Love

[Losty]

I guess I don't think that

What if I make myself look extremely foolish by asking another question in a gibberish way ? Do you thank that might convince you ?

I guess it would further convince me of what I already believe to be true.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

What if I make myself look extremely foolish by asking another question in a gibberish way ? Do you thank that might convince you ?

I guess it would further convince me of what I already believe to be true.

Losty,

What is it you might be further convinced of ?

[Losty]

I guess it would further convince me of what I already believe to be true.

Losty,

What is it you might be further convinced of ?

I guess I don't really wish to say, but maybe another time.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

Losty,

What is it you might be further convinced of ?

I guess I don't really wish to say, but maybe another time.

Losty,

OK.

[Alex K]

Ok, Thomas Kelly is a bot, no?

[bennyboy]

How about 46.2378%?  That's the Beauty Factor® rating that really matters in everyday beauty usage.  Make sure to check it with your Beautometer 2100™ for the most accurate measurements currently available.


OR. . .

---

Your ideas are dumb.

---

bennyboy,

I have been talking to learn what people may think about this to see what their ability of thinking is.

Do you think you can prove that percentage of beauty can never be 46.5000000000 and infinity zeros ?

You can apply a number, with any number of zeroes you want, to anything ONCE YOU'VE DEFINED IT.  But you haven't defined beauty, nor do you get to.  Nor, even would God get to, since the concept of beauty is subjective to the experience of individuals.

If you define beauty as bust-to-waist-to-hip ratio, and maybe define the level of beauty as standard deviations from 36-24-36, then you could end up with whatever  arbitrary number you want.  But 1) very many people would disagree with your definition; 2) you'd be unable to describe say a sunset in terms of beauty.

This is why your ideas in this thread are bad-- the difference between objective and subjective qualities is important, but you have ignored it (at least in the posts I've read).

[Thomas Kelly252525]

bennyboy,

I have been talking to learn what people may think about this to see what their ability of thinking is.

Do you think you can prove that percentage of beauty can never be 46.5000000000 and infinity zeros ?

--You can apply a number, with any number of zeroes you want, to anything ONCE YOU'VE DEFINED IT.-- 

Those words add more evidence for my investigation into your character and level of thinking.

--But you haven't defined beauty, nor do you get to.--

It may be seen that I posted a definition of beautiful sometime before this post.  A definition of Beautiful - pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.  Do you agree with that definition ? 

--Nor, even would God get to, since the concept of beauty is subjective to the experience of individuals.--

Do you think a person may be unbiased ?

--If you define beauty as bust-to-waist-to-hip ratio, and maybe define the level of beauty as standard deviations from 36-24-36, then you could end up with whatever  arbitrary number you want.  But 1) very many people would disagree with your definition; 2) you'd be unable to describe say a sunset in terms of beauty.--

You might have agreed with the definition of beautiful.

--This is why your ideas in this thread are bad-- the difference between objective and subjective qualities is important, but you have ignored it (at least in the posts I've read).--

You may have looked at my question about being unbiased.

bennyboy - you may look at my answers above.

[bennyboy]

Those words add more evidence for my investigation into your character and level of thinking.

If you say so.

It may be seen that I posted a definition of beautiful sometime before this post.  A definition of Beautiful - pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically.  Do you agree with that definition ?

Sure. Except then beauty isn't a property of things, but rather a person's emotional response to things which are themselves not intrinsically beautiful.

Do you think a person may be unbiased ?

How can you be biased about a subjective position? If you want to say I'm biased in favor of chocolate ice cream over strawberry, that's a pretty strange way to look at things. I likes what I likes-- that's not bias, it's a definition of what "like" means. And beauty, by your definition, is no different.

You might have agreed with the definition of beautiful.

Your definition is subjective, and is not a property of any thing which may be called "beautiful." At best, you could define beauty in terms of neuronal activity, and say, "This sunset triggers 15% of neurons in X portion of the brain." How else would you attach a number to beauty?

You may have looked at my question about being unbiased.

My experience with Christians is that "unbiased" means "open to unsubstantiated fairy tales despite a lack of evidence or reason." How am I doing?

[bennyboy]

I guess I don't think that

What if I make myself look extremely foolish by asking another question in a gibberish way ? Do you thank that might convince you ?

I think most of us here are already convinced that you are asking questions in a gibberish way.  But if you want to provide more evidence, I doubt anyone will very strongly object. . . except by getting bored and wandering off to watch GoT reruns or something.

You seem to be trying to use the Socratic method to prepare a point, and you're waiting for us to do your work for you.  Maybe at some point, you'd like to make a positive assertion, support it with evidence and ideas, and debate those who will disagree with your view?

[dyresand]

"Listen, Morty, I hate to break it to you but what people call ‘love’ is just a chemical reaction that compels animals to breed. It hits hard, Morty, then it slowly fades, leaving you stranded in a failing marriage. I did it. Your parents are gonna do it. Break the cycle, Morty. Rise above. Focus on science." - Rick and Morty