I'm being straight up and honest, I think atheist are the cream of da crop in a world of theist.  I say this because I know one thing about all atheist, they can figure out B.S.  That's why I'm asking this pointed question, do you think this is racist?

http://global.christianpost.com/news/florence-colgate-face-pretties...

Views: 1791

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is no more racist than Beyonce being called the most beautiful woman in the world by People mag. 

I think it's racist that you assume it's racist. RACIST!!!

Why would it be racist? But it's pretty stupid to call her, or anyone, the "most beautiful."

Try to think of all the faces in the world many with the same shape as hers, and the "SCIENTIST" agreed, which makes her phenotype legitimate, (unlike Beyonce who looks just like a tan white woman, which is People's Mags OPINION along with OTHER women whites included) that Colgate's phenotype is the "most beautiful"...and she stand ALONE!!!

However if you don't think it racist, I can understand why..I speak of privilege of the European all the time..I'm curious tho, why do you guys say such things as, "why would it be racist" or "no more than Beyonce?"..just to be contrary?  you ain't stupid I don't think...

No, I do not think it is racist, just as I do not think it's racist that blacks have won the Boston Marathon every year since 1991 (excepting the 2001 win by a South Korean). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_Marathon

In what sense does "most perfect" = "prettiest"? Can someone give me the argument in syllogistic form?

Is the most perfect lamprey also the prettiest lamprey?

Also, what is perfect about this chick? I was taught that most people have one eye slightly higher in the face than the other, aiding in depth perception. Her features seem to be symmetrical.

She's defective, not perfect.

most perfect, prettiest, most beautiful, you can use any superlative you may choose it doesn't really matter.. as long as "the scientist agreed"

Thinking this is racist is just ridiculous.

They selected the woman for the shape of her face, not for her skin color.

Shabaka I realize you make a hobby of looking for racists under every blade of grass, but the only consciousness of race I have seen on this forum is from YOU.  If you want racism to end, as Morgan Freeman said, then stop talking about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n

The woman in the article is certainly beautiful when all you get to know about her is the look of her face. The golden ratio that is being talked about in the article is something I have read about many times. It really exists and it applies not only to our species but across many species. The more symmetrical an organism is (not just the face but the entire body) the more likely they are to have a really good set of genes and therefore be 'beautiful' to members of the same species. Asymmetry, especially easily identified asymmetry is often a signal that the organism in question has been affected by a disease, a genetic mutation, or a physical injury especially during early development. 

Do I think this idea/article is racist? Absolutely not. There is nothing inherently racist about the idea behind the golden ratio's connection to beauty. I also think we should all know by now that beauty is multifaceted and be able to take this article in context. Honestly, I'm thinking that the reason this was brought up in the first place is because the woman selected as 'most prettiest in Britian' by the standard of the  golden ration alone is white.

It's not racist but it's sure as hell stupid. Any measure of beauty or 'perfect' is purely subjective. Another disgusting addition to an already unrealistic standard of beauty. It's this kind of thing that ruins women's self-esteems.

It's the nature of ideals like beauty to be out of reach, isn't it? Suppose, for example, the ideal of "hero" was so easy to reach that picking up candy wrappers in the parking lot made one a hero. Attainable ideals are fairly worthless. Real ideals are meant to be goals which only the few can reach.

Personal standards of beauty are subjective. Cultural standards are not. They're not objective, either.

I've never understood why females are supposedly oppressed by female ideals of beauty represented by supermodels and movie stars but males are not oppressed by the male ideals of athletes and heroes and movie stars.

Maybe, instead, women's self esteem is damaged by people constantly telling them they are oppressed and that they are victims. Why? Because this affirms their worthlessness, helplessness, and smallness. There's nothing beneficial to their self esteem about being told that in order to be free they need to give up their culture's ideals of beauty.

"I've never understood why females are supposedly oppressed by female ideals of beauty represented by supermodels and movie stars but males are not oppressed by the male ideals of athletes and heroes and movie stars."


Unseen I think it may have to do with living in a paternalistic culture.  The "most attractive" females get the best mates and supermodels are their representative..(which is in line with the topic of this discussion) and males (in general) aren't intimidated by athletes, heros, etc. because many have their own dominate little world (wife, children, girlfriend, job title etc.) to cushion them from it when they start to feel insecure..JMO

RSS

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service