/fa/ - Fashion

semen

>>6806395
>what makes him the best looking man

Nothing. That's subjective, not objective.

>don't even come close

>>6806395
>What makes him the best looking man on the planet?
beeing the best looking man on the planet makes him the best looking man on the planet

>>6806395
He is really good looking in Benjamin Button.

>>6806395
His face fits the golden ratio perfectly.

Attractiveness is subjective. Personally, I don't think he's attractive. His eyes are too close together and rather beady. He's getting worse looking with age, as well, but that's true for most people. I'm sure many people wouldn't think my choices were attractive either, so you see, it's personal taste.

A lot of it is how you carry yourself.
Charisma is very important.

>>6806395

>tfw brad pitt is a goofninj

If you feel like the best looking man on the planet you'll walk like it act like it.

>>6806521
>His eyes are too close together
eyes-too-far-apart detected

>>6806395
not even top 5 best looking actor, pic related actually made me question my sexuality in Jesse James

>>6806593
Look at that painting it's crooked, better go fix it Jess

>>6806593
that guy looks goofy as fuck

>>6806593
dis nigga in "im still here"

>>6806593
hahahahahahhahahah
you're british arent you.
god you guys have low standards.

>>6806395
You were told that this man is the pinnacle probably upwards of several thousand times in your life by countless media outlets and similarly influenced peers.

BTW, he dresses like shit IRL and a fair amount of the beauty you're seeing is the end product of countless stylists, designers and dollars, literally thousands of minds at work on ONE SINGLE MAN.
You'd be surprised at what the spectacle can do to and for a man should it take a personal interest in him.

>>6806556
Sure, because disliking one equals the other.

No, sorry, I have perfectly spaced eyes, thank god. And btw, people who have eyes far apart always remind me of herbivores like sheep and goats, because they're checking for predators sneaking up on them, lol.

>>6806619
>BTW, he dresses like shit IRL
this is irrelevant

the rest is true to some extent, but take a look at his high school photos or when he was younger, he still looks very very good looking

>>6806631
A million other people were also very goodlooking, and talented, and perhaps perfect for the job. He's interchangeable with any one of them, at the end of the day.
I think one's ability to dress one's self is quite relevant, but I see where you're coming from. I just want to remind OP to take the images he bases his judgement off of with a grain of salt.

>>6806521
his eyes are not beady nor are they too close together

confirmed for clueless

post a person you think is attractive

>>6806652
I think what OP means is that Pitt is the most attractive actor, or celebrity he's seen; because obviously you can't compare it to people you haven't seen.

Honestly though I haven't seen anyone else who has a similar face to Brad Pitt, he has very unique features and they all seem to compliment each other.

>>6806395
He's very handsome in a just the right amount of masculinity way. Simon Nessman is nice to look at but is a bit too feminine too rival Brad in attractiveness. Sean is a little too quirky looking.

>>6806684
>stop disliking what I like!

Please, you're being juvenile.

>>6806721
post someone you think is attractive

>>6806619
you use to be a coo du

>>6806752
I'm trying to tell people why this is so subjective.

>>6806758
instincts are not subjective

>>6806768
pfhfhffhfhfhfhfhf
Yes they are.
Instincts are abstract emotional responses. They're totally subjective.

>>6806752
He's been the same guy. You're just getting to know him better. Don't put your disillusionment on him.
If you're disappointed in him because you once idolized him then you're the one that needs to learn your most revered idols will always think differently from you. This is why you're idolizing them and not the other way around.

>>6806768
That's arguable, but carefully tailored products like Brad Pitt can be presented in a way that manipulates instinct regardless. Stylists, lighting, money, makeup, trainers, nutritionists, assistants, photoshop? We'd all look pretty good, wouldn't we?
Sure he's a great base to start from when building an icon, but I don't think that what we get shown is a reality.

>>6806778
>>6806788
they are instantaneous subconscious reactions - they are the most objective thing in the world

>>6806795
actually that's kind of the definition of something that's completely impractical to call objective. It may be objective on an individual level but my instincts about beauty are different than my friends and even my parents automatic responses to physical beauty.

>>6806814
maybe your conscious choices are, but not your subconscious ones

if you see a conventionally and scientifically attractive person on the street your mind will automatically think they are attractive, but your conscious thoughts may determine whether they are for you

>>6806826
...and it's that final determination that defines beauty for me, not some empirically measurable statistic or ratio.

>>6806852
its not a statistic or ratio

subconscious always rules over the conscious

conscious is a result of societal influences - they are superficial and inaccurate

>>6806866
No. Let's agree to disagree.
I had an awesome arm day and I don't really care any more.

>>6806870
you cant just say no and be done with it, its true

>>6806870
did this guy just beat poet in an argument ?

>>6806593

oh god is that that little jew-rat looking kid from Good Will Hunting?

he's so fucking ugly, TOP LEL

you don't know shit about male beauty

>>6806900

He loses all the time. Every time LD posts poet gets rekt.

>>6806906
I'm doing it. You're wrong. Beauty is not empirically observable or measurable, any more than ugliness is.
That's it. Nothing really more to say, but if you want to go on believing that your standards were handed to you by nature and not by society, go ahead, we're back to the nature/nurture argument and that never goes anywhere, just in a big circle.

>>6806605
>>6806614
>>6806908
>You're telling me people have different taste in guys?
>probably haven't seen the movie
>terrible taste in arts
>effay

>>6806945

It was a good movie dude, but that kid is just awkward looking.

>>6806900
I regularly 'lose', concede and adjust my views when schooled. Exploring the ideas is more important to me than 'winning', whatever that means here.
I'm not conceding here, I really disagree but it's dinner time and who cares, anyway?

>>6806943
stop overcomplicating things

>beauty and ugliness is not observable

top fucking lel

please be trolling

standards were handed to you by nature, just as every other instinct within your being

you are hopeless son, give up

>brad pitt best looking man
>not furlong before he got fat and used drugs

>>6806958
I never said it wasn't observable, I said it wasn't Empirically observable. You can't put it on a scale. Leave the personal insults out, man. They don't add anything.

>>6806945
that guy is objectively weird looking

i have seen the film and brad pitt overshadows that guys looks by a fuck tonne

>terrible taste in arts

so.. liking a handsome man over a weird looking man means i have terrible taste?

you fucking mongoloid

>>6806958
ok i'll play

define beauty

>>6806968
what will this prove? google it if you want the answer

actually heres a definition i just googled because you are too lazy

>a combination of qualities, such as shape, color, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, esp. the sight.

i dont know why you want it though

>>6806971
they are empirically observable, ever seen this before?

>>6806999
magazine covers are photo shooped.
if brad pit does another hgh cycle along with tom cruise they will both get huge organ guts.

>>6806870
>armday
>split
kek

why do people like you again?

>>6807013
even if that image is photoshopped to hell and they've have cosmetic surgery or hgh or whatever, there is still a science behind it

>>6807019
I think because I try harder than most people to contribute to civil dialogue and I usually go out of my way not to be an asshole to strangers on the internet.

>>6806999
I'm very lazy, thanks for googling it

Something that is defined entirely by "pleasing someone" can never define something objectively. you can say something is "objectively red", because red can be empiracally defined as its relevant deflected wavelengths, not the "red" that we see (which is subjective, which in turn leads to the "do we see the same colours?" debate)

>>6806999
That's a wireframe superimposed over Tom cruise. All it shows is symmetry. Thus he is objectively symmetric in that image, which may or may not be doctored.


I don't know why you people wants ot shoot down poet for no reason. I don't like his personal philosophies either, but you're just making yourself look pathetic. Why do you care so much?

>small nose
>defined chin
>chiseled jaw
>small forehead
>thick hair
>fashion sense
>perfect skin
>friendly eyes without bags
>thick lips
>nice eyebrows
>hint of facial hair
>well groomed

>>6807032

>I usually go out of my way not to be an asshole to strangers on the internet

>>6807042
You quoted part of his post and attach a laughing image

you win dawg

>>6807029
>That's a wireframe superimposed over Tom cruise. All it shows is symmetry. Thus he is objectively symmetric in that image, which may or may not be doctored.

his face is the golden ratio, ever heard of leonardo da vinci? remember what he discovered?

>>6807052

You two asshole always post together and it's hilarious.

I've seen poet be a dick and a frothing mad dick on many occasions, usually whenever someone is giving him a hard time. So pardon me if I find the above statement a little ridiculous.

A few other posters on here have some serious equanimity about them, but poet is not among them on his bad days.

>>6807065
A face following the golden ratio does not make it objectively attractive. There's no objective connection between a face and the golden ratio.

You're grasping at straws.

>>6806900
No.
The other dude's argument was
>my gut feelings are more objective than the collective feelings of countless other people

They're both entirely subjective though. Just depends on which people you're asking.

>>6807079
no im not

and yes it does make it objectively attractive, it is instinct

you obviously have no knowledge of the subject in question, please stop posting

>>6807101
I'm a neurobiology student. I know all about it. Human instinctual attraction has no objective link to the golden ratio, stop trying.

>>6807115
autism

>>6806395
its you beeing gay that makes him look good

>>6807124
I win, nerd :^)

>>6807115
wrong

show me one source proving this

>>6806788
this
his fits in fight club appear pretty sick, but without the tailoring most of it would be utter shit, and id bet most of the items in the fits are $1,000 plus
that didnt stop my boner though

pic related is probably one of my favorite actors even though i dont like his hair, in anything

>>6807147
I just realized you're the same person who was arguing in the gothninja is not nebulous thread.

You're making an imaginary link between two different things, the "objective beauty" of a face, and the golden ratio, which is just a constant.

Thus the onus is on you to provide a source Look up Hitchen's razor, friend.

Or you could just give up and go jack off :)

Don't mind me.
By the way everything that came up for "instinct is objective" was a bunch of lost souls trying to validate their religious choices.

>>6807115

I'm a neurobiology professor. I know all about it. You're full of shit kid

>>6807200
I am neurobiology. You're wrong.

>>6807200
>neuro profs
>browsing 4chan

>>6807161
im not arguing about gothninja

you said you were a neurobiology student, you should have a variety of sources to prove me wrong

>>6807200
>>6807201
kek

>>6807188
>googling results proves something correct or incorrect

>>6807188
>because the majority of results are from one side we should never explore the other

retard detected

>>6807211
Look up hitchen's razor (again).

This is like asking me for a source that says aliens didn't create earth. Sure, we can't PROVE it wrong, but until there's proof that they did, you can't use it in an arguement.

Nice try though, I'd recommend spankwire for when you give up and start jacking off though.

>>6807227
you're obviously trying to deter me away from the fact that you were lying about being a neurobiology student

is leonardo da vinci's findings enough proof for you?

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_facial_proportions_of_beautiful_people

there i provided a source, now you provide me with one

>>6807227
>>6807200
>>6807147
samefag
i remember that gn thread, ur the dude i called an immigrant

u evn type the same way kekmao

>>6807249
nope

>>6807237
Go look up hitchens razor (for the third time)

Ivan in the comments section says it well

"You should do more research if you attempt to publicize such controversial topics. Aside from the fact that it sounds like pure nonsense, it is not well sourced. Logic does not even play an important role in your arguments as they are weak and contradicting.

The perfect proportion mask for example is specifically designed for the female face. There is one that accomodates to the male face as well with a claim that testostorone creates an elongation of the nose and lip area according to Marquardt’s research on beauty analysis. That is just one of the thousands of other errors that you have in these arguments that have caused you to fall in an endless circle."

This isn't a study, just because something came out of leo's mouth does not make it correct.

>>6807253
2 seconds in ms paint

also i the top dude was misquoted, id idn't mean him

why do u spend all ur time on 4chan arguing with trips

r u lonely neckboardo???

>>6807227

Oh please faggot. Hitchens didn't come up with that, it's been understood by philosophers and logicians forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

Try reading something that wasn't written in the last 25 years you plebe

>>6807254
i know what hitchens razor is, but its you thats being the retard

i provided you with a source but you have still failed to provide me one

a comment from some random on that page does not count

i want scientific evidence, neurobiology student

if you dont provide me with one in the next reply you are obviously lying

>>6807264
autism

i dont even know what gn thread about immigrants you're talking about

i literally saw your comment, screenshotted to prove it, i didnt use any ms paint

>>6807237
LOL at all those butthurt comments

>>6807254
>it is not well sourced

Literature cited:

1. Jefferson Y: Facial beauty: establishing a universal standard. International Journal of Orthodontics 2004, 15:9-22.
2. Hennessy RJ, Stringer CB: Geometric morphometric study of the regional variation of modern human craniofacial form. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:37-48.
3. Roseman CC, Weaver TD: Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:257-263.
4. Devor EJ: Transmission of human craniofacial dimensions. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 1987, 7:95-106.
5. Sparks CS, Jantz R: A reassessment of human cranial plasticity: Boas revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—USA, 2002, 99:14636-14639.
6. Hartl D, Clark AG: Principles of population genetics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates; 1989: 118-119
7. Rosas A, Bastir M: Thin-plate spline analysis of allometry and sexual dimorphism in the human craniofacial complex. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2002, 117:236-245.
8. Walrath DE, Turner P, Bruzek J: Reliability test of the visual assessment of cranial traits for sex determination. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 125:132-137.


that guy is moronic

>>6807275
Why does it matter if he didn't come up with it? it doesn't me any more wrong

>>6807282
I can't provide proof that god doesn't exist, but you can cite the bible and claim it is proof. That's what you're doing, as the link you posted was just leo's findings mixed with some images of faces. It isn't an objective study, and thus proves nothing.

I can't prove god doesn't exist, and I can't prove that relationship is false, but that the same time, you can't prove either is objectively true.

Nice try (again). you done now? You're anonymous, only you have to live with losing, no one else will know :)

>>6807297
>>6807282
samefag

>>6807306
it is an objective study because it uses scientific methods of experimenting and sourced from scientific papers

i genuinely feel sorry for you, having to lie about being a neurobiology student just so you can feel included

you once again failed to provide a source of any credibility

putting nice try at the end of every reply doesnt mean you win you fool

>>6807308
Having sources does not mean something is well sourced. Most (accepted and non-controversial) studies have 30-100 sources.

Also, some of those sources have nothing to do with it 6. is about population genetics principles.

>>6807318
well the all of them were obviously used to create the article otherwise you wouldnt have sourced it, and there is no irrelevant information in it

>>6807330
autism

>>6807317
Why would I need to lie about being a neuro student? it wasn't hard to get an 80+ average in HS (Which is all that I required to get into the program). The fact that you think I'm lying is comical. The methods used are fuzzy science, which city leonardo's scrabblings as one of the main sources. He had no way of conducting any real research on the subject during his time period, and would most likely be laughed out by the scientific community for making such bold claims

also, I forgot

NICE TRY

>>6807318
also i should add that it is not accepted and is controversial, so theres that

its fine if people dont agree though, all major scientific theories were first met with criticism

>>6807329
It needs one about popgen to satisfy mating patterns.

>>6807336
i win again :^)
u done yet?

>>6807354
meant to quote the first bit

>>6807346
all major scientific theories were first met with criticism

all theories are met with criticism, because a grat number of them are wrong.

>>6807354
it isnt wrong though

we have the technology to study this type of thing right now, and that article shows it

there is a golden ratio, and it does relate to attractiveness

leo was right

>>6806521
>eyes are too close together

yeah nah you're a cunt

>>6807368
>we have the technology to study this type of thing right now, and that article shows it
This doesn't make "this type of thing" right

>it isnt wrong though
It could be.

>there is a golden ratio, and it does relate to attractiveness

Cannot be proven. There is a golden ratio, obviously. its an axiom.

>leo was right
Can't prove this

>>6807384
>It could be.
how could it be wrong then

Cannot be proven. There is a golden ratio, obviously. its an axiom.

yes it can be proven, because symmetry does relate to attractiveness

look at all the discoveries in the last 2 decades about humans and attractiveness

>>6807156
>without the tailoring most of it would be utter shit

jesus bro, of course it would. that's like the first rule of dressing well. Get shit that fit's you well, and if it's a little off, get it tailored

>>6807398
i was talking down to the jackets and pants having to fit absolutely-the-fuck perfect, otherwise they'd be shite

you can a get a bit of lee-way IRL with jeans and chinos, but the super nihilist would not have any of that

>>6807397
>how could it be wrong then
Why are you asking me this? If you can't prove it right, then there is a possibility that it is wrong.

>yes it can be proven, because symmetry does relate to attractiveness

"You can prove symmetry is related to attractiveness, because symmetry is related to attractiveness"

"You can prove X = Y, because X = Y"

That's what you just said.


>look at all the discoveries in the last 2 decades about humans and attractiveness

And not a single study objectively linking the golden ratio and "objective beauty".

>>6807413
okay well go and read a paper about symmetry and attractiveness and then come back and tell me the golden ratio for faces doesnt make sense

>>6807330

>leonardo's scrabblings
>can't even form coherent sentences

It's okay buddy, you definitely belong in some kind of scientific discipline. You're way too stupid for serious thinking.

>>6807429
I don't proofread my 4chan posts, sorry! Nice try linking my ability to type perfectly to my ability to research/absorb info though.

>>6807426
None of the papers have ever reached a conclusion, so why should I?

Are you done yet?

>>6807440
>i should never read a paper because it doesnt reach a conclusion

i actually laughed

and yes they do reach conclusions

>>6807440

You're just an all-around idiot, there's really not much more to it than that.

Maybe try reading something more intellectually demanding than Richard Dawkins sometime.

>>6807445
You're trying to substitute those papers for actual proof, so I don't bother reading them. None of them have ever reached the conclusion that the golden ratio and "objective bauty" are objectively linked

By the way, I can tell which posts are yours. Every time I see a samefag, it just makes me giggle

Example:
>>6807310

>>6807413
wow mane you stupid.
the proposition that symmetry, or some ratio is related to the human concept of attractiveness is synthetic in nature, its a contingent fact about the actual world and can be "proven" through scientific analysis of the matter i.e. experiments.
your stupid examples are analytic propositions, theyre true by vitrue of their meaning. (all bachelors are unmarried men)
> "objective beauty"
are you retarded?

>>6807460
I've never read dawkins, I don't care about him babbling about god, nice try though

>>6807457
>wow mane you stupid.
I never understood why people think this makes their posts any more right

>the proposition that symmetry, or some ratio is related to the human concept of attractiveness is synthetic in nature, its a contingent fact about the actual world and can be "proven" through scientific analysis of the matter i.e. experiments.

No it isn't. See, I can say things without proof too!

>"objective beauty"
Doesn't exist. I'm ridiculing him.

>>6807461
good try though

inb4 photoshopped or paint

maybe you're just retarded and its possible that more than one person disagrees with you

>>6807476
>inb4 photoshopped or paint

This would have worked better if it didn't take you 4 minutes to do.

>>6807476
Dude, samefag is a meme.
You are wasting your time.

>>6807485
unlike you i can multitask

>>6807482
oh sorry, i forgot they dont teach you about the synthetic/analytic-distinction in the god delusion..
please, i know youre in highschool and havent even taken an into class in scientific methodology, but dont be so fucking arrogant when talking about subjects which you obviously know nothing about. read up on science and how it works, youre missing out on some really interesting stuff.

>>6807500
Wait, did you just admit to shopping it?

>>6807504
i mean i dont spend all my time hunched over my computer frantically clicking 'update' waiting for a response, im doing other things as well

>>6807505
I haven't read it, I'm not sure why you think that bit was clever. I don't like dawkins at all, my bio prof would regularly shit-talk him and it must have seeped into me.

>
please, i know youre in highschool and havent even taken an into class in scientific methodology, but dont be so fucking arrogant when talking about subjects which you obviously know nothing about. read up on science and how it works, youre missing out on some really interesting stuff.

lol, holy fuck

>>6807511
sure, are you done yet?

>>6807518
>are you done yet?
defeated.

>>6807518
noone here is buying your shit, mate

>>6807536
See that worked for me cause you said "autism" after i made real points. All you said was that i was clicking the update button a lot, so its not like I need to give you a serious response (4chan updates it every ten seconds for me, lol)

insert "nice try", "i win" here.

>>6807537
i win nerd

good golly, whats this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
not a single mention of faces? uh oh

>>6807545
they werent real points, they were incoherent drivel

only someone as retarded as you would think they were valid points

how embarrassing

>>6807545
>i win nerd
you just showed everyone here that you arent even capable of understanding whats the difference between analytic and synthetic propositions, instead you just keep making a fool out of yourself.
sure you win.

I wished I looked like this guy

>>6807570
>wikipedia
>viable source

confirmed for high schooler

also
>because its not mentioned yet means its wrong

jesus christ im arguing with a bunch of retards here

>>6807573
>sure you win.
thanks :^)

>>6807572
>they werent real points, they were incoherent drivel
Ad hominem

>only someone as retarded as you would think they were valid points
ad hominem

>how embarrassing
ad hominem

TOOO easy

>>6807585
>because its not mentioned yet means its wrong
but he never said that :^)


>because its not mentioned yet means its wrong
yes, but don't forget hitchen's razor!

>>6807587
>Ad hominem
you just proved my point, thank you.
youve never seen a university from the inside, kid.

>>6807589
>but he never said that :^)
thats what the whole implication was

hitchens razor is irrelevant

>>6807585
oops forgot that everything said on wikipedia isnt checked and linked to reliable outside sources. oh wait...

also you'd think if it was right it would be mentioned. wait, whats this small section where it mentions human beauty? oh it specifically mentions that any results were inconclusive

>>6807597
>they werent real points, they were incoherent drivel
You claim my points are "drivel" That's ad hominem

>only someone as retarded as you would think they were valid points
You call me a retard and say my points are wrong. That's ad hominem and unfounded claims.

>how embarrassing
aaaaaddd hominem

University is easy to get into, all you need is a 75+ average

Done grasping at straws yet?

>>6807617
The whole implication was implying he said that

>hitchens razor is irrelevant
lol, STRAWWWS

>>6807614
>still thinking wikipedia is a viable source

anyone can go on there and fucking write something

most articles have large portions that arent even cited

kill yourself

>>6807615
we can say ad hominem related sentences because you have proved you yourself as a person have no clue what they are talking about a

>>6807615
come on kid, how old are you? 15?
i hope you look back at this conversation one day and feel shame.

here some reading material for you:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/

>>6807627
anyone can go on and write something....aaand then it gets deleted.

you honestly think this happened: 'lell im gona go trole edit the golden ratio wiki page it wil be so funnny' . seriously?

>>6807623
it seems like you are the one that is clutching at straws

>>6807643
it could be days, months or even years before someone reads it and realises that it is incorrect and changes it

>you honestly think this happened: 'lell im gona go trole edit the golden ratio wiki page it wil be so funnny'

why would you oome to that extent of a conclusion? are you 12? have you done it before and thats why you said it?

>>6807632
>>>6807615 (You)
>we can say ad hominem related sentences because you have proved you yourself as a person have no clue what they are talking about a

>we can call you dumb because you are dumb
lol

>>6807646
hi

>>6807642
could you tell me why you're sending me these
genuinely interested

find it p. funny that you still preface all yer posts w/ an ad hominem though

>>6807659
huh, quoted my own post by accident
ignore that

>>6807659
this is the embodiment of autism

inb4 ad hominem
inb4 straws
inb4 any ridiculous argument

you are simply and mongoloid, through and through

at this point i honestly think you are trolling

>>6807674
>inb4 ad hominem
>inb4 straws
>inb4 any ridiculous argument

"In before things that are right."

lol

i win

>>6807685
its not ad hominem if the post was truly something an autistic person would write, merely an observation

>>6807698
meant 4
>>6807689

sorry :)

>>6807685
>the post was truly something an autistic person would write
ad hominem ;)

>>6807659
>could you tell me why you're sending me these
im trying to help you overcome your obvious ignorance. you keep throwing around science-related terms like "proof" with no understanding of their actual meaning whatsoever. the analytic-synthetic-distinction is a very basic yet important concept, any proposition will fall into one of the categories and you have repeatedly shown your lack of knowledge of it in this thread.
im not the guy you were originally talking to and this is really just me trying to help you out.
its obvious that you are not studying biology, youre not fooling anyone into beleiving you are. if this is what you want to do after school i wish you the best of luck with it, its an amazing field of study.
im currently working on my thesis paper about modal logic and ive spent the last 5 years studying logic and the philosophy of science if that gives my advice any credibility.

>>6807712
>im not the guy you were originally talking to
Yeah I know, you type really diff, I didn't think you were him

>its obvious that you are not studying biology
I'm a 2nd yr, I really am lol

The poster was stating that there was an objective link between the golden ratio and the attractiveness of a face, which i've never seen a study prove. That's all i was trying to say. The rest of the thread was just me fooling around w/ him

>>6806395
alpha voice and strong jawline/overall superior genetical facial aesthetics

he only is in the u.s.

asains have a different idea of beauty.

>>6807766
So what does an Asian woman find attractive in terms of guys?

>>6807732
>The rest of the thread was just me fooling around w/ him

aka it was you being autistic

>>6807801
cheers

>this thread

>people seriously arguing that beauty is not influenced by culture
>pretending "instinct" and "the subconscious" don't include culture and exist in a dialogue with the subconscious mind
>giving a cultural and political essayist a "razor" like he was one of the most philosophers of his entire cultural epoch

mfw

>this thread

>people seriously arguing that beauty is not influenced by culture
>pretending "instinct" and "the subconscious" don't include culture and exist in a dialogue with the subconscious mind
>giving a cultural and political essayist a "razor" like he was one of the most important philosophers of his entire cultural epoch

mfw

>this thread

>people seriously arguing that beauty is not influenced by culture
>pretending "instinct" and "the subconscious" don't include culture and exist in a dialogue with the conscious mind
>giving a cultural and political essayist a "razor" like he was one of the most important philosophers of his entire cultural epoch

mfw

>>6807923
at least you got the last word

>>6807941
for
>>6807937

du must've deleted post

>>6807941
>>6807950
I had two ginormous, meaning-changing typos, and I couldn't let that sit next to Hitchens's face.

>>6807937
>>pretending "instinct" and "the subconscious" don't include culture and exist in a dialogue with the conscious mind

they're only relative to a certain culture dumb cunt

>>6808081
Lol wut?

If you're talking about how only European-influenced cultures use the vocabulary of "instinct," "conscious/subconscious," etc. well, duh, but what about it?

>>6807782
Feminine looking men. Wearing makeup. Impeccable fashion sense. The very hottest guys there are hard to distinguish from girls and they are called "flower boys". They roll in pussy.

As for facial asthetic. Brad has that nice wide squared face. In asia thats unapealing though. They like narrower "V" shapes.

Thats why they are always throwing up the "peace" signs on the cheeks when taking pictures. Its not to be cute like most westerner think. Its to make their face look slimer and and they are actually making "V" with their fingers.

>>6809435
Brad is the quintessential "cowboy" in asia though

Next thing you telling me that asians get plastic surgery to look more western

>>6809498
everything i just said was true, you can be butthurt about it if you life but it wont change anything.

Asians get plastic surgery to look more appealing. The same reason everyone does.

>>6807937
>desperately has to win the internet argument in any way