(13-01-2023, 12:55 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:15 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 09:39 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 08:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote: what really matters for decent looks is that all of your individual features work well with each other and are the correct proportion, compatible coloring etc. in the context of talking about focusing on single features my response about harmony makes perfect sense

none of that exists

yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:42 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 09:39 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 08:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote: what really matters for decent looks is that all of your individual features work well with each other and are the correct proportion, compatible coloring etc. in the context of talking about focusing on single features my response about harmony makes perfect sense

none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:42 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 09:39 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

(13-01-2023, 03:08 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:42 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote: facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

I would even argue that some people would look worse if they had insane cheekbones or very angular hunter eyes (assuming that these features didnt properly harmonize with the rest of their face)

(13-01-2023, 04:14 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 03:08 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

I would even argue that some people would look worse if they had insane cheekbones or very angular hunter eyes (assuming that these features didnt properly harmonize with the rest of their face)

i mean if u put overly angular eyes on face with low overall masculinity yeah, mass in cheekbones should be universal, like eyebrows, good contrast etc.
like think of that standup comedian guy who banged kim kardashian, masculine face with bulging eyes. looks weird af but still good. would be like that but reversed. if u put ,,hunter'' eyes on him he would be straight up brad pitt tho

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:42 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 09:39 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

(13-01-2023, 02:52 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:55 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:15 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 09:39 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: none of that exists

yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

(13-01-2023, 06:08 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:42 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote: facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

the avg person is subhuman, even more so depending on the country. having only nordic countries as somewhat gl on avg. precisely, bc they're not avg, they are superior 

(13-01-2023, 06:18 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 02:52 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:55 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(12-01-2023, 11:15 PM)lonelyjak Wrote: yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

(13-01-2023, 06:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:18 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 02:52 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:55 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features, theres nothing controversial about saying this

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

(13-01-2023, 06:38 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:08 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 03:04 PM)eldajaal1488 Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:46 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

the avg person is subhuman, even more so depending on the country. having only nordic countries as somewhat gl on avg. precisely, bc they're not avg, they are superior 

avg person is subhuman but if u merge 100 normies into 1 with something like faceapp, u wont end up with subhuman. thats how all these ,,pheno'' averages are made. its not average face, its averaged face.
obviously nerdics mog more or less due bonemass

(13-01-2023, 06:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:18 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 02:52 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 12:55 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

Quote:theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

(13-01-2023, 09:59 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:18 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 02:52 PM)lonelyjak Wrote: no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

you are not thinking about what you are saying. such thing doesn't exist. it's easy to look at someone like Lachowski and instinctively see it as "harmonious" or it "just works." but it's something you can't even reverse, you can't think what it could be otherwise, because you're forgetting it's not a Frankenstein with individual features set together, whch is why you constantly push the "works together" nonsense. you are not seeing the pattern that many pure (in the sense of European) caucasians present that is the "fine" traits, in width, and angularity of whole skull. which on Lachowski in specific with his soft features being top-tier and so his low-asymmetry makes him what he is

Quote:theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries

(13-01-2023, 10:19 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 09:59 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:38 PM)lonelyjak Wrote:

(13-01-2023, 06:18 PM)Steppenwolf Wrote: yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

you are not thinking about what you are saying. such thing doesn't exist. it's easy to look at someone like Lachowski and instinctively see it as "harmonious" or it "just works." but it's something you can't even reverse, you can't think what it could be otherwise, because you're forgetting it's not a Frankenstein with individual features set together, whch is why you constantly push the "works together" nonsense. you are not seeing the pattern that many pure (in the sense of European) caucasians present that is the "fine" traits, in width, and angularity of whole skull. which on Lachowski in specific with his soft features being top-tier and so his low-asymmetry makes him what he is

Quote:theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries

no...the problem is that youre being autistic about this. have you never heard of the golden ratio? if you insist on having some sort of a general baseline for harmony then thats it, however I still insist that there is a certain aspect of harmony thats subjective, individual and hard to formularize. youre just upset that you cant take a semi-abstract phenomena like beauty and break it down into a precise formula, classic autism.

Quote:tell me this, how do you mathematically formulate what a perfect sunset is? trick question, you cant! we have a general idea of what a perfect sunset looks like but theres also great space for subjectivity and individual preference to. youre trying to square the peg here and demanding a precise schemata where there is none

Quote:your second statement is completely subjective. you literally just pulled that out of your ass. sure there are lots of botched surgeries (the bogdanovs, or when girls get those stupid disproportional lip fillers); the reason theyre considered botched is because the surgery violated the original sense of harmony through overcorrection in some manner. however there are also lots of good surgeries where the person ends up significantly improving their appearance and it looks quite natural.

Quote:you cant be taken seriously, especially with your second statement. do you really expect to drop an arbitrary, opinionated rhetorical turd like that without being called out for it? "muh 95% of surgeries are uncanny valley" 

just stop bro, this is a tedious conversation and im tired of repeating myself and knocking down your non-sense troll crap

Quote:the golden ratio is absolutely retarded. i'm amazed you brought this up when it has been disproved by 3000000 morphs, you're definitely not a lookism og or knew Deliciadecu

Quote:this utterly random digressing comical text you spewed not only sounds like and ad but also oblivion dialog wheel npc discourse

Quote:no, i did not. the reason we can instantly detect it and distinguish as uncanny valley is that it doesn't match the craniofacial structure. those that are camouflaged, which are uncommon, since the norm is simpler cosmetic procedures, are those that alter the craniofacial structure itself, such as the maxilla 

Quote:very ironic considering everything about "harmony" is utterly vague. you can't go on this conversation without parroting "harmony" each one-liner you type because not only you are braindead, but you're a newcomer spewing cancerous stupid buzzwords you npc freak