|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2007 : 20:48:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ok, but could you eat something which you found sexy? That's the question.
And GeeMack thought that my post was bad. Good grief, H., which version of Bambi are you talking about?!? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2007 : 22:46:19 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Dude, shouldn't you look for the research you must know by now I am referring to before such doubt?
Just because you can eat a cute critter doesn't mean you don't see cute features.
... "cute", like "beauty" is a subjective judgement.
You are mistaking human facial pattern recognition for "cute". Humans naturally recognize the facial features of other humans. We see them in rock formations, clouds, the moon, shadows on Mars, etc.
We see the similarities to human features in some animal faces as well.
The simple fact that not everyone sees animals as "cute" demonstrates the alleged objective nature of animal cuteness to be false.
I think kittens are cute. I know plenty of people who don't. I think rabbits, squirrels, deer, moose, elk, turkeys, pheasant, duck, goose (etc) are dinner, not "cute". I know many people who think the same. In China many people think dogs are dinner (or pests), not cute.
Do you think mice and rats are cute? Or do you poison them if you see one in your house? They both share some similar facial characteristics with other mammals.
H.H. asked:
quote:
Ok, but could you eat something which you found sexy? That's the question.
Depends on what definition of "eat" you are using.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 01:22:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
...Ok, but could you eat something which you found sexy? That's the question.
Isn't that suggesting kinky in a bad way, HH? It's either that or cannibalism.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/10/2007 01:23:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 01:31:43 [Permalink]
|
Why do you think babies, including animal and human babies all look cute, Dude? Except maybe baby mole rats or something. Don't you think there would be a better explanation why most people have the same subjective response to babies' cuteness than acquired taste?
There are studies looking at babies' attraction to faces, but there are additional studies testing what features people find universally attractive. Big eyes and round fat cheeks are two of the features seen universally as attractive in humans. Guess I'll have to hunt for the studies, since you are so certain.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 01:33:04 [Permalink]
|
As far as some people not finding babies cute, that would be the learned override not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 02:24:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do you think babies, including animal and human babies all look cute, Dude?
They don't. Infant faces may invoke maternal nurturing instincts, but to claim they are universally cute to all people is bullshit.
An infant's cry can make people get up and look for it to help it, especially women. An infant suckling (at it's mother's breast) shortly after birth can stimulate euterine contractions that help stop bleeding. There are a lot of instinctive and phisiological responses to infants. They do not "all look cute" however.
quote:
As far as some people not finding babies cute, that would be the learned override not the other way around.
Now you are seriously reaching.
My mother and father both (literally) dote on babies in the family. My father is 1 of 15 children. Something like 25 first cousins over there, and easily 100 2nd cousins. The family get togethers require renting a space. Kids and family are the center of most lives there.
I don't think babies are cute, and it is certainly no "learned override".
quote:
Big eyes and round fat cheeks are two of the features seen universally as attractive in humans. Guess I'll have to hunt for the studies, since you are so certain.
Utter and complete bullshit. You will not find any study that makes such a claim, atleast not one published by a legit scientist in a legit journal. At best such a study would say "most" or "x% of" people found such features attractive.
Cute is a subjective statement.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 18:21:23 [Permalink]
|
If you want to support any of that with any research, Dude, I'm happy to read it. Otherwise I don't feel the need to debate our opinions. I know mine is based on research I read. You haven't made that claim. You are just stating your beliefs and a few anecdotes.
I may track down a paper or two for you when I have a bit of time.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2007 : 18:47:18 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
If you want to support any of that with any research, Dude, I'm happy to read it. Otherwise I don't feel the need to debate our opinions. I know mine is based on research I read. You haven't made that claim. You are just stating your beliefs and a few anecdotes.
You are the one making the claim. You said that babies are considered universally cute. I'm calling bullshit on it.
The burden of proof here is on you.
So put up or shut up, as they say.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 03:28:14 [Permalink]
|
First line, from the first link:
quote:
Babies hold an almost universal appeal,
DOH!
Link 2 makes my case nicely. That humans are driven to care for their young (mostly) is not anything I dispute. And that article certainly doesn't disagree. It also, in several instances, clearly points out that "cuteness" is subjective, and subject to change!
Link 3, first sentence:
quote:
Apart from occasional mutterings and curmudgeonly inclinations, it is fairly uncontroversial that, in general, human adults find human infants cute.
DOH! Again. This link appears to be, more or less, the same as link 2.
Link 4:
Is not a scholarly article, it is a piece of popular media obviously written for the layperson. It does use the word "universal" as a modifier for "cute", but it is not referenced nor does it appear to be based on any actual study.
Thank you for supporting my position with those links!
quote:
Good excuse, Dude. No need to support your baseless conclusions because you only stated them in reply to my statement.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Are you going to dispute that now too? THAT should be an interesting post on your part.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 04:11:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
The simple fact that not everyone sees animals as "cute" demonstrates the alleged objective nature of animal cuteness to be false.
What!? First of all, who the heck said “universally cute to all people”. Half and beskeptical were talking about a genetic predisposition. We have an instinct for caring for infants, but some people manage to never get the additional cultural components and proceed to abuse their kids. The fact that some people abuse kids doesn't nullify the research suggesting that there are some instincts for proper child-rearing.
Dude wrote: quote:
Infant faces may invoke maternal nurturing instincts, but to claim they are universally cute to all people is bullshit.
On what are you basing these claims? Recent anthropological research (I've read in books such as “Mother Nature” by the biologist Sarah Hrdy) suggests that it is the “maternal instinct” which is most learned, and all humans, male and female, react to certain cues, the rest is learned. And the cues they respond to are related to specifically infant features. In fact there is a term for the tendency of a species toward infant features due to natural selection: neotany. Thus, it is not, as you suggested, merely the natural recognition of human features. It is in fact the recognition of infant features.
This fits in exactly with what Half and beskeptical agreed on in terms of “cuteness” in nature. Infant features of humans have much in common with infant features in other species. Although it isn't that the infants evolved to look that way because it was cute, but rather, animals and humans alike have evolved to respond to those feature as if they are cute. Therefore we do naturally tend to find baby mammals cute, human or not.
Therefore, your original assertion: quote:
"cuteness" is a function of culture, and is entirely subjective.
is bullshit.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/11/2007 09:08:55 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 14:42:53 [Permalink]
|
marfknox barfed:
quote:
What!? First of all, who the heck said “universally cute to all people
You need to bone up on your reading comprehension and retention. Scroll back a few fucking posts and you will see beskeptigal making the claim.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7425&whichpage=2#110407
quote:
Big eyes and round fat cheeks are two of the features seen universally as attractive in humans.
Why do you think babies, including animal and human babies all look cute, Dude?
See, all there for the reading. To bad you are more interested in busting my chops than paying attention. Try to pay more attention to the topic.
quote:
Therefore, your original assertion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"cuteness" is a function of culture, and is entirely subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is bullshit.
Show me a study that surveys people to see if they find babies cute. It should show people pictures and ask them to give a cute/not cute answer. It should include several different cultural and ethnic groups, and it should test to see if people find babies equally cute across cultural lines. It should ask muslims if they think asian, white, and black babies are cute, and if they are more or less cute than babies from their own group. It should do that across all the different cultural and ethnic groups it surveys.
It should include a statistical analysis of these answers.
Until you can present such a study and it's results show no significant statistical deviation about what different people think is "cute", and that shows everyone thinks babies are cute, then you are just making an unevidenced claim.
This argument is not about the obvious evolutionary advantage that is conferred by caring for the young, nor is it about the general drive of humans to do so. None of those things are in dispute.
The dispute (and you'd be aware of it if you bothered to actually read the thread marf) is about the alledged objective nature of the "cuteness" of human infants and other small mammals that share some common features.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 19:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
You need to bone up on your reading comprehension and retention. Scroll back a few fucking posts and you will see beskeptigal making the claim.
And you need to not take things literally to the point of absurdity. Half and beskeptical are both pretty smart when it comes to biology. They were making claims that the association of infant features - regardless of species (at least within the range of bunnies, deer, and humans) - with "cuteness". I thing it can be safely assumed that when beskeptical wrote "universal" and "all" that this was a reference to an adapted genetic trait, not the straight literal meaning. If she meant it absolutely literally, she would have to have been an idiot, and I think we both know she's not an idiot. So you just latched onto a perhaps poor bit of phrasing and twisted it to mean something totally idiotic (that all humans cannot help but find bunnies "cute") and then shot down that idiotic idea.
Of course, if I'm wrong, I'm sure Half and/or beskeptical can come forth now and explain that they were indeed agreeing that literally every single human being on the face of the planet, regardless of culture, experience, or disorder, finds baby bunnies to be cute.
Now are you going to concede that your absolute statement from your first response: "'cuteness' is a function of culture, and is entirely subjective." was bullshit, or you just going to pretend you never wrote it?
As for me being in a hurry to bust your chops, please get over yourself. I haven't gotten into anything with you in months, and since the last time we disagreed, I've supported many of your very intelligent posts to this forum.
(Edited for typos.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/11/2007 19:23:00 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 19:41:27 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
quote:
If she meant it absolutely literally, she would have to have been an idiot, and I think we both know she's not an idiot.
When you use, repeatedly, terms like "universal" and "all", after being questioned on them, then what other meaning can you be giving them except an absolute one?
quote:
Now are you going to concede that your absolute statement from your first response: "'cuteness' is a function of culture, and is entirely subjective." was bullshit, or you just going to pretend you never wrote it?
No, it isn't bullshit. There is no such thing as objective "cuteness". Unless you can find some objective measure of it (and you can't), you have to concede that point. I could be mistaken about the cultural influence on what people percieve as cute, but I doubt I am. (after a short search through some articles on aesthetics I can't find anything to support or dispute my position, and that is some seriously dry/boring shit to read through)
quote:
As for me being in a hurry to bust your chops
What other reason could you have for jumping in here without reading the thread?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2007 : 21:34:50 [Permalink]
|
I knew I was wasting my time, Dude. But why berate Marf for giving her observations? Perhaps because they don't agree with yours?
Humans have a universal reflex to smile when happy. Does that mean there are no exceptions? Of course not. People can have paralyzed facial muscles. Universal in this context refers to something across cultures but it doesn't mean absolutely without exception.
It's not easy to communicate when one is so anal about definitions he/she prefers to argue semantics rather than concepts.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 01/11/2007 21:35:31 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
