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?
symmetry can be attractive to a brain of any culture, but I don't think it would necessarily be PERFECT as far as beauty is concerned. Remember "all scientist agreed"...
European culture (and there is such a thing) has as one of the essence of its culture to speak in universal terms, but within the culture they can speak in terms of the particular. This was developed for certain reasons which are outside this discussion..
she may be the most beautiful in European cultural terms..so what?
I don't understand what you mean by our genome aims to produce a symmetrical face???????
If symmetry is attractive to some but not all people regardless of race, calling her beautiful is wrong but not racist. I certainly agree that it is not perfect as far as beauty is concerned. She doesn't do it for me.
I didn't say european, I said caucasian, culture. Not sure there is that.
I agree so what about beautiful in european terms, but again that is cultural not racist terms.
My point about the genome's expression is that if, and I don't know this, symmetry is what an exact expression of flawless genes would produce, then the most symmetrical face is the most perfect in genetiv terms.
So I see much of your point, but cannot bring myelf to agree it is racist. Foolish? Yes.
The gene part, for me, is confusing...
it would be JUST wrong if it were an agreement btw other cultures..and I don't mean UN type "cultures"...However it was an agreement by Euro trained scientist speaking from one cultural perspective, but giving that impression to all the world cultures..who don't do such studies and probably don't even consider them, so by default, the Euro scientist are correct...
And this study, which all scientist agreed, is subconsciously remembered by the outside cultural members..and they will connect the face with the study.. It's all a mind game..
"All scientist agreed" that this picture of symmetry (which is also exhibited by a European woman) is perfect as far as beauty is concerned..and that makes it racist..
I thought the beauty part was added by the journo, and the scientists just said perfect.
Does 'all scientists' mean ALL of them? And I still maintain that they meant perfect differently from how the article and you have interpreted it.
Just suppose that the same study had coincidentally produced an Indian woman as a winner, which is perfectly possible as there is nothing biased towards whites in the science, would you have said that it was racist?
Whether all scientists agree or not is actually irrelevant, as all they are agreeing to is that humans find symmetrical faces attractive. That this study found a white woman is a different thing.
Nothing in the study or the article is saying that whites are more perfectly beautiful than other races, you have to go looking for a reason to object to find racism.
It's about the proportions, not about beauty or attraction.I don't know why is so hard to understand for so many people.
I don't think it is hard for many people. Only one seems to disagree.
True, he is stubborn.
Part of the blame goes to the journalist who went beyond the facts to equate perfection of proportions in terms of symmetry with beauty. Sometimes minor flaws are actually endearing and make someone a little extra attractive. A slightly crooked smile, a gap in the front uppers. Those can make women more attractive. In men, believe it or not, a non-disfiguring scar on the face can make him look more masculine and rugged and can increase his attractiveness to women.
it's not about proportions, it's about dictating what is beautiful/perfection from one culture's perspective and that culture has a history of speaking in universal terms.....And Matt that's why only one seems to disagree...
It sounds like you need to start at the beginning, learn about the fundamentals of genetics and heredity, then see if you still have questions. Here' a couple links:
thanks for the links..but not at the beginning, that's your head talking.. I need to link some ideas together..
I understand that genes determine heredity. My question really boils down to what makes the genetic information in those of European descent faulty (genetic recessive) and how is that genetic variation constantly transferred unless it's intercepted by a dominate genetic variant? What happened? How do we know it was an environmental mutation? How do we know how long it take for such a mutation, if it's environmental? Vit D theory...