Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > Science & Technology
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old July 7th, 2012 #21
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Magic is the power behind nature, Mike; it's the source of the energy that exists in everything - the creative spark of life, if you will. It's what George Lucas would call "the Force."

Legerdemain is not magic, it's just tricks performed by slight-of-hand.
Have you ever met Banjo Billy?
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #22
Mark Faust
Broadcaster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,248
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horseman View Post
Could anyone recommend me a layman's book that can explain this stuff?
No, unfortunately there is no book that explains this theory in laymans terms. But there are a few good videos that do.....

My father studies quantum physics and I have tried to follow in his studies, without a very strong backround in mathematics its a slow process.

Last edited by Mark Faust; July 8th, 2012 at 06:17 AM. Reason: shitty grammar
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #23
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins
Science takes the magic out of nature and reduces it to tedious theories.
"Magic explains nature" typed the man into his high-scientific instrument.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #24
Roy Wagahuski
professional critter
 
Roy Wagahuski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: under your bed
Posts: 1,618
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Corny platitudes do not a refutation make.
Magic is synonymous with superstition and is best left to lesser races and small children while Aryan (real) man searches for truth.
Akins' "return to innocence" is so contrived, and sad when you see how sincerely he seeks it.

In obsessively aping the being of european primitives akins, aka modern man, finds himself at an impasse. Pressed by the impossibility of "unlearning" facts he affects to true belief by mouthing the words of children. Incredible, isn't it?

Men mustn't play make-believe, we're too cynical to do it. I'll be goddamned if even the druids believed their own bullshit.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #25
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,105
Default

People believed, some do still I guess, that the earth was situated in the center of the universe, a flat disc entirely surrounded by oceans & suspended in the air like the 'coffin of Mohammed' or a toy balloon that has escaped from the hands of S.Akins.. People that dared to think for themselves without asking permission of their pharisees et. al. seem to have had a very definite suspicion that this theory must be wrong. When Xtianity became all-powerful circa 300 AD it was no longer safe to harbor ideas that differed. Kind of like how it is today with 'magical' holocaust gas chambers.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #26
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
"Magic explains nature" typed the man into his high-scientific instrument.
Magic doesn't explain nature - it is nature, or rather the supernatural - i.e. the power behind what makes nature work, the energy inherent within all existence. Every single thing in existence is composed of energy in the form of atoms, and yet there is a power or "force" if you will that binds that energy together in the form of a mass, living objects, plants, trees, animals, people, the sun, the moon, the earth, the stars, the planets, they are all composed of energy that is bound together - that energy is what I call "magic".

The word magic itself means power; it comes from the Latin word Magus, which itself is from the Aryan word Magi, which was the name given to priests of the Medes in the land that is now called Iran. The word Magi literally means "man of might" - a man who had knowledge of supernatural powers, the words "might" and "magic" therefore share a common proto-Aryan origin.

Quote:
The Medes were called anciently by all people Aryans; but when Medea, the Colchian, came to them from Athens, they changed their name. Such is the account which they themselves give.....Now these are the tribes of which they consist: the Busae, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the Arizanti, the Budii, and the Magi.

- Herodotus, Histories

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 8th, 2012 at 01:25 PM.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #27
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski View Post
Akins' "return to innocence" is so contrived, and sad when you see how sincerely he seeks it.

In obsessively aping the being of european primitives akins, aka modern man, finds himself at an impasse. Pressed by the impossibility of "unlearning" facts he affects to true belief by mouthing the words of children. Incredible, isn't it?

Men mustn't play make-believe, we're too cynical to do it. I'll be goddamned if even the druids believed their own bullshit.
I take it that you are no fan of the Deep England concept.
 
Old July 8th, 2012 #28
Fenria
Self imposed ban
 
Fenria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The redwood forest
Posts: 787
Default

Actually, the Higgs Boson discovery is extremely significant. It fixes the speed of light as the universal constant because no particles that contact the Higgs field can go as fast or faster than the speed of light, and the only particles that don't contact the Higgs are photons, thus light speed is the official law of our universe. That's big news. We've just proved one of the laws of physics.

It also has other implications for string theory in terms of whether the boson originates as an actual particle or part of an energy field or wave. Finding a particle for mass means that we might just find a particle for gravity, or the Graviton, which scientists are also searching for.

It also gives us a peek into what's inside quarks, which is really the next step in quantum physics; to break open the quark and really see the actual building blocks of our universe.

On a philosophical note, think about the implications of the fact that there is a particle that was "designed" or "created" or "appeared" with the implicit purpose of creating mass in this universe. Without mass, there would be no life whatsoever in this universe, but, there was something upon the birth of this universe that made mass an absolute reality right from the start. I'm certainly not throwing in my atheist badge, but it's very interesting to ponder. Is there ultimately some "designer" out there, beyond the reach of our universe and reality, deigning out the various ingredients for successful life filled universes? Are life filled universes the norm? Are they the ideal? Why? Is there a purpose to providing a universe with the correct elements for life? Or, maybe it just a lucky coincidence not likely repeated in other universes. Cool stuff to think about.
__________________
Hell really is other people.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #29
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
Science takes the magic out of nature and reduces it to tedious theories.
Funny statement. It is true though, that even on a personal level, many of those physicist-types are so far and away from lively spirits (in general, with exceptions). A certain 19th century philosopher even went as far as to point out how empirical science explains, and then leaves you cold, nihilistic, life-denying.

Call it the 'Santa Claus' effect if you want. Well, you were much happier when you believed in Santa, and so very disappointed after, weren't you? We adults are no different.

Those types, I can identify with them, unfortunately. I remember years ago before I ever forayed into computer science, I would look at video games, internet chat rooms with video and audio, all of these 'systems' from the eyes of the non-architect / non-programmer.

Then you learn how it is taken apart piece-by-piece, you shrug "oh". On the one hand, there is the new chip on your shoulder when you look at things thinking you're Neo in the matrix or something. "Oh! This program has 5 buttons which are obviously using the same rectangle object containing a draw function". That's fun for about 5 minutes before you start to miss Santa Claus mode.

At least they warn though! Bjarne Stroustroup himself (inventor of C++) said "Why learn programming? Because you are reduced to believing in magic every time you deal with computers otherwise". I think that was in his The C++ Programming Language book, or on his AT&T homepage, I can't recall; nonetheless, brilliant guy, but I see interviews of the guy, and I see it all over again, those words, the empirical, life-denying nihilism; another scientist devoid of joy and dedicated to a life of never-ending knowledge acquisition in cog-mode.

Not far from the same effect of the woman who dreams about some guy she has only seen at his best, perhaps in public scenarios, an active man, with charisma, but she has only seen him a few times, as a candid observer, and she goes off on daydreaming about him, thinking he is this and that great man, and then she finally gets alone time with him, gets to know him, he opens up, and she finds out..............

he's just another 'homosapien'. She yawns, the smiles and excitement turn to sober smirks and frowns.

The cold scientist in his lab coat eating his processed food in plastic wrappers that you watched coldly assembled the other night on the 'How it's made' TV show, scoffing at two lovers who are obviously about to have sex when they find a private location, saying "they are such slaves to a silly dopamine squirt, while my equation is much more important! No time for that!".

The truth in that scenario, however, is the scientist now becoming the moralist. The truth is more than likely that, in his youth, he saw he did not excel at physical endeavors (sports), he saw he was not the ladies man (quite the contrary, he probably repulsed most women and did horribly), and he found a venue he could - as a man, rationally? - turn to for his natural desire for domination: science; his new venue with promise.

Anyone with two eyes can see the majority of scientists are ugly, err, validating this theory.

Last edited by P.E.; July 9th, 2012 at 08:17 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #30
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
Funny statement. It is true though, that even on a personal level, many of those physicist-types are so far and away from lively spirits (in general, with exceptions). A certain 19th century philosopher even went as far as to point out how empirical science explains, and then leave you cold, nihilistic, life-denying.

Call it the 'Santa Claus' effect if you want. Well, you were much happier when you believed in Santa, and so very disappointed after, weren't you? We adults are no different.

Those types, I can identify with them, unfortunately. I remember years ago before I ever forayed into computer science, I would look at video games, internet chat rooms with video and audio, all of these 'systems' from the eyes of the non-architect / non-programmer.

Then you learn how it is taken apart piece-by-piece, you shrug "oh". On the one hand, there is the new chip on your shoulder when you look at things thinking you're Neo in the matrix or something. "Oh! This program has 5 buttons which are obviously using the same rectangle object containing a draw function". That's fun for about 5 minutes before you start to miss Santa Claus mode.

At least they warn though! The Bjarn Stroustroup himself (inventor of C++) said "Why learn programming? Because you are reduced to believing in magic every time you deal with computers otherwise". I think that was in his "The C++ Programming Language" book, or on his AT&T homepage, I can't recall; nonetheless, brilliant guy, but I see interviews of the guy, and I see it all over again, those words, the empirical, life-denying nihilism; another scientist devoid of joy and dedicated to a life of never-ending knowledge acquisition in cog-mode.

Not far from the same effect of the woman who dreams about some guy she has only seen at his best, perhaps in public scenarios, an active man, with charisma, but she has only seen him a few times, as a candid observer, and she goes off on daydreaming about him, thinking he is this and that great man, and then she finally gets alone time with him, gets to know him, he opens up, and she finds out..............

he's just another 'homosapien'. She yawns, the smiles and excitement turn to sober smirks and frowns.

The cold scientist in his lab coat eating his processed food in plastic wrappers that you watched coldly assembled the other night on the "How it's made" TV show, scoffing at two lovers who are obviously about to have sex when they find a private location, saying "they are such slaves to a silly dopamine squirt, while my equation is much more important! No time for that!".
There is something that seems very Jewish in essence about the cold, clinical, souless, physicist in his white lab coat, explaining away all the mysteries of existence.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #31
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

In the end, it is simply a question - prior to the acquisition of knowledge - of whether or not it is 'good' or 'bad' knowledge, rather than the idiotic modern philosophy of all knowledge is worth acquiring; an ideology that applies to a slave-era, a democratic era, as intellect is utilized as a weapon by the weak, ugly mob.

The question is whether or not you are making the world more beautiful. For example, the development of contact lenses and modern orthodontics is what I would call 'good'. In these cases, you can take otherwise healthy people and genuinely improve quality of life (the ability to see well, a beautiful smile).

On the other hand, it goes back to talking about knowledge, intellect, being weaponized as a tool of the mob. You start to look at all of these cases of fraud in the drug industry. You look at your 'doctor' driving his Ferrari and the illusions are all shattered as to why he is always trying to get you on his recurring subscription model aka a drug you will be on for the rest of your life to make you 'stable'.

Does it make the world more beautiful to make the sick and decaying 'stabilized' for a bit longer, so they may be ugly among us for a bit longer, while drug companies empty their wallets and their families wallets?

No. A bit of the old benevolent thinking is called for. Just as the Spartans threw their sick and hopeless off the cliffs, the Romans theirs off the Tarpeian Rock, the American enthusiasm for eugenics a hundred or so years ago, the Germans who finally had the wits to do it once more with Aktion T4; a bit of the old anti-Christian decontamination, beautification, is called for; indeed, it seems that in all instances of post-antiquity beauty, the ideals of 'equality' are at a minimum or entirely non-existent.

Otherwise, this thinking runs amok, and you get people posing as benevolent saviors, when in reality, they're just another bunch of these fucking scumbags, who think milking the terminally ill and hopelessly sick and ugly, giving them false hope and in the end only making them sick AND dependent, is a good idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...kPW_story.html

Has anyone ever seen a fake tit-job that they liked? A reduction maybe, to help a woman with a serious case of cucumber-tits, that's fine; but stuffing 'medical grade' bags into a body?

And before we say 'stupid women', how much money goes through the big-dick-pill industry?

Allow me to distill the point: 'good' research would be to the benefit of enhancing the quality of life of the already healthy and potentially beautiful; squandered would be to take from that potential to elevate the trash, the sick (treatments for the terminally ill, low-income housing and welfare for hopeless niggers and mestizos, aid to Africa).

In all of those latter cases, usually the people at the forefront, the promoters, they are trying to get some kind of tax perks or some other gain under the guise of being a good moral savior; and of course, Jews that want to decline whites.

Last edited by P.E.; July 9th, 2012 at 09:37 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #32
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
In the end, it is simply a question - prior to the acquisition of knowledge - of whether or not it is 'good' or 'bad' knowledge, rather than the idiotic modern philosophy of all knowledge is worth acquiring; an ideology that applies to a slave-era, a democratic era, as intellect is utilized as a weapon by the weak, ugly mob.

The question is whether or not you are making the world more beautiful. For example, the development of contact lenses and modern orthodontics is what I would call 'good'. In these cases, you can take otherwise healthy people and genuinely improve quality of life (the ability to see well, a beautiful smile).

On the other hand, it goes back to talking about knowledge, intellect, being weaponized as a tool of the mob. You start to look at all of these cases of fraud in the drug industry. You look at your 'doctor' driving his Ferrari and the illusions are all shattered as to why he is always trying to get you on his recurring subscription model aka a drug you will be on for the rest of your life to make you 'stable'.

Does it make the world more beautiful to make the sick and decaying 'stabilized' for a bit longer, so they may be ugly among us for a bit longer, while drug companies empty their wallets and their families wallets?

No. A bit of the old benevolent thinking is called for. Just as the Spartans threw their sick and hopeless off the cliffs, the Romans theirs off the Tarpeian Rock, the American enthusiasm for eugenics a hundred or so years ago, the Germans who finally had the wits to do it once more with Aktion T4; a bit of the old anti-Christian decontamination, beautification, is called for.

Otherwise, this thinking runs amok, and you get people posing as benevolent saviors, when in reality, they're just another bunch of these fucking scumbags, who think milking the terminally ill and hopelessly sick and ugly, giving them false hope and in the end only making them sick AND dependent, is a good idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...kPW_story.html

Has anyone ever seen a fake tit-job that they liked? A reduction maybe, to help a woman with a serious case of cucumber-tits, that's fine; but stuffing 'medical grade' bags into a body?

And before we say 'stupid women', how much money goes through the big-dick-pill industry?

Allow me to distill the point: 'good' research would be to the benefit of enhancing the quality of life of the already healthy and potentially beautiful; squandered would be to take from that potential to elevate the trash, the sick (treatments for the terminally ill, low-income housing and welfare for hopeless niggers and mestizos, aid to Africa).

In all of those latter cases, usually the people at the forefront, the promoters, they are trying to get some kind of tax perks or some other gain under the guise of being a good moral savior; and of course, Jews that want to decline whites.
One long, hard, look at what are held up as the best and the brightest of Jewish faces instantly reveal why they, among all people, relate to and seek to empower the untermensch:











 
Old July 9th, 2012 #33
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven L. Akins View Post
One long, hard, look at what are held up as the best and the brightest of Jewish faces instantly reveal why they, among all people, relate to and seek to empower the untermensch
Of course. That is why they always make 'degenerate art'.

Steven Spielberg and his E.T. movie. Oh yes, let us make people fall in love with something hideous and ugly, and use our media and finance position to promote it.

If the masses can see the cute little blonde white girl can adore something so hideous...



I wouldn't be surprised if Eliot Spitzer liked to pop E.T. in the bluray player for him and his high-priced, tax-payer-paid shiksa hookers to help loosen them up.

And then Steven Spielberg is floating around on his $200-million mega-yacht (google for the lovely pics), porking shiksas.

Is this not the same old scam? Just like the Jews were doing in Germany, using their media position to promote their shit modern art as 'great', selling it for a high price, and then buying the real masterpieces to put in some collection?

Last edited by P.E.; July 9th, 2012 at 09:50 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #34
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
Of course. That is why they always make 'degenerate art'.

Steven Spielberg and his 'E.T.' movie. Oh yes, let us make people fall in love with something hideous and ugly, and use our media and finance position to promote it.

I mean, if the masses can see the cute little blonde white girl can adore something so hideous...



And then Steven Spielberg is floating around on his $200-million mega-yacht (google for the lovely pics), porking shiksas.

Is this not the same old scam? Just like the Jews were doing in Germany, using their media position to promote their shit modern art as 'great', selling it for a high price, and then buying the real masterpieces to put in some collection?
Compare the following Jewish works of architecture and art with their counterparts by White creators:

The Whitney Museum of American Art designed by Jewish architect Marcel Breuer


The British Museum designed by English architect Robert Smirke:


Southdale mall, designed by Austrian Jew, Victor Gruen, the architect that invented the shopping mall:


Franklin, Tennessee, USA, small town America designed by Americans:


Painting entitled "Onement 1" by Jewish painter Barnett Newman:


Painting entitled "Monarch of the Glen" by British painter, Sir Edwin Landseer:


Painting entitled 'Magenta, Black, Green on Orange' by Jewish painter Mark Rothko:


Painting entitled "God Speed" by British painter Edmund Blair Leighton


Sculpture entitled "Kathlene" by Jewish sculptor Jacob Epstein:


Sculpture entitled "Pan Comforting Psyche", by German sculptor Reinhold Begas:

Last edited by Steven L. Akins; July 9th, 2012 at 11:32 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #35
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Architecture is a realm of art where you truly see a difference between the genetic Jew and Gentile, more distinctly than even music.

I recall some young white idiot from Austin (a UT student) saying how he loves Brutalism.

Really? You mean this eye-sore type, lifeless shit designed by, surprise surprise, another Jew (Ernő Goldfinger)?



Oh, you cunning Jews; you've managed to make people promote your trash for free, and not even free, you make them pay for such an 'education'!

There tend to be new surveys every year of cities with characteristics such as healthiest people, vibrant nightlife, least crime, most walkable, best public transportation; I would like to see a list of most and least Jewish architecture in major cities.

Some cities you just look at and think a big Borg kike cube ravaged the soul of this place and compartmentalized these cogs; and then they go buy a home in lovely little Aspen or Park City.

Last edited by P.E.; July 9th, 2012 at 11:08 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #36
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
Architecture is a realm of art where you truly see a difference between the genetic Jew and Gentile, more distinctly than even music.

I recall some young white idiot from Austin (a UT student) saying how he loves Brutalism.

Really? You mean this eye-sore type, lifeless shit designed by, surprise surprise, another Jew (Ernő Goldfinger)?



Oh, you cunning Jews; you've managed to make people promote your trash for free, and not even free, you make them pay for such an 'education'!

There tend to be new surveys every year of cities with characteristics such as healthiest people, vibrant nightlife, least crime, most walkable, best public transportation; I would like to see a list of most and least Jewish architecture in major cities.

Some cities you just look at and think a big Borg kike cube ravaged the soul of this place and compartmentalized these cogs; and then they go buy a home in lovely little Aspen or Park City.
A detestable example of the hideous "International Style" of architecture, so beloved by the Jews.

The Saulk Institute in La Jolla, California, designed by Jewish architect Louis Kahn is another example:
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #37
Breanna
Eternal Glory
 
Breanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Of all the ass-ignorant things I've heard you say that one takes the cake.
Of course, there is no "magic" in nature. That's the entire fucking point of studying it, you MO-RON! <sheesh> freaking idiot!
Akins is right. Rational science-loving atheist types have no vitality. I would prefer to live in the world of my idol-worshipping, barbarian ancestors, who had the ability to survive in the cold wilderness of the north and the balls to kill their enemies, over the modern world of lifeless atheists who have wet dreams about scientific formulas and whose feeble bodies would perish without stuffy artificial heating and well-stocked grocery stores.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #38
Breanna
Eternal Glory
 
Breanna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,668
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.E. View Post
The question is whether or not you are making the world more beautiful. For example, the development of contact lenses and modern orthodontics is what I would call 'good'. In these cases, you can take otherwise healthy people and genuinely improve quality of life (the ability to see well, a beautiful smile).
Quote:
Allow me to distill the point: 'good' research would be to the benefit of enhancing the quality of life of the already healthy and potentially beautiful; squandered would be to take from that potential to elevate the trash, the sick (treatments for the terminally ill, low-income housing and welfare for hopeless niggers and mestizos, aid to Africa).
PE, have you ever read Ludovici? He would argue that even the contact lenses and the dentistry would perpetuate the breeding of people with eyes that don't function and of those with naturally hideous teeth. Sooner or later the majority of us would need to be medically enhanced to even be able to have normally functioning senses.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #39
Steven L. Akins
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: The Heart of Dixie
Posts: 13,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breanna View Post
PE, have you ever read Ludovici? He would argue that even the contact lenses and the dentistry would perpetuate the breeding of people with eyes that don't function and of those with naturally hideous teeth. Sooner or later the majority of us would need to be medically enhanced to even be able to have normally functioning senses.
We all get ugly if we live long enough; even those who were beautiful in their teens and 20's will end up unappealing in their later years. Life is not all about sex and attraction. The older you get, the less interested you become in it, for most of us anyway.
 
Old July 9th, 2012 #40
P.E.
Geriatric Coalburner
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breanna View Post
PE, have you ever read Ludovici? He would argue that even the contact lenses and the dentistry would perpetuate the breeding of people with eyes that don't function and of those with naturally hideous teeth. Sooner or later the majority of us would need to be medically enhanced to even be able to have normally functioning senses.
You are quite right with this point. Yes, I've read much of Ludovici, and I knew I was leaving my argument open to your point. It is true that such enhancements do deter from the natural order of things; a person would reproduce with someone who appears to have great teeth, but then the kids come out and the teeth are everywhere; however, we're at the point where orthodontics and corrective lenses (or even laser procedures) are commonly utilized, and whether or not they should be - in the context of a civilized society - is entirely subjective.

It is deception, undoubtedly; but then again, so is the makeup so many women cake on. My GF, early on, said "I wouldn't let you see me without makeup for 9 months".



How far does it go? Naturally, we stink until we utilize soap, we are hairy beasts until we utilize shaving (or more modern hair removal).

Does the women that gets her lip hair lasered off or waxes it deserve to be smitten when her husband sees their daughter is turning into Super Mario at 15?

That is civilization though. These tools - soap, makeup, shaving, lasers, breastlifts, the mandatory Brazilian waxing it seems every girl these days has - aren't going away until civilization does.

Where the line is drawn between forgivable and unforgivable deceptions is entirely subjective. We all have our limits. I won't do fake tits, for example; perhaps because I am immediately averted by the thought of my future female offspring crying in high school because her tits are gross; let alone the fact that it takes a very mentally weak woman to get implants (instead of a reduction or lift) in the first place.

Last edited by P.E.; July 9th, 2012 at 04:32 PM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 AM.
Page generated in 0.50448 seconds.