Jump to content

AlexanderJ86

Member Since 21 Feb 2013
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 04:20 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Should People With Acne Reproduce?

15 December 2014 - 06:41 AM

 

 

You're hurting your chances of not reproducing a lot more by having a negative attitude and zero confidence. As hard as it may be you need to try to get it into your head that there are genuine good people out there who don't care about a treatable skin condition.

 


Not really. I know someone in real life who has zero confidence and when he had acne no girls wanted him. He cleared up after puberty and know he has no problem in that regard even though he still has no confidence and has a bland personality. Personality and confidence didn't change but his looks did and that's the only thing that mattered enough to solve his problem.

 

You bring up other negative physical traits that people have. Well, people with acne can have those terrible traits in addition to acne, which makes them completely screwed. If someone is ugly to begin with, has a mental illness and acne then they're pretty much screwed.

 

And not everyone's acne is treatable.

 

That's some pretty fallacious logic you've got going on there. Making a generalization based on one person you knew is foolish to begin with, paired with the fact that correlation doesn't equal causation. Maybe girls are more likely to approach guys after puberty or maybe he entered college which gave him an environment which facilitated male/female romantic interaction. You can't argue that it was solely because his acne cleared up.

 

Some people are more flawed than others, you're absolutely right. But that still doesn't logically explain why people with acne shouldn't reproduce. If a woman with a gigantic nose AND oddly shaped eyes is married to a man with thyroid disease and hideous eyebrows, should they abstain from having children? There are people with far worse things than acne who are reproducing as we speak and not thinking twice. 

 

Yes, there is a ridiculously small percentage of people who have not responded to multiple rounds of the best acne treatment in existence (Accutane). Even so, most undesirable features aren't "treatable" in the sense that they cannot be changed or fixed. 

 

It's not any worse "logic" that someone using a cop out response by minimalizing the importance of looks and giving the old "confidence and self-esteem" cliche. You can sure argue that when someone's looks improve than their outcome improves despite personality or other factors. If someone has hideous acne for several years and then it clears up then that that can absolutely be a sole factor in improving thier circumstances and it's flawled logic to think otherwise.

 

Also, we are more flawed and uglier looking than the average people. It's true. People say acne is common but I rarely see any adults with severe acne. Most adults that I see in person have clear skin and can eat McDonalds and other shitty foods everyday. It's not normal or desirable to have red markings all of your body and it's depressing to even look in the mirror, especially when you realize your skin used to be clear and that it never will be again despite years of treatments.

 

 

 

 



 

I agree with that looks matter. It might even be the only thing that matters when it comes to relationships, but that is not our fault. The culture brainwashes people to focus on looks via the beauty industry, the porn industry, etc.


In Topic: People With Acne. We're The One Chosen

14 December 2014 - 12:35 PM

Chosen by whom? For what?


In Topic: Should People With Acne Reproduce?

13 December 2014 - 07:34 PM

Everything knows that other people are less attracted to you or completely repulsed by you if you have acne. Mild acne isn't as much of a problem as cystic acne is, but in general all acne detracts from how you look. If you have mild acne you're not as unattractive as someone that has acne covering their entire body.

 

Anyway, is it better for people with acne not to reproduce? It's already harder for people with acne to reproduce because of how shitty they look. Is this nature's way of weeding out the bad genetics from the gene pool? Maybe it's good that people with acne don't have offspring so that the inferior genes are out of the gene pool.

So, where / with who lies the problem? With you or them? We know that acne is not a deadly, contagious disease.


In Topic: Acne Prank

06 December 2014 - 06:38 PM

 

It is natural for human beings to find something such as "acne" unattractive. It's the harsh truth. It's in our GENES. This favor for attractiveness in a potential mate in humans correlates to that of other species of animals. For example, male birds attract mates easier when their feathers are brighter or richer in color. Female green tree frogs are preferentially attracted to males that call the loudest, most frequently, and having flamboyant physical attributes. Their are many more examples of physical attractiveness being a major/sole reason for mating, but I don't want this to be a tedious read.

 

Nature is about survival of the fittest, so animals with desirable physical traits, would be preferred by an potential mate than a less "fit" animal. Good physical assets in nature is linked to successful and increased breeding and passing of future offspring from one generation to the next. Nearly every single animal will choose a mate based on their physical beauty. Simply, better appearance, health, strength etc. Represent good genes, and good offspring.  Humans are predisposed to deem a person as attractive and not attractive.

 

Humans, thankfully, have evolved a much more developed brain than other species of animals. Thus, we are able to think, reason, and justify our actions. This gives us the advantage of not solely basing mates on mere attractiveness. This is also why you always here the cliche " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ". This is true believe it or not. We all think, judge, and reason differently, we all have different standards of beauty. But our primitive instincts still do exist. This is why humans still INSTINCTIVELY judge whether someone is "attractive" or not. Society's (media) crystallized acceptance of "beauty" does shape our concept of beauty also, but it's undeniable that we still instinctively judge others as attractive or not. It's not only human nature but nature itself.

 

Those who say that beauty in nature doesn't matter is kidding themselves and need to read and study Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", findings by Herbert Spencer, and in natural selection itself.

Human nature does not exist. It is not in our genes. Babies don't find other people unattractive. Believe it or not, but it is all culture. The survival of the fittest has nothing to do with outward appearance. It has to do with adaptation to the local natural environment, survival and the capability of producing offspring. There is nothing about appearance there. "For example, male birds attract mates easier when their feathers are brighter or richer in color." ==> That can very well be caused by female birds seeing the brighter feathers easier. So, it could be completely the other way around of what you think it is.

Didn't you say you had IBS on here before?

Yes, I have IBS. Why are you asking that question?


In Topic: Acne Prank

05 December 2014 - 12:47 PM

It is natural for human beings to find something such as "acne" unattractive. It's the harsh truth. It's in our GENES. This favor for attractiveness in a potential mate in humans correlates to that of other species of animals. For example, male birds attract mates easier when their feathers are brighter or richer in color. Female green tree frogs are preferentially attracted to males that call the loudest, most frequently, and having flamboyant physical attributes. Their are many more examples of physical attractiveness being a major/sole reason for mating, but I don't want this to be a tedious read.

 

Nature is about survival of the fittest, so animals with desirable physical traits, would be preferred by an potential mate than a less "fit" animal. Good physical assets in nature is linked to successful and increased breeding and passing of future offspring from one generation to the next. Nearly every single animal will choose a mate based on their physical beauty. Simply, better appearance, health, strength etc. Represent good genes, and good offspring.  Humans are predisposed to deem a person as attractive and not attractive.

 

Humans, thankfully, have evolved a much more developed brain than other species of animals. Thus, we are able to think, reason, and justify our actions. This gives us the advantage of not solely basing mates on mere attractiveness. This is also why you always here the cliche " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ". This is true believe it or not. We all think, judge, and reason differently, we all have different standards of beauty. But our primitive instincts still do exist. This is why humans still INSTINCTIVELY judge whether someone is "attractive" or not. Society's (media) crystallized acceptance of "beauty" does shape our concept of beauty also, but it's undeniable that we still instinctively judge others as attractive or not. It's not only human nature but nature itself.

 

Those who say that beauty in nature doesn't matter is kidding themselves and need to read and study Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", findings by Herbert Spencer, and in natural selection itself.

Human nature does not exist. It is not in our genes. Babies don't find other people unattractive. Believe it or not, but it is all culture. The survival of the fittest has nothing to do with outward appearance. It has to do with adaptation to the local natural environment, survival and the capability of producing offspring. There is nothing about appearance there. "For example, male birds attract mates easier when their feathers are brighter or richer in color." ==> That can very well be caused by female birds seeing the brighter feathers easier. So, it could be completely the other way around of what you think it is.