|
Post by blake on May 31, 2007 0:10:51 GMT
I think shes attractive without the airbrushes I have for a while. I'm not saying you don't think she is attractive, but fat doesn't really look like that. Like I said earlier in the thread I had a long term relationship with a girl who's size zigzagged between size 20 and 24. I know what fat really looks like. I tried to phrase that so it didn't sound crude, I hope I succeeded...
|
|
|
Post by hark on May 31, 2007 0:11:39 GMT
'Tis like a stab through mine very own heart! ANTM is so awesome, you clearly do not know what you are missing.
|
|
|
Post by tesla on May 31, 2007 0:13:17 GMT
I know what I'm missing...I miss it voluntarily...
|
|
|
Post by fabbit on May 31, 2007 0:13:25 GMT
I'm not saying you don't think she is attractive, but fat doesn't really look like that. Like I said earlier in the thread I had a long term relationship with a girl who's size zigzagged between size 20 and 24. I know what fat really looks like. I tried to phrase that so it didn't sound crude, I hope I succeeded... It doesn't sound crude at all. I saw that, and yes, but I think NME tried to make it beautiful. Although, I don't really classify naked women on magazine covers as "beautiful." Can I say its tragic that people feel the need to do that?
|
|
|
Post by bluearrangements on May 31, 2007 0:47:32 GMT
Hmm. I can' t take reading through this thread because I know what people will have said.
I think she looks beautiful. And she doesn't exactly sit around on her arse everyday eating crap and achieving nothing (which is what I seem to be doing at the moment). She seems to be having an awesome time. And she's not stupid, she knows how she is portrayed in the media, and plays on it big time, to her advantage.
As far as her being a role model, I don't think she's saying 'hey kids, let's all be obese, it's great!', she's just helping people to feel comfortable in their own bodies. Seriously, if we didn't worry so much about our appearance, we'd have much happier, much more productive lives.
I have a close friend who is clinically obese as it were, but she is still beautiful. She oozes confidence and every guy that meets her fancies her like mad. I would give anything for that kind of confidence, it's much more valuable (and attractive) than a perfect body. To be honest, I don't have a lot of time for people that think the opposite.
A bit off topic I suppose, but what do you guys think about suicide girls?
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on May 31, 2007 1:11:22 GMT
Although, I don't really classify naked women on magazine covers as "beautiful." Can I say its tragic that people feel the need to do that? We are all naked under our clothes. The human body is a work of art, no matter its size and shape.
|
|
|
Post by fabbit on May 31, 2007 1:13:36 GMT
Although, I don't really classify naked women on magazine covers as "beautiful." Can I say its tragic that people feel the need to do that? We are all naked under our clothes. The human body is a work of art, no matter its size and shape. Hehe, yes. But the point I am trying to make is about the way the magazine portrays it.
|
|
|
Post by hark on May 31, 2007 2:05:38 GMT
A bit off topic I suppose, but what do you guys think about suicide girls? Glorified laddy-soft-porn with a really exploitive contract for anyone actually interested in pursuing a career in pin-up. I'm pretty indifferent to it, mostly. But back on Ditto: My sister brought in the magazine, and the interview is awful. I have never read such pure stupidity. I find her views so offensive. She acts like women are so perfect, but ALL "straight white men" are evil and the source of the world's problems. To a point this may be true, but it's not because they're straight white men, it's because they're dumbarses. Portraying women as victims/martyrs is not helping any cause. I can't believe there's finally a feminist in the public eye, but I disagree with nearly everything she stands for. I truly have no respect for her whatsoever - well, except for the fact she's capable of pelting out a good tune now and then.
|
|
|
Post by Xteenuh on May 31, 2007 2:27:08 GMT
Kate Moss' nipples = fucking weirdest things I've ever seen on a human body. Wow. That's just not normal.
And back to topic, it doesn't matter that Beth is overweight 'n all - it's that her pose is kinda gross and annoying. It's taking "I'm not skinny but I'm proud and beautiful!" way, way too far. To the point of stupidity, really. And from what Laura said 'bout the interview it sounds like she's serious about it. Erggh.
|
|
|
Post by Clare on May 31, 2007 9:12:24 GMT
A bit off topic I suppose, but what do you guys think about suicide girls? In one respect, I personally think modded women are beautiful; and would like more of them to be calling me and taking me out on dates. So, I think SG is a decent thing in that it brings more modded women into the limelight. Butttttt... The "limelight" is in fact, as Laura said, exploitative softcore porn that doesn't further the causes of women, modded or not. Pornography is a really harmful industry and I can't find myself supporting it, no matter the circumstances. However, I have to say, if I needed the cash that badly, I would probably resort to something along the lines of Suicide Girls (or prostitution, I hear that's great). Admitting that makes me very unhappy.
|
|
|
Post by sarah on May 31, 2007 11:28:51 GMT
she's inconsistent in her ways.
she doesn't shave her armpits, yet i've never seen her without make-up on
judging by the armpit thing being a "i don't care what i look like" type attitude, why doesn't she just go the whole way and not wear make-up?
|
|
|
Post by hark on May 31, 2007 11:31:56 GMT
I dunno, i think it's more "Men are not required to shave, so why should I?"
I personally think it's gross. I really couldn't care if it's been programmed into me or whatever, It's disgusting on men too.
True fact: My sister has stuck a big piece of paper over Beth's armpits on The Gossip's latest album, and made me stick a post-it on the NME before we could discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by Mellifluous Poetry on May 31, 2007 11:48:18 GMT
Haha. I like armpit hair. As long it is not long It's nice if its short. And that goes for both male and female.
|
|
|
Post by obeseguy on May 31, 2007 13:06:00 GMT
A bit off topic I suppose, but what do you guys think about suicide girls? I don't like the Suicide Girls. At all. Putting naked photographs of yourself on the internet is no different just because you have tattoos and piercings. Let's not fool ourselves here. And from what I hear, the contracts are awful. Once you agree to be a Suicide Girl, they pretty much own the rights to you and your image. There must be better ways to boost your self esteem. Jx
|
|
|
Post by obeseguy on May 31, 2007 13:14:56 GMT
People will bitch whatever happens. Looks are always open to criticism. It's what people do. We judge other people. By looks or talents or intelligence or anything. I don't think ugly human characteristics should be blindly accepted as "normal" yes a degree of judgmentalness is hard to avoid, but I don't think enough people are trying hard enough to avoid it in this day and age. It's a lot easier to just say "oh, it's just human nature" then actually struggling to be a better human being. Define "better". Sounds like you're judging people for not living up to your definition of "better". You're also assigning very subjective value to human characteristics. Ugly. Human characteristics are human characteristics. The ugliness is in your interpretation. Jx
|
|
|
Post by hark on May 31, 2007 13:27:51 GMT
A bit off topic I suppose, but what do you guys think about suicide girls? I don't like the Suicide Girls. At all. Putting naked photographs of yourself on the internet is no different just because you have tattoos and piercings. Let's not fool ourselves here. And from what I hear, the contracts are awful. Once you agree to be a Suicide Girl, they pretty much own the rights to you and your image. There must be better ways to boost your self esteem. Jx ^Pretty much this^ The girls, once they have signed up, can never model outside of SG, basically. and you have no control over what they do with your picture. Sounds like an awful trade to me.
|
|
|
Post by blake on May 31, 2007 13:41:22 GMT
I don't think ugly human characteristics should be blindly accepted as "normal" yes a degree of judgmentalness is hard to avoid, but I don't think enough people are trying hard enough to avoid it in this day and age. It's a lot easier to just say "oh, it's just human nature" then actually struggling to be a better human being. Define "better". Sounds like you're judging people for not living up to your definition of "better". Jx How on earth could being judgmental make someone a better human being? Seriously give me one scenario of how it could enrich someones life or human kind as a whole? Sorry if I sound black and white here, but everyday I move further away from my rejection of conventional morality in my Nietzsche loving youth. A bloke said this "Doing what is beneficial for others and avoiding what is harmful to others is meritorious action; evil is the reverse" the bloke is question, is called Buddha, apparently he knew what he was talking about. Show me a case where being judgmental is beneficial rather than harmful to others and I'll accept it as valid and healthy. I'm a flawed human being, I am judgmental at times, I feel its a wrong and unhealthy action and no amount of clever philosophical arguments or games of rhetoric or words make it any less so. I'm deeply skeptical of any sort of "hey it's all human nature! Anything goes" type thinking, it's entirely empty. I'm judging the concept/trait of judgmental, I'm not casting judgment on any one individual here. If you take this debate back to it's original context you were making an abstract statement about an abstract concept, so do give me that "oh you're being judgmental now!" Cos I'm discussing a concept not an individual. It's like if I sat here and typed "murder is bad" would you class that as judgmental and put it on a par with people judging others on appearance? Don't be silly.
|
|
|
Post by obeseguy on May 31, 2007 14:26:12 GMT
Define "better". Sounds like you're judging people for not living up to your definition of "better". Jx How on earth could being judgmental make someone a better human being? Seriously give me one scenario of how it could enrich someones life or human kind as a whole? Sorry if I sound black and white here, but everyday I move further away from my rejection of conventional morality in my Nietzsche loving youth. When did I ever say that? That's still applying a subjective value to an action. And you're still missing the point. You're totally missing the point. Totally and utterly. Read and think before you react. I'm still talking about an abstract concept. You were judging people for judging people (an action which didn't live up to your own subjective ideas of right and wrong). I pointed out the flaw in your logic. You seem to have taken it as some kind of personal attack. Which is so entirely uncharacteristic . And since you mention it, as an abstract concept I wouldn't put it on a par with judging others on appearance. It'd put it on a par with judging others on their actions. Because again, you're assigning a subjective value to an action, in the same way as you label being judgemental as "ugly". I think you're the one getting mixed up between abstract discussions and practical examples. Please Josh, could you read my posts more carefully and actually understand what it is I'm saying before you go off on one? Jx
|
|
|
Post by blake on May 31, 2007 14:54:14 GMT
Seriously, I can get a bit passionate when debating, but at no point did I think you where talking shots at me, nor did I consider the debate personal at all. I'm sorry If my passion made my words come off a heavy handed and gave that impression
First of all I didn't "miss" a single point, as your rather self-flattering and patronising response would have have it. You asked me to define "better" and thats just what I did. I give you my honest subjective take on "good/healthy" and "bad/unhealthy" thoughts and actions. Yes I openly assign so called "subjective" values to actions, because get this, outside of the world of philosophy text books actions do have empirical values in the eyes of the vast majority of people. Tolerance is "better" than judgementalness, kindness is "better" than unkindness, love is "better" than hate, that may not be the most advanced or "right-on!" way to think, but I'm sorry it's just basic common sense. It might be subjective, but the reason I asked you to say how the personal trait of being judgmental could ever be positive, is because if it's subjective it means people must be able to interpret it as either good or bad right? I wasn't saying you personally where saying that being judgmental was positive. If anything I was interested in bouncing the hypothetical idea of "positive" judgmental conduct off you. Interested in your response due to my real respect for your opinions.
Really you're an obviously intelligent person, but that post is almost not even worth replying to, it's just one long sneer that does all the things you accused me of in my post (ie, making the issue personal, which is pretty rich of you to do and then turn around and personally insult me) and makes me wonder why I actually bother..
EDIT- and changing your original post AFTER I've replied to it to make it's meaning more overt, is pretty dishonest debating.
|
|
|
Post by obeseguy on May 31, 2007 15:20:31 GMT
Seriously, I can get a bit passionate when debating, but at no point did I think you where talking shots at me, nor did I consider the debate personal at all. I'm sorry If my passion made my words come off a heavy handed and gave that impression First of all I didn't "miss" a single point, as your rather self-flattering and patronising response would have have it. You asked me to define "better" and thats just what I did. At no point did you define "better". You just asked me how being judgemental could make a person "better". Even if that had been a relevant question, I couldn't have answered it without your definition of "better". But we were talking about abstract concepts. As you pointed out? I fully acknowledge that in practical terms you're absolutely right. But we were never talking in practical terms. But that just proves that you didn't get what I was saying. I wasn't claiming that it was/could be negative or positive. I was pointing out the flaw in your logic. That was all. Haha okay. First off. When have I "personally insulted" you? I told you that you hadn't got what I was saying. You didn't bother to understand what I was saying before you reacted. (And to be honest, that made me wonder why I bothered.) And when I pointed that out, you didn't actually try to see where I was coming from, you just had another rant and continued to miss my point entirely. Re: NME Cover. « Reply #154 on Today at 1:14pm »
« Last Edit: Today at 1:17pm by obeseguy »I don't think you wrote your reply in three minutes, Josh. In fact you replied 24 minutes after I made that edit. Jx
|
|