Horizon said:
The only reason I don't respond to them is because I have absolutely nothing to say about them. I don't know the bands, let alone do I know any information about them. Simple as that.
No, still not as simple as that, and the reasoning you provide doesn't work. I'm unclear on one thing: Since when did knowledge about something have to do with potential interest?
No, actually, I just find your argument to be bad. All it seems to consist of is an opinion that doesn't get backed up by anything and 'refer to so-and-so part of whatever post I made here', which is indeed not a good argument in the slightest way possible. But that just may be my oh-so screwed up way of thinking. Silly me.
Rather than mouthing off that an argument is simply ﾂ"goodﾂ" or ﾂ"bad,ﾂ" effort must be spent in actually refuting it. Otherwise, what you say does not count as argument, but attacking, and severely lowers your credibility and intellectual honesty even more as a debater.
Get over it. I'm not going to go '(well, a lot of them anyway apparently)' after each thing I say. When I generalize I kind of expect people to to get what I'm saying, as in the apparent majority. Sorry, my bad. Must still [be]giving the general population of people too much credit then...
And there. I didn't generalize there. Happy now?
Generalizing, first of all, takes a huge part of your credibility away, no matter what you expect of the ﾂ"general populationﾂ". Secondly, it doesn't matter if you say ﾂ"well, a lot of them anyway apparentlyﾂ"; you separated the genders in such a way as to enforce the generalization. That was your whole point of distinguishing between men and women. You consciously demarcated a line between males and females.
No...Last time I checked, the human body isn't art. And there are different types of beauty too (not to mention art as well). So, thusly, all I could possibly be saying is that they are being ignorant about just one aspect of beauty and 'art' because of a reason that, as to my knowledge, is kind of stupid.
So nope, nope! Still not a very good try at all!
The human body can be used as a canvas for art. Isn't that part of the idea behind VK visual appearances? And isn't VK what we were discussing in the first place? Otherwise, for what other reason would you have said:
We females who are completely and utterly straight can and will gladly state rather another girl is pretty, beautiful, gorgeous, et cetera. What I can't understand to a certain degree is why men can't do the same? Are you all just that 'homophobic' or something?
if not within the context of VK?
Another point: let's go back to what we're both referring to in order to refresh our memory.
lastmagi said:
The point here made is unfortunately counter-productive, particularly for feminists. For starters, it tries to defend by using a stereotype which hurts both sides (women understand beauty and art, men don't)
So you lifted something out of context again, or at least have started drifting towards a tangent. Does it really matter the difference between beauty and art, as much as the fact that you made a self-destructive stereotype? It's certainly not the focus of my quote. In fact, it's in parentheses.
Precisely! FASHION and STYLE! Not the beauty of the models. So, yes, I made a bit of an assumption, but I don't find it incorrect whatsoever.
Ah... I get it. I misread your post and thought ﾂ"and I doubt it's for the
menﾂ" referred to ﾂ"I doubt it's for the men (readers)ﾂ" rather than ﾂ"I doubt the magazine is for
the images of men. My apologies. Let's go back and cover that again, shall we?
And I doubt it's for the [images of] men. Now, if lots of straight men start subscribing to Playgirl (for themselves mind you), I'll totally be swayed. Really.
The example falls flat in a couple of ways. First, the scenario is implying that straight girls subscribe to Playboy. Otherwise, what was the point of making a scenario in which straight men subscribe to Playgirl? So your analogy is lacking there. It would have been more effective if you'd had used a women's magazine that was not for style or fashion, but for the simple admiration of other women.
Secondly, your example falls flat in another way: VK artists typically dress and make themselves up in a conscious attempt to appear androgynous. They remove themselves from typical discourses about women admiring women's appearances, and men doing the same; they add a new dimension, which makes your attempt at contrasting males and females' behaviors too one-dimensional.
Thirdly, as my example was trying to get across, men can nevertheless still appreciate the appearance (fashion, style, beauty) of another man, even if unconsciously. The men on the cover of the men's magazine are selectively chosen to be handsome, after all. The role of my example was to break that generalization you made. That you already admitted the generalization renders further discussion about this obsolete.
Horizon said:
Is it over-done sometomes? Nope. Does it get boring after a while? Nope. Will some of us grow out of it eventually? Possibly, although not I.
'Tis an opinion that cannot be right or wrong.
I'll provide the rest of the paragraph that you neglected to quote:
lastmagi said:
Do I really care as much about the makeup themselves as much as the overzealous emphasis artists and fans (mind you, not all) put on it? Not really.
You keep ignoring, whether intentionally or not, the point I'm trying to get across: that the threads are only conducive to restricted kinds of discussions.
[in reference to my statement that pictures are overdone] Again, YOUR opinion. MY opinion. Neither is wrong. One cannot say the other is wrong or right in this particular situation.
Opinions are usually founded upon evidence and/or a process of
a priori logical reasoning (at least, for non-faith based opinions). I gave a bit of evidence in the beginning. But keep in mind my previous paragraph in this thread that it's not as much the images themselves as much as the environment. We can definitely see evidence of such an environment by looking at the kinds of discussions/posts here. Of course, I've seen some interesting comments/replies in this very thread by other people, so I think it's possible that we can push ourselves a little further to get JPop/Rock the respect it deserves.
Uh-uh...Right...Whatever you say.
I'm sorry. Was this statement supposed to serve a purpose (aside from sarcasm)?
:sorry:
That's exactly why I try to share... cause it's hard to find. I just get annoyed that bands who arent anywhere near as great as say Aushvitz get all the attention and their threads stay on the first page all the time. Well I forgive D'espairsRay for being on the first page. 
I'd forgive them anything... that and I live to keep them on the first page... 
Even D'espa who stays constantly on the first page is only visited by a handful of people... I dont even bother going in many thread anymore... there was a time when I would try to go to every thread... but I get tired of pointless conversations and mediocre bands. It's tiresome... I can't help it I hear music different. 
(sorry if that sounds superior... I don't mean that to sound that way ^^
I honestly deleted a bunch of my music recently... some of it I dont even listen to anymore or wasnt fond of to begin with... I don't care how many bands I listen to... as long as they are spectacular. 
Well it's a shame because as much as I want to, and it seems you would like it as well, to have a nice discussion without the attacks... I don't see it happening. Most people are hot headed and easily offended. (no offense :sorry
I meant that if you dont then the other person sure as hell won't... what the point of being considerate to someone if they aren't to you. 
I would have thought it was pretty obvious that to say "VK bands are all no good coz of the way they look" is just as stupid an attitude as to say "VK bands are all great coz of the way they look". And I don't think anyone on here is so immature at all! It doesn't take a genious (sp?) to figure out you're going to get some fantastic VK bands and some crap ones, same as any other genre. 
