One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long
after I'm gone.

How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that
nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty
existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.

If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does
not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.

I am in no way “thinking with my penis.” I have no attraction to Yosemite Park, but I find it beautiful. I have no attraction to the works of Monet or Anna Akhmatova, but I find them exceptionally beautiful. In case of beautiful women, I am attracted
to some but not to others. Asian women are usually seen as very attractive, but I do not lust after them.

Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we
don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins
of jerks.

Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long
after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

One saying I hear all the time is “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” That saying deserves to be taken out and shot. True beauty takes talent and effort to produce and deserves respect.

One of the most ridiculous statements I've heard comes from followers of Taoism, who think that creating beauty as a concept also creates ugliness. Foolishness all around. Beauty existed before I existed or recognized it; it will continue existing long
after I'm gone.

How many girls get traumatized through coercion toward beauty? Some very well may be that, but they do not own traumatization. There are all sorts of things that are good in themselves that can be used for wrong. That someone gets D's does not mean that
nobody can get A's, and that some people are poor does not mean that nobody can get wealthy. It is wrong to equate beauty to the abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unethical plastic surgeons. Doing that gives such people way too much credit. Beauty
existed long before such things existed; it will continue existing long after they are gone.

If the society does not value beauty, there will be no demand for beauty. The people who create beauty will either go starving or have to do something else. I judge it wrong that America, with 300 million people and per capita GDP of $45,000 a year, does
not have art comparable to that of Renaissance Italy, with 3 million people and per capita GDP of $1500 a year. America should have 300 Sistine Chapels. The only reason that it does not is that it does not value beauty or the arts.

Some people see beauty as stupid and shallow. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Sistine Chapel. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the works of Keats and Akhmatova. There is nothing stupid or shallow about the Burmese stupas. All these
are amazing accomplishments, and they deserve respect.

Well what about the bad behavior of the “don't hate us because we are beautiful” people? These people's problem is not that they are beautiful but that they are jerks. I once tried to approach such women in conversation, and they responded with “we
don't talk to trash.” Their problem was not that they were beautiful. Their problem was that they were horrible people. Whereas I've known any number of women who were both beautiful and good people. It is wrong that such women be punished for the sins
of jerks.

Beauty, itself, is innocent of misdeeds of stupid teenagers or unethical plastic surgeons. These people do not own beauty, nor do they deserve to be given credit for something that existed long before they existed and that will continue existing long
after they're gone. Beauty is a good quality, and it should be respected as much as any other good quality such as intelligence or being a good person. Do not equate something with its abuses. See it for what it is in itself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)