movies, Eg La heine, american X and anti-war movies have a big role on sharping peoples ideas about that world, becouse they affect directly society, by placing new ideas and concepts on the regular joe
In short, its objective that racism-like movies show that this behaviour only brings hatred, hunger, pain to the society, as the the antiwar movies and their relation with war
there is no discussion to that, so its objective (the purpuose of the movie)
Guernica (SP????) from picasso is also a good/excelent shown of objetive idea (war is terrible) and subjective ideas (the technique and the general aspect of the painting)
not sure if i answeared your question, sorry

You seem to be defining art in terms of it's purpose. Purposes aren't objective either though. War is terrible is a generalised viewpoint, poor people are suppressed in Parisian society is a subjective opinion. It's just description and opinion. The value of a movie lies in it's ability to communicate with people, not in what it communicates.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
I was being ironic. You picked a remake to discuss about a twist in the plot. cant you see the irony in that?

It had

a

different

twist.

Originally posted by Muslim
and it is never, right?

I have been known to be wrong on occasion, I was wrong recently with a bit of General Relativity

[Muslim]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
It has quite a lot to do with health.

As for Recessives vs dominants, where do you get your apparant opinion that everyone who isn't a supermodel has hideous genetic flaws?

you pick on things that you know that its right, but misswritten.
i was sayiong that the level of "being thin" amongst the SM has nothing to do with health, it has to do with fashion´s lust for thin people.
nevertheless fashion also lusts for beauty people
hence beauty+thin people

i dont think regular people have genetic flaws. I am just saying beautyful people have less flaws than regular ones

[MrL_JaKiri]

The likelihood of that being genetic given the limited information in the genome is pretty slim.

[Ebany]

To my awareness, just about the only thing they have managed to define as being attractive to people universally is symmetry, of the face and body.
This does not mean that everyone with a symmetric face is beautiful. It may just mean youre symmetrically spotty (or some other less attracrive attribute).
Supermodels do tend to have very symmetrical faces, but so do a lot of people. And different people will find different types of symmetrical faces beautiful. While the symmetry is one thing that we all like, individually people all have their own little tastes. And people who are beautiful to you may not be to other people. I've been told I go for weird looking guys, but I find then handsome. I think some people have selected partners who arent beautiful, but I respect their opinion on the matter, theyre the ones waking up next to them every day, so presumably they like it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by queball
Dante v. Muslim

I think it's more of a Muslim vs. 'the Rest of the World Select XI' type situation.

Anyway : Standards of beauty in females are different from inside films, because biological reproduction acts as some kind of objective standard. Even there though, there is no objective measure of beauty. I find black women repulsive, others beautiful. Am I "wrong" because I fail to agree with the majority? A friend of mine is gay and obviously finds beauty in a completley different standard.

None of this has anything to do with movies though. A movie may serve it's purpose, but this has nothing to do with it being objectively good or bad. I personally despise all advertisements, yet I'm sure some of them are quite sucessful in what they set out to do.

Your original example Muslim (with the IMDB) is pitiful since it's just a vote (i.e. various random peoples subjective opinion). If we are taking the IMDB as "objectively true" (absurd) then do you agree that Lord of the Rings (8.8 avg vote) is better than Apocalypse Now (8.5)? Or that Star Wars (8.8) is better than La Haine (7.7)?

Whether a film is good may be something which _most_ people can reach a consensus about, but this goes no way near saying it's been objectively defined.

[Muslim]

i just pointed out the supermodels to clarify that everyone is born with a sense of good and bad, and that it is not subjective
proven that i can also extend this idea to any field i might be interested


the "us.imdb" served my purpuose to show that what is considered "good" by people who work in this bussiness (directors, actors, writers) is also considered good by the majority of the normal population, proving once again that taste is not sujective. (at least in the matters i refered to)

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
i just pointed out the supermodels to clarify that everyone is born with a sense of good and bad, and that it is not subjective
proven that i can also extend this idea to any field i might be interested

You tried, you failed.

Some people think supermodels are ugly.

That sort of disproves your point.

ps.

Taste is the very definition of subjective you idiot.

[Muslim]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You tried, you failed.

Some people think supermodels are ugly.

That sort of disproves your point.

ps.

Taste is the very definition of subjective you idiot.

well surely my newfound respect for you just flew out of the window again. i tried to be reasonable with you, what for. Ive been a gd regular here for over two years, never had any problem with any moderator.
Why they made you one is beyond me. I never heard of moderator that spam, is disrepectful, break the same rules you try to enforce. you are the simptom of everything that is wrong around here.


models are beautyful. thats why they are there. they have been picked exatcly because they are cute. And they are cute exactely for the reasons that taste is not subjective. They are cute because the bone structure, simmetry, and all the mathemitcal crap proves it to be beautyfull

beauty=good genes
good genes=healthy offspring
so people should want to have sex with pretty people to have good offspring, so people who think that supermodels are cute=right
people who dont=wrong
(ive been saying that from the start and you havent proven me wrong on this one, it proves taste is not subetctive)
models have large hips, small upper waist, perfect for generating children. some have small breasts (although the most known model, gisele bundchen, has great breasts) due to a problem that arised in todays society

If you look carefully, you would have realised i said it all, and you could not prove me wrong in any of these arguments.
you are just trolling around, and the worst is that you know that, and you are endorsed by moderators, what is unacepptable
you are a shame on these boards, just because you should set the example.

you should stop being such a pedantic arrogant twat that you are and look where you take my discussions and everyone elses
think
carefully

ps. im gone for the day
if i reply this thread tomorrow plese dont think im bumping it

[Knight Theamion]

al-qeada wins.

[Knight Theamion]

no fatality tho.

[KoeN]

ail-kaida

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by KoeN
ail-kaida

get the revu of this week and read about osama's sex slave.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Muslim
taste is not subjective

Now I've realised that you don't actually understand what subjective means, this thread has become a lot easier to comprehend.

[Anu]

agree with Muslim on this one.

Here's an interesting article: OMG It's psychology

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
models are beautyful. thats why they are there. they have been picked exatcly because they are cute. And they are cute exactely for the reasons that taste is not subjective. They are cute because the bone structure, simmetry, and all the mathemitcal crap proves it to be beautyfull

TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, MAYBE A MAJORITY, BUT NOT EVERYONE.

HENCE, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF SUBJECTIVITY.

Indeed, even if everyone did think they were beautiful, it would still be a subjective decision because it's made independently, but the lack of agreement just adds justification to my statement.

Originally posted by Muslim
beauty=good genes
good genes=healthy offspring
so people should want to have sex with pretty people to have good offspring, so people who think that supermodels are cute=right
people who dont=wrong

Beauty is not simply down to genes. For instance, identical twins aren't all that identical; they have identical dna, but dna doesn't control every single bit of construction, just the general guidelines.

To use a game analogy, DNA is like Sim City. It says what type of buildings go there, but has no control over what they are or what they look like.

Whilst it is true that people are attracted to one another because of some sort of evolutionary thing (at least 'true' to some degree), everyone is attracted to different people different amounts. Models are not the pinnacle of society in terms of genetics.

Originally posted by Muslim
If you look carefully, you would have realised i said it all, and you could not prove me wrong in any of these arguments.
you are just trolling around, and the worst is that you know that, and you are endorsed by moderators, what is unacepptable
you are a shame on these boards, just because you should set the example.

Why do I have to prove that taste is subjective?

Lets compare.

Taste.

Relevent part: A personal preference or liking:

Subjective.

Relevent part: Particular to a given person; personal

HOW IS A PERSONAL PREFERENCE NOT PERSONAL?

As for the rest of the arguments, no, models do not have the right body structure for being mothers. No, films are not decided to be good or not by a panel of experts. (Those same experts gave Titanic 11 oscars.)

Originally posted by Muslim
you should stop being such a pedantic arrogant twat that you are and look where you take my discussions and everyone elses
think
carefully

I do listen to everyone else. Everyone else [edit: bar one] thinks you're wrong. The DICTIONARY thinks you're wrong.

[Ebany]

but not EVERYBODY does find supermodels attractive. If this was the case than every man in the world would find every supermodel attractive, and to be quite frank they dont. There will be some they think arent beautiful. They may not think they are hideous, but they certainly wouldnt define them as beautiful. Supermodels are beautiful according to the people who choose who to make into supermodels. Sorry if you're a sheep and all and do what youre told all the time.

Surely by your reckoning, everyone finds preceisely the same things attractive, which is blatantly NOT TRUE. Beauty does not equal good genes. Some people find horrendouly obese people beautiful (Cant say I'm one of them, but you see some weird stuff on TV late at night). It is known there is a genetic factor in obesity. Are you saying these people are insane? Surely if your argument was accurate all the 'ugly' people in the world would have died out by now as no-one would have sex with them for being ugly. The very basis of the variation within our race is due to each person finding different features beautiful.

And 2 slightly seperate points:
1) Who is that supermodel you mentioned? Never heard of her...
2) I think Naomi Campbell is rather unattractive tbh. But then, and no racism intended, I've never found any black people attractive. I dont know why, I just dont get turned on by them. There may be some black guy out there I'd find drop dead gorgeous, but I havent seen him yet. Theres lots of white guys I dont find attractive out there too.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Anu
Here's an interesting article: OMG It's psychology

What has that got to do with movies?

p.s. Psychologically determined preferences are the defintion of subjective. If I like the colour Red because my mother beat me, or we as a species like Red because it reminds us of warmth, this does not make Red objectively "better" than Blue.

[Snurx]

Does this mean that i have to like:
1. Girls who are way to skinny (if i want one of those, i know enough junkies allready). I mean, they look like theyre snorting coke, all of them.
2. Girls who are obsessed whit their looks (Really, really, really vain).
3. Girls who are over-styled, so that their faces look like porcelain figures and have lost all human apperance. I really, really hate girls who have to use that much makeup to be considered "beatifull" or whatever. They try to fool you when you're drunk
4. Girls who are "up-tight". Now, i won't say all models/supermodels are, but i've actually met quite a few number of "regular" models in my years (Not a single supermodel, thought), and they were (whit a few exeptions ofc) uptight and snobby.

The point is, i don't find cokaine-dolls beatifull. If people do, that's their wish (or problem), but don't try to come and tell me to call them beatifull.

I could probably find a hundred more points, if i had the time (it's late, and it's school tommorrow) and if i had bothered. But frankly, i don't even know why im discussing this, since taste is subjective, and if you don't think it is, why not just shoot yourself, cos if not taste is subjective, what do we have left?

[JonnyBGood]

Soft, hard, beautiful, ugly, fast, slow, fat, skinny, intelligent, stupid, tall, short.


These are all subjective words. They are subjective because they have no meaning outside of what we give them. Subjective decisions are made by the human mind. To say that something is beautiful is to give a subjective opinion on it. It doesn't matter if every single person who ever existed agreed with you, it's still subjective because you're the one deciding. To say that according to this survey a certain percentage of the population found this picture to be beautiful is to give an objective statement concerning a subjective opinion.

[Zharkov]

[queball]

You hit "New Thread" instead of "Post Reply".

[acropolis]

This thread sucks.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by queball
You hit "New Thread" instead of "Post Reply".

I was going to post it there but everyone got so caught up with it I thought I'd start a new thread. I'll merge it back.

[Leshy]

If the criterium for applying the term 'beautiful' to someone is that a significant part of society finds a person attractive, then you can indeed say that someone is beautiful.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Leshy
If the criterium for applying the term 'beautiful' to someone is that a significant part of society finds a person attractive, then you can indeed say that someone is beautiful.

The criterium for applying the term beautiful to someone is that you find them beautiful (or else you're lying because that's not your opinion). Society is pretty irrelevant here.

[queball]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was going to post it there but everyone got so caught up with it I thought I'd start a new thread. I'll merge it back.

Don't merge on my account. The style reminded me of yahwe's thread that argued hetrosexuality out of existence.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by queball
Don't merge on my account.

That made me giggle for some reason :(

[acropolis]

my previous post made a lot more sense in response to a thread on subjectivity

[Muslim]

jalkiri you said yourself dictionary.com was not definitive.

as for taste goes:
are you familiar with the expression bad taste / good taste?
nuff said for that

on the models matter:
Models should be the very idea of beauty, and beauty is simetry/proportions, what is designed by genes.
honestly, whats the percentage that would say that catherina zeta jones is ugly?
many models do have a weird not-so-attractive look, but they are the exceptions, in the same way their biafran style is an exception, becouse is a momentaneous trend.
the standart idea on models is that they are good looking. If you dont agree, bring me the numbers, the percentages, etc.
the distinctions between identical twist arise with time. Hence "environmental pressure".
I dare to say that people who like fatties, people with yellow theets, people who smell bad, who wont comb their hair, who are dislexical, who have attention deficit disorder, who likes to watch soap operas, to be of bad taste. Therefore wrong. They are going to have children who will have a chance of developing this problems. This is not good. Hence WRONG. period.

Now, you made all of us bable for 2 days now about a very dificult point to prove me that signs is a better movie than apocalypse now, what is laughable. You know that there are good movies and bad movies out there. Why did you chose to go down this road?