The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)

Damn, that guy snitched to atf, he's mad as heck.

You didn't notice the 20 or so times that browser told people they should complain about him in that forum?

lmao of all the people to go complain to ATF about browser it was stoppedrainingmen?

Not really too surprising. More surprising for sure is ED's cash bounty.

https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/f...

$21 charity bet. I take the over on 21+ years? Sentencing set for March 28th

I posted about this in the other news thread. Sure, booked.

No political causes, keep it friendly. I'll choose Wikipedia in advance.

Wikipedia...so lame

choosing Living Water International

https://water.cc/

I have to agree. Surely there is some sort of organization that helps wayward hookers get back on their feet (or back on their backs I suppose) or something that you could get behind.

FWIW I'm calling it in the 15-18 year range now.

we can change it to 19+ if that makes you feel better 😃

I'm good lol. I was originally going to begrudgingly take the over on 22.5 since I thought you wanted the under. I like my side now!

there aren't though. it's not that i don't get what you're saying but its still not true.

i think crime and punishment and the brothers karamazoov are masterpieces but i dont expect everyone to agree with me.

art is ENTIRELY subjective, as is beauty.

Winnie the Pooh is the sh*t.

the idea that art and beauty are inherently subjective is very very leftist btw.

as usual it's a negation of the idea that the concept of beauty in particular has a genetical, biological basis (which it does have).

overwhelming majorities of human beings across time and geography prefer symmetrical human bodies for example (the evolutionary biology explanation for that is that it signals health very well).

that doesnt mean its incorrect.

That art or beauty if entirely subjective is a ridiculous notion. If a 13 year old kid absentmindedly doodled a picture of Spiderman on the edge of his notes during pre-algebra, nobody in the world would say that it had more artistic merit than Picasso's "Guernica." No sane person would ever say that "Jack and Jill" is a better movie than "The Godfather." No rational person would ever say that Lizzo is a more beautiful woman than Halle Berry. There is a point where subjectivity comes into play, but the thought that art or beauty is 100% subjective is just completely absurd.

i would wager thousands would. have you ever spent time around dull, stupid people?

again, i see what you're saying, and more or less agree, but you cant just change the meaning of words.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Do the considerations of dull, stupid people matter? How about people that are just contrarians?

You seem to think that art and beauty are subjective by definition. I don't agree. There are scientific studies that overwhelmingly prove that there are specific characteristics that are more attractive than others. If art was 100% subjective, then there would be no need for art criticism, as they would all be equal to each other. I mean, are there people out there that seriously thought "The Number 23" was more deserving of Best Picture than "No Country for Old Men?" If art was 100% subjective, then both of those films would be of equal merit.

not automatically, but as an heuristic it should be your starting assumption yes

that i can agree with.

key word bolded. and yes.

no it's actually something that happens like that.

pure cultural relativism is actually a very well known leftist position.

it's the same idea that tells you, you can't rank or compare cultures qualitatively.

I mean it's not like subjectivist vs objectivist aesthetics isn't some notion discussed ad nauseam in literature (it is).

and radical aesthetic subjectivists are... radical leftists.

one of them in particular is the same Rawls of the veil of ignorance bullshit, the guy who basically inspired the concept of "social justice warrior" lol

really if go you and check the most radical, against common sense, innatural, feeling -bad takes in most disciplines, you will find the vast majority of them are linked to radical leftism (that line of corrupted cancerous thought which starts with Hegel then Marx), with a bunch linked to radical religious takes (dying out nowadays, once dominant). leftism took the obscurantist, anti-human flourishing place that religions held for long.

sublime in general the fact that some, often very few (as a % of total) people might dislike something the vast majority of people would find at least fine (or viceversa), doesn't prove beauty is entirely subjective.

in order for it to be entirely subjective it would need to be random across time and space basically.

while we can't check exactly what people in the past would have thought of what we consider beautiful today, we can kinda do the opposite, and we can assess if there is some stability of judgement, across time and geography.

when the same shapes are developed for architecture across the world before those cultures would have met for example, isn't that a strong indication of something objective in beauty?

when basically all cultures we have knowledge of put a premium on symmetry of facial features in particular? when basically all cultures consider younger looking women on average more beautiful than older looking ones? and so on.

beauty is nothing but a word to mean what people like (visually), and it's strange to think tastes in visual elements are completely disconnected from biology.

the fact that across time and space a lot of beauty canons (for people, buildings, clothes and so on) can and did vary widely doesn't disprove a basic objective tendency to like on average some stuff more than some other stuff.

I think there is a definitional issue here. When people say that something is subjective what they mean is that it can't be measured--i.e. not objective-- it doesn't mean it's random.