singles thread

[sifi]

And yet you wonder why you continue to post in the singles thread.

[worm]

I don't know. I like to think of it as the daddy of all emotions. Kinda take hedonism to the nth degree. It's one hell of a felling. The next natural step once I lusted out I guess. Perpetual fuziness.

[sadwitch]

I would say they do. People don't like to be knocked back. Aiming "too high" increases the chances of being knocked back which is why very pretty girls become un-aproachable. There's always being a natural pecking order and we all see ourselves somewhere in that order. Yes some people will romatacise themselves, but there will be an equal number of people who don't.

Why is it conceited to evaluate others with regards to yourself, it's the only prospective that we have.

[Goblinz]

Beauty is subjective. That's why this kind of application to an anthropoligical order/system is utter arse.

For instance, for this method to work, you must first be able to define what 'the' beautiful girl is at the top of the pecking order. You can't. That's because people hold different value systems.

[Goblinz]

But how attractive I think I am doesn't really affect if I find someone else attractive or not.

[worm]

But how attractive I think I am doesn't really affect if I find someone else attractive or not.

Edited September 9, 2008 by worm

[worm]

Again, it's subjective/relative. An ugly person may think they have quite a good catch, to someone who's very good looking they may not appear to be such a good catch.

Edited September 9, 2008 by worm

[worm]

It could seem quite narcissitic but in reality it would go that we would stand a better chance of getting with someone if they are similar to ourselves and I suppose at a more primitive level would improve our chances of reproducing.

[RABun]

Because if this held true then someone who deemed themselves ugly would go for ugly people. That simply isn't the case.

[worm]

People very rarely actually think they are ugly so are bound to go for someone more attractive than themselves.

[worm]

But f**k that cause history, politics and sociology are the subjects of kings

Edited September 9, 2008 by worm

[sadwitch]

People very rarely actually think they are ugly so are bound to go for someone more attractive than themselves.

If people judge that people of equal atractiveness go together well then i realise how one of my best friends sees me when he pointed out someone i might like to go for.

[-pogo-]

Have you any idea of what Marx made of attractiveness? Not good.

[Cardboard Box City]

Have you any idea of what Marx made of attractiveness? Not good.

[Cardboard Box City]

Are you suggesting Marx is ugly?

[worm]

Are you suggesting Marx is ugly?

[-pogo-]

No, I'm suggesting that his basis for human attraction was one of the most overlooked, sexist and silly concepts I've ever had the displeasure to read about (about 30-40 pages of explicit idiocity).

[worm]

Considering everything he's wrote written, I think 10 pages about a minor issue as atractiveness is okay to overlook. No?

Edited September 9, 2008 by worm

[-pogo-]

No.

His exposure of a capitalist economy in relation to society was nothing short of monumental. However, his application of this to other things was nothing short of tragic.

[llcoolphil]

Wrong, Marxy is brilliant. Not 100% accurate, more 98%, but it was a prediciton, and the neo Marxists have sorted it.

[-pogo-]

In't milk great

[worm]

Wrong, Marxy is brilliant. Not 100% accurate, more 98%, but it was a prediciton, and the neo Marxists have sorted it.

[ralph250]

Oh, do pardon my ignorance. I hadn't realised that you'd worked it all out. I specifically like the part of your critique in which you came to the reasonable conclusion that it was in fact 98% accurate, rather than the 100% favoured by realistic but a tad over-zealous Marxists, which the up to date and politically committed neo-marxists have tidied up for everyone.

So, material dialectics. Care to explain that bad boy then?

Edited September 9, 2008 by ralph250

[worm]

please not in the singles thread. we want to talk about doinking, not about marxist theories.

Edited September 9, 2008 by worm

[llcoolphil]

please not in the singles thread. we want to talk about doinking, not about marxist theories.

...and I don't mean to start an argument