This is what made @Royal the best poster of female nakedness in the history of FoH. I can't post a chick if I don't think she's sort of hot, while Royal posted all types of girls (except the fatties @Adebisi) and without that what are you left with? You're left with me and Ryanz posting perfect...
The more you fight against it the more you sound like a subjectivist, by the way. I don't know when you were red pilled and it was probably here on rerolled during or after Trayvon Martin, but I was 'redpilled' a long, long time ago.
You have opinions, Titan. You cannot free yourself from them nor would you want to. There is a difference between subjectivity and subjectivism taken to its unnatural extreme, and in that I agree with you.
I completely agree that skill is not at all subjective, but even that in terms of music is actually subjective. You said it, I'll take Bob Dylan over Celine Dion any day.
Jesus. I wrote your instead of you're. I don't use auto-correct for almost everything and would turn it off here if I wasn't too lazy to figure out how. If any of you ever want to troll the shit out of me, just point out grammatical errors. I will likely kill myselg.
Not gonna lie, glad to see you're back Tanoombro.
Voted no to prevent another drawn out chimpfest in the shaw but I wanted to give you a fair shot. Stated several times you did not deserve a permanent ban. Not yet.
Now stick to the gaming threads ya dumbass.
I mistyped Geoffrey and that triggers me.
Mattress girl is shit. That is not art, that is utter horseshit. Warhol meh, never gave a shit about him. Pollock is awesome.
I can respect that.
I have and continue to read tons of old stuff. The Eddas, Chaucer in Middle English, the Decameron (what Canterbury Tales was based on), Anglo Saxon Chronicle, Book of Invasions, Gesta Danorum, geoffery of monmouth, pliny etc.
You handed me proof of what I was saying. I'm reading the paper atm. Here is an example of some guy limiting art to a set of requirements according to his whim, in this case "functionality, objective truth and soul through the Taj Mahal" whatever that means. Still subjective. It's the same thing...
There we go!
Still, this is one man's theory of art no less. You and I can make intellectualized theories about objective sandwiches too. If it sounds smart enough someone will buy into it, I guarantee you. Interesting this guy was a mystic, the antithesis of objectivity. I won't wave it off...
I don't think Selena Gomez is good looking. There is your proof!
I took beauty to mean artistic aesthetic. In terms of female beauty, yeah it's partially objective I would say. Depending on the population. Attraction is even more subjective. It has also changed over the course of history...
I was not mirroring your points, I was making mine. With the hopes you would understand or do something besides covering your ears and repeating, "La la la you are wrong."
From the atheism thread where we've been having the same discussion, bro
Those are bits of objective knowledge. The two...
You're doubling down to avoid admitting you were wrong. It is easy to break down your mistake.
Couple questions.
Do you get in fights everyday?
If No: Are you a relatively peaceful, law abiding dude?
If Yes: Are you a pacifist?
If you answered no to the last question then by your logic you...
Unless you're going by a rigid definition of art and shit, then art is subjective. As beauty and attraction are subjective. Some music like metal is deliberately ugly and noisy. You're making the mistake of fitting everything into one neat little bubble.
If you mean a very specific set of...
One of the first things I wondered judging by the trailer. Must take place in the 23rd century or some shit for Logan to have aged visibly. Best not to think about it.