Aren't looks just subjective?

>>12742591
Nope, not really. Most things people consider preferences are pretty artificial and decoration on top of the baseline attractiveness of people.

eg. No one has a preference for poor facial symmetry and acne.

>>12742593
If there's a least one person in the world who finds poor facial symmetry and acne attractive doesn't that make your point moot?

>>12742591

people learn to speak properly to communicate better. aesthetics is the language of the eyes and deserves the same care and effort put into it.

In the way that different people won't be able to agree on who's attractive, yes. However, most of this stems from the social hierarchy's effect on our preferences. Men tend to date across and down the hierarchy, while women tend to date across and up

but steel's heavier than feathers

>>12742615
it does, but anon won't ever admit that.

>>12742618
Depends on your motives, like if you want to give off the working man look you'd dress professionally; the Chad look you'd dress up like Chad; the "I don't care about social interaction look" is just not putting effort in your looks. Still, for most situations looking professional is the standard go to due to work and all.

Ok cool but who is sniffing coke and hanging with the ASAP mob tonight
Pro tip: it's me

>>12742591
FEH-THARS

>>12742615

This isn't really a valid argument considering our attraction is based on evolution and is very scientific and measurable. We can definitely claim certain people are "attractive" or "unattractive" based on their features and the response of normal human beings to them

>>12742615
There are people who don't care if you have acne, its different.

>>12742615
>>12742653
You guys think you have a good point but in reality all you have is autism.

>>12742615
no, the exception does not disprove the rule

File: 26f.png (902KB, 1680x943px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 1680x943px

>>12742593

> No one has a preference for poor facial symmetry and acne.

delet this

>>12742591
Everything is subjective, anon

>>12742615
grasping at straws

>>12742591
Nothing is subjective, but the objectiveness of most things is hidden ontologically.

What matters is the propensity of people towards certain aesthetics and recognizing/justifying said propensities.

File: comparison.jpg (208KB, 626x432px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 626x432px

Not really majority of people would agree the eyes on top of pic related are more attractive, most women would agree that masculine and wide jaws and chins are far more attractive. most people would find a huge nose unattractive or disproportionately large lips.

Most people just say looks are subjective because they want to pretend everyone is on a equal playing field, same kind of people who think confidence will land them an attractive girl when they are hideous.

>>12742670
>ASAP mob
did you mean..the nigger mob?

JOMP TEH CHASM

>>12742591
Aren't they?

If looks were subjective, would there be a fashion and beauty industry?

A porn industry?

>>12745249
Doesn't the wide diversity in both of those fields sort of prove that looks are subjective though? Not all fashion designers make the same clothes, most are quite different to each other, and just about every body type under the sun is represented in porn

>>12745119
>majority of people
So they're still subjective, just most people agree on some base things.

>>12743021
I don't know about that. I find some acne attractive.

>>12742653
First reply best reply

>>12742633
I just don't get it

>>12745119
You're just as bad as people who believe, because it really suits their argument, that the meaning of racism has changed from racial discrimination to a white person racially discriminating.

You can't change the definitions of words to win retard. Subjective still means that the meaning/value perceived in an object depends on the individual's perception of it, and objective means that the meaning/value perceived is inherent to the object, and doesn't change.

If not all people agree completely on which people are attractive and which people are not attractive, obviously people are perceiving people to have a range of attractiveness. So how attractive a person is is obviously not an objective value. So people's attractiveness is subjective

You FUCKING RETARD

File: RickyFitts.jpg (99KB, 1600x882px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1600x882px

>>12742591
>Aren't looks just subjective?

No, "looks" are relative.

A person with developed aesthetic sensibilities (and developed critical capabilities) will appreciate things that a myopic mediocre person could not simply due to his physical inabilities, and all of this can be perfectly empirically tested if needed.

The notion of a subject is an intellectual bourgeois de-christianized myth on the level of the soul and free will.

Subjectivity is nothing more than a product of the code of one's sign system, therefore, anything that can be said to be subjective, that doesn't simply amount to a matter of relativity and labeling, is the illusory product of the sign system's impression of 'subjectivity' on the "individual".

tl;dr go to college

>>12745607
y are you being so mean?

File: ghost-story.jpg (17KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 390x310px

>>12746075

File: tom cruise Eyes Wide Shut01.jpg (67KB, 637x368px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 637x368px

>>12742591
Lol no. The looks pill is brutal though. Best to not study the subject.

>>12742593
i'd only ever date a white girl though, i don't know if you'd consider that a preference or an exception to the rule or something

>>12747583
that's just you being racist. I'm sure you dislike other people because of various stereotypes you have learned. racism is learned
>>12746075
did you take anything other than intro philosohpy?

>>12747583
There can be good reasons for that apart from attractiveness. Or at least apart from a certain definition of attractiveness.
I mean in-breeding isn't healthy so we have some "programming" to try and stop us doing that. But also OUT-breeding isn't healthy so we have some "programming" to stop us doing that.
Ideal breeding is, like, third cousins or something like that.

>>12742615
I like girls with acne, your argument is invalid.

>>12742591
rip big fella gbnf ill thin of you every time i have a muffet of tea strange bed fellows arent we ?

File: desktop-1420909136.jpg (49KB, 650x483px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 650x483px

>>12747614
i dig what you're saying, dawg. uh for me personally, it's two fold. i don't feel like i have as deep a connection with people that are ESL and from a wildly different culture––for example i think a lot of non-american types value sincerity and find my sarcasm pretty jarring. i find it hard to share anything other than a laugh with some people where language/culture is a barrier, too.

my white dad married my asian mum so she would be subservient and my mum married my dad for citizenship and i don't think that's cool BUT––shitty people have shitty marriages all the time, regardless of race, so that's not really a point

and then physically, i just really prefer white girls. coloured hair and eyes, slim/oval faces, i just find them really nice, beyond any symmetry stuff. people of all races are equal and great, just i don't feel much romantic/physical attraction to non-white girls, especially if they ESL

i can see where you're coming from but i don't think i'm being racist, really. maybe i've exposed myself to too much western media, hahaha

>>12747619
gosh, breeding seems like such a crass word when applied to human beings. any stuff about "programming" that i come across always feels dubious, too. but i guess now i'm being the one acting on feeling rather than science

>>12747667
miss ya big man
gone but not forgotten

>>12747614
haha that's a good one buddy, although I actually wish this was a mandatory intro so there would would be less deluded persons the planet

>>12742615
Do people really think like this? That exception definitely does not make his point moot.
When someone says "people find x attractive" they are talking about an assessment of the general population's preferences. They are in no way claiming that absolutely everyone in the history of humanity has/had the same tastes, just a large majority of them. That majority is significant enough to make the rule "people find x attractive" a pretty useful model for understanding most people, and generally when a rule is useful and true in most cases, we forego specifying that the rule is technically not absolute.

TL;DR you're a moron if you think in absolute terms

>>12746075
Boy you toss a mean word salad.

>>12742591
Flavor is subjective.

Taste, isn't.

>>12744922
Smartest closest to truth post ITT