There's a few such comments already from the PC police at CS.
Sometimes I get the feeling that even if the poster put a picture of the Elephant Man, anyone who dares to say that he is ugly will still get shot down (insensitive what, right, considering it is a medical condition).
Someone said earlier "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". That expression cuts two ways. It means that it's up to the viewer to decide beauty. It also means that no one is absolutely right, because by definition, every viewer is measuring against his own standard.
But that expression should not be used as a crutch, ie when A says X is ugly, A is wrong because A is only using his own standards which are not in line with everyone else's, so actually X is not ugly.
You can say she's pretty. I can say she's not. Both are equally valid. Neither are wrong.
For someone to make a comment in public that so and so is not pretty is freedom of expression. Whether someone chooses to be hurt depends on how fragile their ego is. Those who are mature enough will take in in their stride. Anyone is free to disagree, to post "X is pretty what" in replies. But the poster of such comments should not be reviled, unless it is clear he has a hidden agenda or is out to deliberately insult, provoke or mislead.
On the other hand, people who post such comments should consider whether it's worth their trouble. First, it doesn't achieve anything per se except irritate and annoy the PC police. Second, it doesn't contribute to any improvement in photography, since the model's appearance can't be changed once chosen. Third, with all the OT and hate replies, is it worth the trouble?
Sometimes I get the feeling that even if the poster put a picture of the Elephant Man, anyone who dares to say that he is ugly will still get shot down (insensitive what, right, considering it is a medical condition).
Someone said earlier "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". That expression cuts two ways. It means that it's up to the viewer to decide beauty. It also means that no one is absolutely right, because by definition, every viewer is measuring against his own standard.
But that expression should not be used as a crutch, ie when A says X is ugly, A is wrong because A is only using his own standards which are not in line with everyone else's, so actually X is not ugly.
You can say she's pretty. I can say she's not. Both are equally valid. Neither are wrong.
For someone to make a comment in public that so and so is not pretty is freedom of expression. Whether someone chooses to be hurt depends on how fragile their ego is. Those who are mature enough will take in in their stride. Anyone is free to disagree, to post "X is pretty what" in replies. But the poster of such comments should not be reviled, unless it is clear he has a hidden agenda or is out to deliberately insult, provoke or mislead.
On the other hand, people who post such comments should consider whether it's worth their trouble. First, it doesn't achieve anything per se except irritate and annoy the PC police. Second, it doesn't contribute to any improvement in photography, since the model's appearance can't be changed once chosen. Third, with all the OT and hate replies, is it worth the trouble?
precious.jas said:How do you define beautiful?? Not everybody adore the same celeb. There will bound to be love and hate. Love, show it. Hate, shut your damn big mouth. Nobody needs such comment.
Melody's such a sweetie. Altho I've not met her yet. Thru chatting and her lovely pics, she is never ugly!