[angeliqueAdict]

Quote:
This might help, according to Nadine's site, Miosotis is going to have her own site in December. I personally think it's because no one knows how her name is pronounced . Regardless, I think she's incredible.

That's great news.  I'm so glad she will have her own site.  I'll be a member!!!  btw, where did I find this on nadine's site?  I can't seem to find mention of it.

[Palomine]

Quote:
so...are you just opposed to generalities all together?  I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.

Of course not, they can be quite handy when used responsibly. I find them objectionable when they're being used poorly in an attempt to support some silly POV... by painting one person's opinion as a 'fact' by dint of it's "wide, general acceptance" of some such fictionlized nonesense. Cack upon cack.

If a person has an opinion: express it AS YOUR OPINION. Don't attempt to rationalize, justify, deflect responsibility or reinforce it by attributing it to any other people, let alone EVERYone as the implication went in the case of this thread. Doing so merely makes the opinionator in question look sad and foolish.

And that's MY opinion. See how I didn't try to imply or state that EVERYone feels the same way?  

[Uilsk]

Quote:

Quote:
so...are you just opposed to generalities all together?  I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.

Of course not, they can be quite handy when used responsibly. I find them objectionable when they're being used poorly in an attempt to support some silly POV... by painting one person's opinion as a 'fact' by dint of it's "wide, general acceptance" of some such fictionlized nonesense. Cack upon cack.

If a person has an opinion: express it AS YOUR OPINION. Don't attempt to rationalize, justify, deflect responsibility or reinforce it by attributing it to any other people, let alone EVERYone as the implication went in the case of this thread. Doing so merely makes the opinionator in question look sad and foolish.

And that's MY opinion. See how I didn't try to imply or state that EVERYone feels the same way?  

Well in this case I stated that my opinion is buttressed by scientific research, you refused to acknowledge that fact and then responded with a comment that avoided what the main issue of this thread actually is.

[David437]

Sorry about that. Miosotis is the Pic of the Week for Nadine's site. Her new site is mentioned in the caption.

[Scotchman]

Okay, I think enough posts now exist for me to perform a miracle. A miracle,
I say! I guarantee that I've not read a single post in this thread. Before I
review the prior 90-something posts, I hereby predict that there's not one
damn photo of this gal anywhere in this thread...

<Drum roll>

[gOOber]

 .......but I like the dusky ladies.......  

[Scotchman]

TAA-DAAA!

Oh I'm gooood.

[CarlTL]

Quote:
Okay, I think enough posts now exist for me to perform a miracle. A miracle,
I say! I guarantee that I've not read a single post in this thread. Before I
review the prior 90-something posts, I hereby predict that there's not one
damn photo of this gal anywhere in this thread...

<Drum roll>

There is the little issue of most of her photos being against the forum rules.

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:

Well in this case I stated that my opinion is buttressed by scientific research, you refused to acknowledge that fact and then responded with a comment that avoided what the main issue of this thread actually is.

You know this type of subjective research is highly suspicious. Many of these sociological studies begin with presuppositions that inevitably skew the results. I have a tough time buying this implication that certain women are overlooked even though they are attractive, just because they don't conform to some ethnocenturic preprogramming.

Sometimes these fallacies are repeated so often that they begin to have a sort of truth by assertion. Fact is if a woman is a babe, it doesn't matter what flavour she is.

I stand by the theory that Miosotis isn't the topic of discussion here for the same reason Nadine doesn't get much coverage.

We like pictures here, and since we can't post theirs, all we can do is talk about them. I would rather look at pix of Denise then discuss Nadine, even tho I personally find Nadine more to my tastes.

Let's try a test:

WHich is more intersting A or B

A: I like Nadine, she has big titties.

B:

[Uilsk]

Quote:

Quote:

Well in this case I stated that my opinion is buttressed by scientific research, you refused to acknowledge that fact and then responded with a comment that avoided what the main issue of this thread actually is.

You know this type of subjective research is highly suspicious. Many of these sociological studies begin with presuppositions that inevitably skew the results. I have a tough time buying this implication that certain women are overlooked even though they are attractive, just because they don't conform to some ethnocentric preprogramming.

Sometimes these fallacies are repeated so often that they begin to have a sort of truth by assertion. Fact is if a woman is a babe, it doesn't matter what flavour she is.

I stand by the theory that Miosotis isn't the topic of discussion here for the same reason Nadine doesn't get much coverage.

Well you can post as many pictures of a given model as you wish, but if the public isn't interested because of their inherent biases, you can only push her popularity but so much.

As for the sociological studies, attempts are made within the imperfect nature of the scientific method, to reduce the number of biases and presuppositions that may influence any given study. That's generally how science reduces subjectivity and promotes objectivity.

Now, if you believe that ethnicity has no part to play in why black models (excluding Miosotis) aren't more popular, then what would you say is the reason?

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

I believe I have succintly stated my reason. That you don't agree with me is similar to how I feel about you.

[angeliqueAdict]

Quote:

Quote:

Well in this case I stated that my opinion is buttressed by scientific research, you refused to acknowledge that fact and then responded with a comment that avoided what the main issue of this thread actually is.

You know this type of subjective research is highly suspicious. Many of these sociological studies begin with presuppositions that inevitably skew the results. I have a tough time buying this implication that certain women are overlooked even though they are attractive, just because they don't conform to some ethnocenturic preprogramming.

Sometimes these fallacies are repeated so often that they begin to have a sort of truth by assertion. Fact is if a woman is a babe, it doesn't matter what flavour she is.

I stand by the theory that Miosotis isn't the topic of discussion here for the same reason Nadine doesn't get much coverage.

We like pictures here, and since we can't post theirs, all we can do is talk about them. I would rather look at pix of Denise then discuss Nadine, even tho I personally find Nadine more to my tastes.

Well, the problem with your position is that you are assuming that you idea of "babedom" is "the" idea of babedom.  You are ignoring the possibility that your own biases and preferences could influence who you think is a babe.  

Personally i don't find most women commonly considered "babes" to be attractive at all.  Admittedly i have a strong preference for dark skinned women.  I see FAR more babes walking down the street or riding the bus than I do on television or any other medium because my aesthetics are not in line with the mainstream.  

It is obvious that black features are not generally found to be as attractive in all forms of media from televisions, magazines, porn etc.  It is a nitch market for a reason.  I'm SURE that having dark skin and black features is a PART of why Miosotis isn't a bigger sensation.

Having said that, i agree with your main point that not being able to post pictures of her here is also a big factor.

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Quote:
Well, the problem with your position is that you are assuming that you idea of "babedom" is "the" idea of babedom.  You are ignoring the possibility that your own biases and preferences could influence who you think is a babe.  

Personally i don't find most women commonly considered "babes" to be attractive at all.  Admittedly i have a strong preference for dark skinned women.  I see FAR more babes walking down the street or riding the bus than I do on television or any other medium because my aesthetics are not in line with the mainstream.

Not actually. I meant if anybody were to consider a woman a babe by their own criteria, that he wouldn't avoid her soley based on race or ethnicity, I didn't mean to imply only if I thought she was a babe.

Quote:
It is obvious that black features are not generally found to be as attractive in all forms of media from televisions, magazines, porn etc.  It is a nitch market for a reason.  I'm SURE that having dark skin and black features is a PART of why Miosotis isn't a bigger sensation.

Having said that, i agree with your main point that not being able to post pictures of her here is also a big factor.

You have a point there, perhaps part of the reason isn't our bias, but the presupposition of content providers that we won't be as receptive to dark skinned black women. If its not marketed to us we can't possibly have a say in the matter.


Bob

ps If nothing else I feel this discussion was worthwhile for the coining of the word Babedom!!!

[Palomine]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
so...are you just opposed to generalities all together?  I'm not sure I understand where you are coming from.

Of course not, they can be quite handy when used responsibly. I find them objectionable when they're being used poorly in an attempt to support some silly POV... by painting one person's opinion as a 'fact' by dint of it's "wide, general acceptance" of some such fictionlized nonesense. Cack upon cack.

If a person has an opinion: express it AS YOUR OPINION. Don't attempt to rationalize, justify, deflect responsibility or reinforce it by attributing it to any other people, let alone EVERYone as the implication went in the case of this thread. Doing so merely makes the opinionator in question look sad and foolish.

And that's MY opinion. See how I didn't try to imply or state that EVERYone feels the same way?  

Well in this case I stated that my opinion is buttressed by scientific research, you refused to acknowledge that fact and then responded with a comment that avoided what the main issue of this thread actually is.

 Oooh... your opinion is 'buttressed' by scientific research!!! Gee, how wonderfully unique of you... and how charmingly naive when you stop to consider that just about anyone with a search engine can locate 'scientific research' with which to 'buttress' the most blatantly fictionalized facts in all defiance of common sense.

Listen: you're welcome to your opinion. In MY opinion, YOUR opinion and subsequent posts prove you to be not just mistaken, but agressively wrong. I know the temptation to simplify complex subjects by resorting to knee-jerk black and white worldviews (pun very much intended) is strong. Being able to resist such temptation and see beyond cliche is worth the effort.

I say again: your assertion, in which attempt to apply YOUR personal views to EVERYBODY is inherently flawed. My assertion, which applies only to MYSELF and not six billion other people (that IMO, Miosotis is not as attractive as some other models) is undeniably accurate, as it applies only to me. I've got nothing against your opinion... as I said: you're welcome to it. It's only when you try to insist that the same opinion is held by others (myself included) that I take exception.    

[ROUNDandHEAVY]

Sweet bejeeeezus, thats a bitch that "scientifical reeeeeserch", sheeeeet. Sure wish I wuz smart.