When you say there were 'no forms of entertainment' then provide a list of forms of entertainment that we experience today (which, btw, I have provided many examples of how even those forms of entertainment you mentioned also existed in the past), you are implying that by 'entertainment' you mean those things listed, at least.
@cmadison93 Yes, it should be interesting now since I attacked every one of your arguments with support. Now all that is left is for you to prove yours. And you'll receive about more than 15 e-mails which you'll respond to due to your phone notifications (and because you are a book worm studying very hard.) Luckily I'm not one to procrastinate and don't put notifications on anything. I wonder if you write this while you're driving or while you're taking a crap. It's still entertainment, right?
The reasons I have notifications show up when I receive an e-mail is partly because I am taking 3 lab classes, thus I need to be in contact with my lab partners. Our medium of communication has been via email (lab info, sources info, and research). The notifications allow me to know quickly when something new is up (where I can quickly access it via my phone), as opposed to finding out 8 hrs later.
"Yes, a lot of what the fashion police says opinion, but how does that mean fashion cannot be judged objectively or from a more 'scientific' point of view in the variety of ways I have listed before."
So how does the other ways prove it can be judged scientifically? You've told me to do research on my part, which I did, so what about you? Weren't you a book worm as you stated?
Considering the context of your comment, "Back 3000 years they had no forms of entertainment. We all listen to music, watch movies, see dancers and look at photography because it's an art."
my response: I brought up how music was a big part of many societies in the past, 'plays' and 'skits' were as well, dancing, paintings, photography, etc. 3000 years ago.
Not photography, but other forms of capturing life, such as portraits, and other various abstract artistic concepts which I highly recommend looking into as it's very interesting.
@cmadison93 It's funny because these are the only things your arguments are on. My arguments HAVE to do with credible and some objective views. Like I said previously a while ago, most of the factors to "judging fashion" were subjective. And the quality in a sense could go either way. A while ago I talked about a $50 purse vs. a $5000 dollar purse. The $5000 purse could be smaller, and yet the price is ridiculous just because it's manufactured differently or has something related to pop culture.
"Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect. "
My response:
"To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale... and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range."
And my question of, do you deem fashion as unartistic and talentless because the higher end clothing is expensive.
Once again, when you look at this IN CONTEXT and IN FULL, it's rather clear that I am not saying, 'you shouldn't judge fashion because it's too expensive'.
His comment:
1.Fashion is too expensive
2.fashion is useless
My response
1.Don't need the 'brand-name' clothing
2.Do you say fashion is useless because you can't afford it
@cmadison93 Oh and uh champ, don't think I forgot about the whole idea that fashion isn't subjective as you said.
You quoted "You can judge the color palette, the brightness of the color, dullness, whether that color flatters or not, etc." and then your last best attempt avoiding this was
"Also, I never said you can judge that one color is a better color than another." The top comment proves otherwise.
See my previous comment about the subjective element that comes in when judging one thing to be better than another.
The color palette, brightness of the color, dullness, flattery etc. are indeed objective parts. How you individually weight these qualities when determining the overall ranking of the colors is subjective.
This comments, as well as the ones you've quoted, are non-contradictory.
"English 101 and a Collegiate dictionary would do you well in life."
You were the first one to say I NEEDED an ENG class. All I did was correct your grammar and tell you to work on it. That's not saying "Take a damn ENG 101 class."
"books provide just as much of a 'distraction' as the internet.”
Pretty much here you're putting ANY distraction just as worse as another. You were also the one who said I should be careful with what I say.
Notice: Books provide just as much of a 'distraction'. I'm not saying everything provides as much as a distraction.
I guess you could get into the whole argument of how people have their own individual preferences (i.e. some may be more distracted by books than others, etc.). That's not what I'm here to talk about, though.
@cmadison93 "I don't recall mentioning size in any of the objectively-judgeable qualities." So why do I see "You can judge the fit of the item."? What may seem too big to someone may appear small to me. So champ, how can you measure this?
You can measure how well an item fits on one particular person or a particular body shape (I've also mentioned this before..). A medium may fit one person but not the other. You can objectively judge the way it fits each person.
@cmadison93 "Your brilliant grammar at work, there." from "judging from stupid fashion is useless"? What was yours? "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless." That's about as dumb downed as your grammar AND spelling mistakes. Saying "judging from stupid" is like saying "judging from retard" which in a sense you're saying judging from a retard point of view. Way to show how intelligent you are. So...you said you’re a book worm?
I love how you completely dodge your failed grammar and instead keep attacking mine (btw, I am still waiting for a DIRECT quote of my comment which shows that I attacked your grammar before you attacked mine)
@cmadison93 Quote me where I said the internet is not a good learning tool. It has benefits and consequences just like printed versions, but printed works is an old fashioned way at increasing knowledge. "many people would copy each others work and find other methods." True, but who in particular have you seen do this? You don't know if teachers always collected the work, if every student had to read his/her work aloud, etc.
Once again, here we are going off on the tangent of knowledge, as opposed to the topic of intelligence. I've seen many people copying each others work several times throughout my life, just as many people in the past have.
For instance, in all of my math classes up to 7th grade (where this decreased significantly for being in Honors/AP/IB), several people would just pass around their homework for others to copy.
@cmadison93 "And I am saying that when you provide examples of the type of entertainment you were referring to, you are in essence giving a brief, though vague, definition of entertainment.. " I'm sorry, but was this comment directed towards you? You gave examples, duh...but anything constitutes as entertainment as long as one's happy. I always say "music today sucks." Now would you jump to conclusions and think I mean EVERYTHING sucks? It's just a generalization.
I'm just saying that you did provide a definition and a context for your use of the word 'entertainment' that doesn't imply that ANYTHING and everything constitutes as entertainment..
@cmadison93 Where do you get the idea that Fashion won't always be expensive? Many people want a dress, purse, etc. not necessarily for the reason it appeals to them, but to flaunt what they have. Jeans are still in style, but there are jeans that cost $3000. So then how do you distinguish which one's better if I can't afford the higher one, since I need to be fashionable at best? This is what I meant by it's subjective through what LOOKS good. Yeah, you still need to prove how it's objective!
Fashion currently is not always expensive. Once again, you can go to a thrift store, find a sale, or go to a store which sells cheaper fashionable items and it is STILL fashion.
Bullshit like this, and you're no doubt one of these people described in this video. The obvious idea of "easy access to info nowadays" should ring a bell. I have easy access to spark notes, does that mean I know the whole book by heart? Does me looking up wikipedia instantly mean that I have a VAST knowledge of anything (considering it could be edited by anyone cough...cough) and since it's viewed frequently.
Well, first of all, I think you have some seriously inaccurate perceptions about me based on this video you've provided.
Did I ever say that reading spark notes gives you knowledge of the whole book, or that it's better than reading the actual book? Did I ever say Wikipedia is a reliable source of information?
@PopRocknSoul I'm not here to debate HOW people use the information available to them (i.e. they would just skim the book briefly versus using spark notes or skim over one or two chapters in a book versus reading Wikipedia). I'm not talking about how people skim over magazine articles vs Google searching.
I'm talking about the actual information provided, the depth of information and the validity of it - regardless of the medium of publication.
@cmadison93 "Sure, you can say whether you personally prefer the item, what you personally think which is subjective, but there is still the objective point as well." SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...what is it? Are there links (send me to my inbox etc.) that you have that tell me from a scientific point of view, this item is more better looking than another? You talked about how I dismissed this earlier before, yet you can't even come up with a concrete argument. What a shocker.
For instance, let's compare this to vocal ability.
3 objective criteria:
Power (P), flexibility(F), range(R)
3 people (order from strongest trait to weakest trait)
A: P, F, R
B: F, P, R
C: R, P, F
How do you determine which person is the better singer? Well, this depends on how you weight R P and F. Let's say R=2, P=1, F=1 (completely arbitrary and subjective rating). Now you can determine which singer is the 'best'.
For instance, some objective ways to judge fashion..
You can judge the quality of the items (as well as the items which make up the items). The way it was put together, how sturdy it is, how long it lasts, etc. You can judge the material used to craft the items. Such as the quality of the items, the thickness, the feel (i.e. whether it's 'scratchy' or 'stretchy' or whatever)
You can judge the fit of the item (how well does this flatter this particular person?)
@cmadison93 And where's YOUR research? Not general? These quotes came from famous writers, novelists, neurobiologists, and you're saying it's complete bullshit? I find that funny considering you have YET to prove what I provided invalid. You haven't gone to sources, quoted historians for that matter etc. All this talk about HOURS and HOURS of research yet what I received has been ALL your opinion (which I'm guessing you must believe you're right with no knowledge to back it up.)
Hours and hours of research that I myself have done in the past (not an 'opinion'), and still do to this day, for academic research. Do I need to quote myself?
@cmadison93 "Just because there is a subjective element doesn't mean there is no objective element." Another comment, with the same inference! Well, get on with it and tell me. I thought you had knowledge over this topic. Wasn't I the same dumbass who said judging from fashion is stupid and then you said I should be careful with what I say? It turns out you're ignorant to the one thing you're trying to defend. I have to give you a standing ovation for this.
You can judge the originality of the item, the cut of the item, the quality of the texture of the item, etc. via similar means listed above
Sure, you can say whether you personally prefer the item, what you personally think which is subjective, but there is still the objective point as well.
@cmadison93 "Do you think they didn't pass notes, draw pictures, skip class, play games, go completely off topic, etc.?" How do you know how much they were just as distracted? As I said, there were several punishments to enforce that no one fools around. If no one's distracted as much why is the obesity rate at its highest in the US today than ever before? Those activities you listed burn more calories, and remember exercise is more important for a stronger mind.
Obesity rate? Completely irrelevant topic, but I'll list off a few relevant details - lack of physical exercise, diet, GMO's, meat consumption, pollution, etc.
In the past, cooking, physical exercise, etc. used to be more common in regards to the type of distraction, resulting in overall healthier people. This type of distraction could have been replaced by technology.
I currently volunteer at a library, have volunteered at nursing homes, art museums, and talked to neighbors, etc. where I have engaged in various conversation with the elderly who were alive during the time without the technology we have now.
You'd be surprised just how distracted they were in the past.
@cmadison93 Quote where I said you attacked my grammar first? “I love how you completely dodge your failed grammar” comments like this are why you'll never learn. Let's take a walk down memory lane shall we?
"“Actually, placing a comma after 'keep trying' is fine. Perhaps you need an English class. =)” What twat doesn't know that a sentence can't be left without a SUBJECT. Is "sat down, though" complete? What about "who" sat down. "I sat down, though I fell".
The subjective part also comes in when you are weighting each particular part of the objective points (i.e. how much does quality mean, how much does fit mean, etc). Same as you have with vocal ability, for instance (i.e. how much does the emotion in the voice mean, how much does vocal range matter, how much does vocal flexibility mean).
Just because there is a subjective element doesn't mean there is no objective element.
@cmadison93 Again, distractions do exist, but you're implying that they all have the same effect. WRONG. Now teens can have their own TV, access to internet, even Automobiles by 16. Before, it was at least more active activities and they mostly had to search for the entertainment. it's not like you could just pop an mp3 player in your ears, you needed to be in something called a "building" to play a record. To go to the movies they would normally do something called "walking".
I never implied they ALL have the same effect, I'm just saying the level of distraction present today is similar, if not the same as it was in the past. More straw men, please.
So, because (some) distractions are more easily accessible means that the distraction level today is higher than the distraction level of the past? Can't say I agree with the 'logic', there.
@cmadison93 "The color palette, brightness of the color, dullness, flattery etc. are indeed objective parts. How you individually weight these qualities when determining the overall ranking of the colors is subjective." Brightness and dullness can be measured but how does this affect which one is fashionable than another? One can't be too bright or too dull? How do you know? It comes back down to choosing which one is better looking (subjective matter.)
I recommend looking at my earlier comment for further clarification.
How you decide to weight these (i.e. whether brightness or dullness is preferred) is indeed subjective. However, you can *still* objectively judge the brightness and dullness.
You don't say you can't objectively judge vocal ability just because there is a subjective element, but you so eagerly say fashion is unable to be objectively judged because of that same subjective element.
@cmadison93 lmao as if this is a discussion page, you commented me from my comment a month ago. I did not say we're open to entertainment today? It's common sense. Of course they had entertainment during BC years. Shoot, even killing other people was entertainment for crying out loud, but what I'm getting at is that they weren't open to much entertainment as we were. These people had to revolve around moving all the time and hunting. Do you think we'd last a year in the lives of them?
creo que es ovio quien es a la que invitan a los eventos por su propio esfuerzo y trabajo y quien tiene el lugar que tiene por su talento asi que no hay discucion xD
the video's title is wrong it should say Christina Aguilera vs. Nobody .. Who fuckin' knows that kelly bitch? And this battle is a total joke! Xtina beats that whore just with her name!
@pcool25 por mas ke ahora tenga unos kilitos de mas ke tiene? es logico tubo un hijo,esta disfrutando d su dinero!a ke mujer no le ha pasado d tener unos kilitos alo largo d su vida?!,uu pero se ke christina los bajara!!y le cerrara la boka a esta persona detestable,xq si cris alguna vez la llamo gorda..ke le hizo ella primero?salu2
@InvadorKim Being a fashion police is a job? Christina doesn't make the best music, but she surely has talent to back her up and she got fame on her own. Kelly was born into it. I dislike people like Kelly a lot more because she's judging fashion and she was born into a rich family. God forbid she was born into the poor family, would she be a fashion police then?
@PopRocknSoul I'm not intending to get into an interweb argument, in all honesty, i kind of dislike them both. I just think kelly appears to be less stupid, thought there's no denying that christina has SO MUCH talent. She just acts kind of....stupid, and on the Voice, a bit immature.
@InvadorKim Immature? You're assuming you know Christina just from the show? Have you met her? Had dinner with her? Lived with her? I judged Kelly from being a brat and spoiled, but I'm not saying that I know for a fact she always acts like this.
@PopRocknSoul dude, i said she ACTS kind of stupid and a bit immature. i didn't say she is, i said she appears stupid. i honestly don't care. i came across this video, made a comment and got into a stupid argument. to be frank, i dont really like either of their public appearances.
@InvadorKim So if you don't know the whole story, why bother make such remarks dude? And you dislike them both, why bother waste your time on this. You previously wrote "i love that people are saying kellys a nobody, but now kellys a somebody and christinas a nobody now. no one cares about christina agulera." Yeah, it seems like you really dislike Kelly. Kelly's a nobody because she didn't work for her success, it was handed to her. That doesn't make you a somebody nor what she does is a job.
@PopRocknSoul dude, hahahahaha. I really don't care. You're quoting me now? haha. I'm sorry i have a different opinion than you. Are you that upset over two people you don't even know? This is really the issue you're upset with? hahaha. I just said that because i felt bad for kelly, because everyone was commenting how awful she is. I dislike her a bit less than christina, and decided to comment something on her side. i just don't care.
@InvadorKim I'm quoting you because you're contradicting yourself buddy. And of course you have a different opnion than me, I was just pointing out how flawed yours was. I'm not the type to put celebrities on a pedestal, but I can at least respect that Christina worked her way up and has somewhat talent. Kelly? Where's hers? Fashion Police and a reality show isn't a job. Even if I hated Christina as well, Christina would still be the lesser of the two evils.
@PopRocknSoul Listen dude, i don't care. I'm not replying to anymore comments left because this is getting ridiculous. I decided to troll on a video, and frankly, Im bored of trolling on this video now.
@InvadorKim Yeah, that's what I thought. You see where trolling gets you. What's more ridiculous is that you don't care yet you responded for the past 3 posts with the most ignorant accusations. But whatever, take your leave.
@PopRocknSoul Ok. Now i'm actually contradicting myself. I said i would leave, and i didn't. You see, that's what a contradiction is. I'd like to tell you that trolling is acting ignorant and stupid, and offending someone on purpose just to get them angry and laugh at them. I was doing that. And I'd also like to request that you tell me exactly how any of my posts were, and i quote, "the most ignorant accusations."
@InvadorKim Plain and simple: "since she got on fashion police, lost a bunch of weight, and christina declined....a lot." That's an ignorant accusation as to how Kelly is a somebody compared to the "nobody" Christina. I've already stated before countless of times as to how fashion police isn't a job, two, Kelly was born into fame, so she gets money from inheritance (she doesn't have to do shit). And three, she isn't a somebody because she lost weight. As if low weight means you're a somebody.
@PopRocknSoul hmm, well you've misinterpreted my statement about Kelly loosing weight. In no way do i believe low weight makes you a somebody. I think that it takes a lot of work to lose weight, and that she's inspired many women. And Fashion Police is a job. It's a television show. That's like saying The Voice isn't a show. She shows knowledge in the most popular trends, which i don't care about, but someone does. And just because she was born into money doesn't mean shes any less important
@InvadorKim Then why did you tell that person in his reply to how is Kelly a somebody. How is the fashion police a job? By "job" I don't mean any job since being a hooker, paparazzi, pornographer aren't jobs that do ANYTHING for the world. I don't consider The Voice a job of Christina either. Christina's music is a craft. What is the fashion police besides talking about stupid stuff on who wore it the best and who's the worst? The world can live without it, hence it's not a real job.
@PopRocknSoul Ok, so by your standards, for something to be a job, the world can't live without it. So that means actor,'s singer's, dancer;s, artist's and photographer's aren't employed. You would've hated the renaissance.
@InvadorKim Not actually. That's entertainment, but it requires skill to do it...and to do it right. Plus without music, this would be a much more depressing world (fact). Back 3000 years they had no forms of entertainment. We all listen to music, watch movies, see dancers and look at photography because it's an art. Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect.
@PopRocknSoul Did you just say it's a fact this world would be more depressing without music? as if it was scientifically proven? Well, moving on, not everyone can afford the museum, concerts, and certainly not the ballet. They're actually quite expensive, and there actually is skill in judging fashion. You have to have a knowledge on what trends are popular, what style clothes compliment what body type. I wear whatever the fuck i want, but even i can see the skill required in fashion.
@InvadorKim If it's not scientifically proven, what do you do during your free time? Exercise, dancing, listening to music? Up to the extent of it requiring talent is what makes it good. That's a skill? What importance does it have for the rest? 80% can't afford those clothes on a daily basis, but to listen to music, see music videos, ect. it's not expensive. Knowledge of history, science ect. takes talent and time. Just like learning the prinicples of music. That crap has none. All subjective.
3000 years ago they had many forms of entertainment. Various 'ball' games, plenty of strategic games used with sticks/rocks/etc, pottery, artwork (paintings), rough-housing, gardening, sewing, etc.
To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale, go to any store and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range. Fasion=art as well.
For fashion - do you even understand the work and thought put into developing clothing? Have you ever been to a fashion show? Ever seen designers doing the hard work? Ever seen the development phase of fashion? Or do you just dismiss fashion as unartistic and talentless because you can't afford the expensive clothing?
Should I dismiss certain paintings as unartistic because I'm forced to pay a lot of money to see them?
@cmadison93 First off, nice argument that took you three paragraphs, and still doesn't prove what I was saying. From an objective point of view, is there a "correct" way of judging? It's all a matter of opinion. I'm not saying the people who designed the clothing are talentless, but the people judging the clothes are. There's a huge difference in judging and actually doing something, and that's what I was saying.
You said there were no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago, and you are wrong. That was a solid 2 comments there, that you seem so eager to dismiss.
Right. So if I judge a certain artistic item, that means I'm talentless. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember that next time I'm listening to someone play the piano like an amateur, and totally forget the 10 years of practice I've put into it.
@cmadison93 *"You're", You should keep that in mind. Of course those other things are entertainment, but they didn't have what we have today. That's what I'm talking about. We're more open to entertainment than people back in the days. Do you know how to read? I said from an objective view is there any way of judging fashion. It's all subjective, one can think one item looks nice and another could be horrible to another etc. Considering musical talent can be measured, nice try at an argument.
@cmadison93 Bahaha, you don't even understand what I mean by more open to entertainment? So now you can't understand common sense. Example: Internet, Cell Phones, Laptops, Game Systems, YouTube, Social media etc. I know musical talent can be measured hence why I said your argument of judging someone who plays piano is pointless comparing it to judging fashion. "For fashion - originality, fit, cut, texture, color, quality, presentation?" These are mostly subjective things.
Have you abandoned all hopes of engaging in a logical debate here? Judging from you repeated ad hominems, it sure seems that way.
Also, in the comment of yours that I originally addressed, you did not say, 'we are more open to entertainment' you said there were 'no form of entertainment 3000 years ago'.
@cmadison93 Repeated ad hominems? Very ironic considering you were the one saying that I was a "bore" but yet continues to insinuate the conversation. So now you're going to judge my views from a paragraph and then attack on that matter 500 times? So much for me using repeated ad hominems, take a look at yourself first. Like I have all the time in the day to state everything I believe and see in the page of this video. Sorry if I don't have much time on my hands to write all my beliefs.
"We are more open to entertainment" - You mean we have more access to entertainment? Could have meant we are more willing to accept various different types of entertainment than in the past. If you looked up the definition of 'open' you would understand how vague your claim that 'we are more open to entertainment' really is.
@cmadison93 How can you judge color? Can I judge tone color? Can I judge that black is a better color than purple? I've seen the fashion police and they have different views on what looks good and what doesn't. Where's the science that they're right is what I'm saying. " Could have meant we are more willing to accept various different types of entertainment than in the past." No. If I were to say we're more open to cyberbullies than ever before, where am I getting at? Vulnerability.
So, you're entire claim that fashion cannot be judged objectively is based off of the fashion police? Yes, a lot of what the fashion police says opinion, but how does that mean fashion cannot be judged objectively or from a more 'scientific' point of view in the variety of ways I have listed before.
@cmadison93 Um, *your, not you're. So know I see you're doing exactly what I did now. More hypocrisy. Now that I've lashed onto a point you were trying to prove, you seem to have edged it to the side and decided to make ridiculous claims that "it can be judged scientifically" yet there's no proof on your behalf.
Sure, you can insert the subjective part into the equation - whether you personally like those qualities present in a particular item. Stil doesn't mean there's no objective way of measuring fashion.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on what you meant by 'more open to entertainment'. I'm looking for a very clear definition from you so you can't keep beating around the bush (oh, I didn't mean they had NO forms of entertainment even though that's what I claimed.)
@cmadison93 "Stil doesn't mean there's no objective way of measuring fashion." But that's where I was getting at. At the end of the day, YOU told me that I shouldn't talk about fashion when I don't have the money to pay for it (ad hominem from which you started and then dare to say I used them first). The production to make a certain item value is subjective as well. I bet if Christina Aguilera autographed on my $50 sweater, I could sell it for thousands just because she signed on it.
You are merely taking me out of context and throwing up yet another straw man.
I told you that you shouldn't say that fashion is unable to be judged objectively or that it is meaningless because you or someone else can't afford to buy the higher end pieces of clothing or accessories.
The production CAN be objectively judged (i.e. HOW it was produced, what methods were used).
@cmadison93 Value can only be judged to a certain extent. Ex: if all the food around the world was completely scarce to the point where it's hard to find or grow, what would be valued more? The food or the 5000$ purse? In this case, the value changes dramatically, and so does if something goes out of style EVEN in a matter of weeks. If anyone is talking out of context it's certainly you. So a 5000$ sweater might drop down to 3000$ in just one week. So, where's the logic?
@cmadison93 You've talked about quality haven't you and what type of material they use? Or now have you forgotten? Quality and what takes time, YES. Depending on the Material: NO.
@cmadison93 How are they different? Value is dependent on quality just like morals is dependent of a mind. And how is it off topic when your first intelligent comment derived that I COULDN'T afford the clothes, so therefore I shouldn't be in the position to talk about it? Smart.
@cmadison93 Morals and the minds are two different things? So then why does an animal like a Tiger not think the way we do; for example can it control its actions? Can it feel remorse? In order to have morals, you need to have a mind. That was what I was talking about in terms of value dependent on quality. However it's all DIFFERENT to people. People hold things in higher and low standards.
Often times, value is dependent on quality. I am not arguing this point. I am saying that value and quality are two different things.
For instance, if a baby is dependent on a mother, if position is dependent on time, does that mean they are the same thing? No, they are two different things. Just like quality and value, morals and the mind are each their own individual thing.
Here are my comments you seem so eager to take out of context:
"To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale, go to any store and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range. Fasion=art as well."
@cmadison93 Yeah, I just quoted "the one I was eager to take out of context" just like you did to mines (except you had a heart attack over it). Nice attempt in thinking I wasn't going to find the comment "I took very seriously." I wouldn't take it seriously if you weren't taking mines (which wasn't even directed towards you and you generalized). To assume I thought they did absolutely nothing shows how lazy you became, and yet now when I point fingers, it's "out of context." Figures.
"There were no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago"
How can you take THAT statement out of context? I didn't.
You just chose your words poorly and now this has come back to bite you in the ass.
The context and intent of my comments were VERY clear, yet you still eagerly took them out of context and twisted my words into something I obviously never implied or even hinted at.
@cmadison93 "you take out of context" You mean "you took." From this, I can tell you need English 101. Get the grammar book too while you're at it. I'm sure from your phone, it doesn't cost 3 minutes to LOOK that hard for it. Yes, very clear. So you find "open to entertainment" ambiguous but not "no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago." Then, your comments are telling me "my comments are very clear." I Might as well list all the hypocrisy you've just created (sadly, with a working brain.)
Actually, this is proper grammar. "You take me out of context"
One possible meaning is that you are currently taking me out of context.
Nothing wrong with that 'improper grammar'
Seriously, take an English class. You're making a fool of yourself. Your junk arguments are getting old, but I guess this is what happens when a fool doesn't want to admit how flawed his arguments are. Cute.
Try again, I'm eagerly waiting for your next 'logical' reply.
@cmadison93 It wasn't correct grammar because you're talking about the past, so no, it's not proper grammar. Just like "we are conversating" is wrong. It would be "we are conversing". And then you jump to "take an English class" and yet you say I'm the one off topic. Your grammar is horrendous. I'm wondering at this point if you write your research papers with this abomination. Try again, I'm waiting for more grammatical fails and the same old response to an old argument.
You take me out of context is proper grammar (as in you currently take me out of context). I was not implying past tense. I shouldn't be held accountable for your failed inferences, or failed understanding of the English language.
Please learn about the word take and the various forms of this word.
@cmadison93 "From my comments, and even this short snippet of the comment you take out of context" You were implying past tense here since you're talking about a past action of where I TOOK you out of context. You should be held accountable for this atrocity since after all I was the one who mistakenly posted "no forms of entertainment" wrong, right? Did I write it wrongly? YES, and I admit to that, but it was a month ago, it wasn't directed to you, and I've moved on.
@cmadison93 You responded the same day *shocker*. Yes, we still have to wait until you CAN clear up that your statements are unsupported and wrong. As if attacking your grammar is the only thing I have up my sleeve. Tell me, have you even quoted ONE supporting detail to anything you've said about fashion or how the internet hasn't INCREASED our knowledge? All you’re telling me is to quote, what about you book worm?
I've brought up several valid ways to objectively judge fashion, which you have denied. I never said the internet has 'increased' our knowledge, nor do I need to support that claim.
Also, we were having a discussion about the effects of the internet on intelligence, not knowledge. Why change the subject..?
I'm telling you to quote MY comments and YOUR comments to support your claims about the arguments I have put forth (because you have a tendency to cherry pick my comments and throw up straw men) and to quote your own comments to support your claim of what you are arguing (since you have a tendency to change the subject and dodge the points I'm bringing up).
For instance, quote the place where I was the first to 'attack' your grammar.
@cmadison93 "And still your comment of, 'judging from stupid fashion is useless,' isn't exactly the epitome of excellence in regards to grammar." Care to explain, ah that's right, you can't! What's your brilliant way of correcting this? "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless." Go back to my previous comments and see how exactly I tore this up.
Please, explain how 'judging from stupid fashion is useless' is proper grammar. In case you didn't know, it's not. But, leave it to you to dodge the point and try to attack me instead, lol.
@cmadison93 "Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?" What a hypocrite I tell you. When I proved you threw the first ad hominem, you didn't admit you were wrong considering you were the one point fingers....hypocrite.
Do I really need to repost my comments yet again? Why don't your read my comments in context, and in full? How did I imply that you shouldn't judge fashion because you can't afford the more expensive clothing? In fact, my FIRST comment was saying how you don't even need money to buy 'fashionable' clothing.
@cmadison93 "Why don't your read my comments" I thought by ENG 101, one would know the difference between "you" and "your". Don't look at me. You're telling me to take the class, which I'm assuming you TOOK, but this proves otherwise.
"Things which are more entertaining than learning get in the way of learning."
Kids didn't have cell phones, ipods, ipads to get in their way in school in the 50s. You'd be surprised the percentage of people texting during class, or do you really want to know?
Yes, people in the 50s didn't have the technology we have today.
Do you think they didn't get as distracted in class though?
Do you think they didn't pass notes, draw pictures, skip class, play games, go completely off topic, etc.?
Once again, things which are more entertaining than learning get in the way of learning (including in the past before we possessed the technology we currently do).
And, here's your quote to support my earlier claims in my comments above. (Notice how I actually bring sources into this discussion as opposed to blindly taking people way out of context and throwing up straw men?)
"Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect. "
@cmadison93 "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless" You just made the stupidity of that sentence a billion fold. "Judging from stupid makes no sense. That's like saying "judging from retard". Oh and speaking of it.....
And now once again, I bring it to your attention that the comment of, 'judging from stupid fashion is useless' was your comment. Your brilliant grammar at work, there.
@cmadison93 Dude, ANYTHING CONSTITUTES as entertainment. That's why I have been wondering why you were still on that, hence why I said you took a one month ago comment seriously (that wasn't even directed AT you.) Biting your nails is even considered entertainment. Do you know the def. of entertainment? It could be an ACTION, event, activity between individuals OR just ONE person. So yes, masturbating is even a form of entertainment. I wonder if you're still going to ask that same question over.
And I am saying that when you provide examples of the type of entertainment you were referring to, you are in essence giving a brief, though vague, definition of entertainment.. which I then provided examples of entertainment (that fit your definition) that exited 3,000 years ago. =)
@cmadison93 "Once again, remember that you don't need to buy the expensive pieces of clothing in order for it to be considered 'fashion', as I've mentioned earlier." This doesn't tell me how I am fashionable than another fashionable person. Like I said, the idea of one object appealing to another is subjective. I may like to wear plastic bags as a form of fashion. Does that make me scientifically unfashionable?
@cmadison93 "I receive an e-mail is partly because I am taking 3 lab classes, thus I need to be in contact with my lab partners." Oh how sweet, do you put my emails a priority than your own lab partners? The number of comments you reply are the number of comments I will reply back. Simple. So soon enough, you'll probably receive 50 e-mails rofl. From this I can infer you're one the phone or inernet all throughout the day. Luckily, debating with someone online is my last priority.
"you're one the phone or internet all throughout the day"
Might want to crack open a grammar book.
Since I reply to YouTube comments on the same day they were posted (usually), that clearly means I'm on the internet/phone all day. Brilliant logic, kid. lol.
"For fashion - do you even understand the work and thought put into developing clothing? Have you ever been to a fashion show? Ever seen designers doing the hard work? Ever seen the development phase of fashion? Or do you just dismiss fashion as unartistic and talentless because you can't afford the expensive clothing?
Should I dismiss certain paintings as unartistic because I'm forced to pay a lot of money to see them?"
PLEASE indicate where I implied that you shouldn't be in a position to talk about it because you can't afford the expensive clothing. PLEASE do. I gave you the WHOLE comment you are so eager to take out of context. Can you provide ANY evidence for your claim?
You can judge the color palette, the brightness of the color, dullness, whether that color flatters or not, etc. How you personally feel about the color=subjective
You said that there was NO way of judging fashion objectively. I countered this claim by providing examples of how it could be judged objectively. I don't bear any burden of proof to 'prove that what they say can't be opinion' as this is entirely unrelated and irrelevant.
@cmadison93 So what's the difference between a 50 dollar purse and a 5000 dollar purse. The 5000 dollar purse isn't even all that difficult to make from a 50 dollar purse and it could even be smaller. That's where holding things in high standards comes from. Again, the subjectiveness. Those weren't objective points though, so your counter argument had failed. Now you decide to say it's unrelated and irrelevant. Dear lord, you start this conversation and now you're trying to run away.
@cmadison93 "Keep up the straw men." *man. You should work on your grammar skills and you should come back with relevant points as to how it's objective. "We are more open to entertainment." For the fiftieth time, in words you can understand: We are more vulnerable to entertainment. Ex: Try to stop someone in the city that doesn't have a cell phone, watch, car, laptop, computer, etc.
Actually, no. I used 'men' to indicate the plural, meaning you have provided many fallacious arguments of the sort defined as 'straw man'.
More vulnerability to entertainment? Meaning we are more likely to be harmed by it? Mm, pretty sure entertainment 3,000 years ago was just about as dangerous as it is now.. I think you are looking for a different word.
@cmadison93 Plural refers to more than one person though, so it's wrong. Or are you talking to imaginary people now? By vulnerability it's pretty obvious: Damage that is foreseen and people continue to use it. Tell me, after all the technology in the world, how much has the integrity of the human brain increased. Answer: It hasn't. You'd think with all the technology we have in the world, being exposed to so much info, it's not helping us get any smarter. My point exactly.
Do you know what a straw man is? The straw man I am referring to is not an actual person. A straw man is a sham argument set up to be defeated. Guess what you can have several sham arguments, resulting in the proper plural version of the term 'straw man' as 'straw men'.
@cmadison93 Well, unfortunately, good for you. However, you had a bunch of other mistakes and you spelled "still" as "stil." Might want to take another look and by the way I even quoted that sentence with the mistake.
Right. I love how your point magically changed from your original comment (remember, back when you said people 3,000 years ago had no forms of entertainment and I thoroughly disproved that while you went off on a tangent?)
How do you know the average level of intelligence over the past few thousand years hasn't increased? Do you have knowledge (preferably verified by scientific study) regarding the intelligence of ancient civilization in comparison to us?
@cmadison93 I LOVE how you dwell on a sentence 2 months ago that wasn't even directed to you. In fact, you generalized my statement. Like I said, killing a person was goddamn entertainment, even sex was, walking to look for food, so did you think I literally meant they did ABSOLUTELY nothing?
My point exactly on the average level of intelligence hasn't increased: You somehow have no common sense. If you're still taking my comment from this point of view, it's pretty obvious.
In fact, I took your statement, "They had no entertainment 3000 years ago" quite literally. Perhaps you should be more careful with what you say, lest you sound like a fool.
Can you actually address my counter arguments without your fallacious red herrings (i.e. ad hominem)? Or do you have no substance to your 'arguments' anymore? Cute.
@cmadison93 Aha, so why are you jumping to conclusions then with "no entertainment 3000 years ago" versus "open to entertainment"? That's what I thought. I should be careful with what I say? This is coming from the person who says I'm throwing an ad hominem meanwhile you were the first to throw that I couldn't afford the clothes, so I shouldn't be speaking about fashion. Careful with what you say champ, and was I having THAT debate with you? No. You decided to have a heart attack over that.
Hmm, should be very interesting to see the next response, lol.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
When you say there were 'no forms of entertainment' then provide a list of forms of entertainment that we experience today (which, btw, I have provided many examples of how even those forms of entertainment you mentioned also existed in the past), you are implying that by 'entertainment' you mean those things listed, at least.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93
Considering how even those forms of entertainment existed in the past, your point is moot.
Next fallacious argument, please. How about you attack my grammar some more, since that seems to be the only 'argument' you have.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Yes, it should be interesting now since I attacked every one of your arguments with support. Now all that is left is for you to prove yours. And you'll receive about more than 15 e-mails which you'll respond to due to your phone notifications (and because you are a book worm studying very hard.) Luckily I'm not one to procrastinate and don't put notifications on anything. I wonder if you write this while you're driving or while you're taking a crap. It's still entertainment, right?
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Procrastinate? I don't procrastinate.
Just for the lulz..
The reasons I have notifications show up when I receive an e-mail is partly because I am taking 3 lab classes, thus I need to be in contact with my lab partners. Our medium of communication has been via email (lab info, sources info, and research). The notifications allow me to know quickly when something new is up (where I can quickly access it via my phone), as opposed to finding out 8 hrs later.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "
"Yes, a lot of what the fashion police says opinion, but how does that mean fashion cannot be judged objectively or from a more 'scientific' point of view in the variety of ways I have listed before."
So how does the other ways prove it can be judged scientifically? You've told me to do research on my part, which I did, so what about you? Weren't you a book worm as you stated?
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
Considering the context of your comment, "Back 3000 years they had no forms of entertainment. We all listen to music, watch movies, see dancers and look at photography because it's an art."
my response: I brought up how music was a big part of many societies in the past, 'plays' and 'skits' were as well, dancing, paintings, photography, etc. 3000 years ago.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93
Not photography, but other forms of capturing life, such as portraits, and other various abstract artistic concepts which I highly recommend looking into as it's very interesting.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 It's funny because these are the only things your arguments are on. My arguments HAVE to do with credible and some objective views. Like I said previously a while ago, most of the factors to "judging fashion" were subjective. And the quality in a sense could go either way. A while ago I talked about a $50 purse vs. a $5000 dollar purse. The $5000 purse could be smaller, and yet the price is ridiculous just because it's manufactured differently or has something related to pop culture.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Why do you think size makes the difference? I don't recall mentioning size in any of the objectively-judgeable qualities.
Also, you are confusing value and quality again. The $50 purse could be of higher quality than the $5000 purse.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
Just for the lulz, here are the comments.. again.
Poprocknsoul's original comment:
"Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect. "
My response:
"To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale... and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range."
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93
And my question of, do you deem fashion as unartistic and talentless because the higher end clothing is expensive.
Once again, when you look at this IN CONTEXT and IN FULL, it's rather clear that I am not saying, 'you shouldn't judge fashion because it's too expensive'.
His comment:
1.Fashion is too expensive
2.fashion is useless
My response
1.Don't need the 'brand-name' clothing
2.Do you say fashion is useless because you can't afford it
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93
Interesting how my responses are actually completely valid ones. Too bad Poprocknsoul is getting a little butt hurt.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Oh and uh champ, don't think I forgot about the whole idea that fashion isn't subjective as you said.
You quoted "You can judge the color palette, the brightness of the color, dullness, whether that color flatters or not, etc." and then your last best attempt avoiding this was
"Also, I never said you can judge that one color is a better color than another." The top comment proves otherwise.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
See my previous comment about the subjective element that comes in when judging one thing to be better than another.
The color palette, brightness of the color, dullness, flattery etc. are indeed objective parts. How you individually weight these qualities when determining the overall ranking of the colors is subjective.
This comments, as well as the ones you've quoted, are non-contradictory.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Sure and let me quote the hypocrisy:
"English 101 and a Collegiate dictionary would do you well in life."
You were the first one to say I NEEDED an ENG class. All I did was correct your grammar and tell you to work on it. That's not saying "Take a damn ENG 101 class."
"books provide just as much of a 'distraction' as the internet.”
Pretty much here you're putting ANY distraction just as worse as another. You were also the one who said I should be careful with what I say.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Notice: Books provide just as much of a 'distraction'. I'm not saying everything provides as much as a distraction.
I guess you could get into the whole argument of how people have their own individual preferences (i.e. some may be more distracted by books than others, etc.). That's not what I'm here to talk about, though.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "I don't recall mentioning size in any of the objectively-judgeable qualities." So why do I see "You can judge the fit of the item."? What may seem too big to someone may appear small to me. So champ, how can you measure this?
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Fit and size are not the same things.
You can measure how well an item fits on one particular person or a particular body shape (I've also mentioned this before..). A medium may fit one person but not the other. You can objectively judge the way it fits each person.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Your brilliant grammar at work, there." from "judging from stupid fashion is useless"? What was yours? "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless." That's about as dumb downed as your grammar AND spelling mistakes. Saying "judging from stupid" is like saying "judging from retard" which in a sense you're saying judging from a retard point of view. Way to show how intelligent you are. So...you said you’re a book worm?
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Haha, I am indeed a bookworm.
I love how you completely dodge your failed grammar and instead keep attacking mine (btw, I am still waiting for a DIRECT quote of my comment which shows that I attacked your grammar before you attacked mine)
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Quote me where I said the internet is not a good learning tool. It has benefits and consequences just like printed versions, but printed works is an old fashioned way at increasing knowledge. "many people would copy each others work and find other methods." True, but who in particular have you seen do this? You don't know if teachers always collected the work, if every student had to read his/her work aloud, etc.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Once again, here we are going off on the tangent of knowledge, as opposed to the topic of intelligence. I've seen many people copying each others work several times throughout my life, just as many people in the past have.
For instance, in all of my math classes up to 7th grade (where this decreased significantly for being in Honors/AP/IB), several people would just pass around their homework for others to copy.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Similar instances happened for other classes, and have been happening since the beginning of schooling.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "And I am saying that when you provide examples of the type of entertainment you were referring to, you are in essence giving a brief, though vague, definition of entertainment.. " I'm sorry, but was this comment directed towards you? You gave examples, duh...but anything constitutes as entertainment as long as one's happy. I always say "music today sucks." Now would you jump to conclusions and think I mean EVERYTHING sucks? It's just a generalization.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I'm just saying that you did provide a definition and a context for your use of the word 'entertainment' that doesn't imply that ANYTHING and everything constitutes as entertainment..
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Where do you get the idea that Fashion won't always be expensive? Many people want a dress, purse, etc. not necessarily for the reason it appeals to them, but to flaunt what they have. Jeans are still in style, but there are jeans that cost $3000. So then how do you distinguish which one's better if I can't afford the higher one, since I need to be fashionable at best? This is what I meant by it's subjective through what LOOKS good. Yeah, you still need to prove how it's objective!
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Fashion currently is not always expensive. Once again, you can go to a thrift store, find a sale, or go to a store which sells cheaper fashionable items and it is STILL fashion.
Yawn.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 What's wrong with this?
/watch?v=FYx875XKlM8&feature=relmfu
Bullshit like this, and you're no doubt one of these people described in this video. The obvious idea of "easy access to info nowadays" should ring a bell. I have easy access to spark notes, does that mean I know the whole book by heart? Does me looking up wikipedia instantly mean that I have a VAST knowledge of anything (considering it could be edited by anyone cough...cough) and since it's viewed frequently.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Well, first of all, I think you have some seriously inaccurate perceptions about me based on this video you've provided.
Did I ever say that reading spark notes gives you knowledge of the whole book, or that it's better than reading the actual book? Did I ever say Wikipedia is a reliable source of information?
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul I'm not here to debate HOW people use the information available to them (i.e. they would just skim the book briefly versus using spark notes or skim over one or two chapters in a book versus reading Wikipedia). I'm not talking about how people skim over magazine articles vs Google searching.
I'm talking about the actual information provided, the depth of information and the validity of it - regardless of the medium of publication.
More tangents, please.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Sure, you can say whether you personally prefer the item, what you personally think which is subjective, but there is still the objective point as well." SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...what is it? Are there links (send me to my inbox etc.) that you have that tell me from a scientific point of view, this item is more better looking than another? You talked about how I dismissed this earlier before, yet you can't even come up with a concrete argument. What a shocker.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
For instance, let's compare this to vocal ability.
3 objective criteria:
Power (P), flexibility(F), range(R)
3 people (order from strongest trait to weakest trait)
A: P, F, R
B: F, P, R
C: R, P, F
How do you determine which person is the better singer? Well, this depends on how you weight R P and F. Let's say R=2, P=1, F=1 (completely arbitrary and subjective rating). Now you can determine which singer is the 'best'.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93
Just because there is the subjective element present when judging who is the best singer doesn't mean there is no objective element present.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
For instance, some objective ways to judge fashion..
You can judge the quality of the items (as well as the items which make up the items). The way it was put together, how sturdy it is, how long it lasts, etc. You can judge the material used to craft the items. Such as the quality of the items, the thickness, the feel (i.e. whether it's 'scratchy' or 'stretchy' or whatever)
You can judge the fit of the item (how well does this flatter this particular person?)
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 And where's YOUR research? Not general? These quotes came from famous writers, novelists, neurobiologists, and you're saying it's complete bullshit? I find that funny considering you have YET to prove what I provided invalid. You haven't gone to sources, quoted historians for that matter etc. All this talk about HOURS and HOURS of research yet what I received has been ALL your opinion (which I'm guessing you must believe you're right with no knowledge to back it up.)
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Hours and hours of research that I myself have done in the past (not an 'opinion'), and still do to this day, for academic research. Do I need to quote myself?
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Just because there is a subjective element doesn't mean there is no objective element." Another comment, with the same inference! Well, get on with it and tell me. I thought you had knowledge over this topic. Wasn't I the same dumbass who said judging from fashion is stupid and then you said I should be careful with what I say? It turns out you're ignorant to the one thing you're trying to defend. I have to give you a standing ovation for this.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
You can judge the originality of the item, the cut of the item, the quality of the texture of the item, etc. via similar means listed above
Sure, you can say whether you personally prefer the item, what you personally think which is subjective, but there is still the objective point as well.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Do you think they didn't pass notes, draw pictures, skip class, play games, go completely off topic, etc.?" How do you know how much they were just as distracted? As I said, there were several punishments to enforce that no one fools around. If no one's distracted as much why is the obesity rate at its highest in the US today than ever before? Those activities you listed burn more calories, and remember exercise is more important for a stronger mind.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Obesity rate? Completely irrelevant topic, but I'll list off a few relevant details - lack of physical exercise, diet, GMO's, meat consumption, pollution, etc.
In the past, cooking, physical exercise, etc. used to be more common in regards to the type of distraction, resulting in overall healthier people. This type of distraction could have been replaced by technology.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I currently volunteer at a library, have volunteered at nursing homes, art museums, and talked to neighbors, etc. where I have engaged in various conversation with the elderly who were alive during the time without the technology we have now.
You'd be surprised just how distracted they were in the past.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Also, passing notes, drawing pictures, skipping class, playing games, going off topic doesn't necessarily 'burn more calories', lol.
Just remember:
Correlation does not imply causation.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Quote where I said you attacked my grammar first? “I love how you completely dodge your failed grammar” comments like this are why you'll never learn. Let's take a walk down memory lane shall we?
"“Actually, placing a comma after 'keep trying' is fine. Perhaps you need an English class. =)” What twat doesn't know that a sentence can't be left without a SUBJECT. Is "sat down, though" complete? What about "who" sat down. "I sat down, though I fell".
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
The subjective part also comes in when you are weighting each particular part of the objective points (i.e. how much does quality mean, how much does fit mean, etc). Same as you have with vocal ability, for instance (i.e. how much does the emotion in the voice mean, how much does vocal range matter, how much does vocal flexibility mean).
Just because there is a subjective element doesn't mean there is no objective element.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Again, distractions do exist, but you're implying that they all have the same effect. WRONG. Now teens can have their own TV, access to internet, even Automobiles by 16. Before, it was at least more active activities and they mostly had to search for the entertainment. it's not like you could just pop an mp3 player in your ears, you needed to be in something called a "building" to play a record. To go to the movies they would normally do something called "walking".
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I never implied they ALL have the same effect, I'm just saying the level of distraction present today is similar, if not the same as it was in the past. More straw men, please.
So, because (some) distractions are more easily accessible means that the distraction level today is higher than the distraction level of the past? Can't say I agree with the 'logic', there.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "The color palette, brightness of the color, dullness, flattery etc. are indeed objective parts. How you individually weight these qualities when determining the overall ranking of the colors is subjective." Brightness and dullness can be measured but how does this affect which one is fashionable than another? One can't be too bright or too dull? How do you know? It comes back down to choosing which one is better looking (subjective matter.)
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I recommend looking at my earlier comment for further clarification.
How you decide to weight these (i.e. whether brightness or dullness is preferred) is indeed subjective. However, you can *still* objectively judge the brightness and dullness.
You don't say you can't objectively judge vocal ability just because there is a subjective element, but you so eagerly say fashion is unable to be objectively judged because of that same subjective element.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmadison93 lmao as if this is a discussion page, you commented me from my comment a month ago. I did not say we're open to entertainment today? It's common sense. Of course they had entertainment during BC years. Shoot, even killing other people was entertainment for crying out loud, but what I'm getting at is that they weren't open to much entertainment as we were. These people had to revolve around moving all the time and hunting. Do you think we'd last a year in the lives of them?
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
Comment removed
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
Christina: One of the biggest stars in the history of music
Kelly Shitbourne: One of the biggest shits in the history of nothing
nastygreyfurt 2 months ago 4
creo que es ovio quien es a la que invitan a los eventos por su propio esfuerzo y trabajo y quien tiene el lugar que tiene por su talento asi que no hay discucion xD
holaholahola470 3 months ago
Xtina all the way ....Fuck kelly she is just an ugly ass bitch
CAF4EVER1 3 months ago 6
You record this with dog crap
shadowloks2292 4 months ago
XTINA CUZ SHE HAS TRUE TALENT
prettiestgirlinutube 4 months ago
the video's title is wrong it should say Christina Aguilera vs. Nobody .. Who fuckin' knows that kelly bitch? And this battle is a total joke! Xtina beats that whore just with her name!
johetan 4 months ago
Kelly who??
MilesDemetriaSelx 4 months ago
does anyone have this in English?
redfrosting123 4 months ago
wow
gerkell1990 4 months ago
Kelly Rocks ! If xtina didnt have such a bad attitude i would like her wayyy more
cunni3tv 5 months ago
@cunni3tv You know I can't believe you just said that. Hahahaha.
DominicSings 4 months ago
@DominicSings why? o.o
cunni3tv 4 months ago
@cunni3tv Because you make no sense at all. Christina has a bad attitude? Excuse me, it is Kelly that's giving all the bullcrap here you know...
DominicSings 4 months ago
@DominicSings Because xtina has always treat her bad. EVERYBODY knows xtina has an attitud problem. Kelly for my opinion has always being the same
cunni3tv 4 months ago
kelly perra maldita
pcool25 5 months ago
@pcool25 TOTALMENTE,,A ESO LE LLAMO ENVIDIA.KELLY ES UNA ENVIDIOSA D ELLA
aluminum86 5 months ago
@aluminum86 siiii es envidiaa totalmente! christina siempre sera mejor que ella...
pcool25 5 months ago
@pcool25 por mas ke ahora tenga unos kilitos de mas ke tiene? es logico tubo un hijo,esta disfrutando d su dinero!a ke mujer no le ha pasado d tener unos kilitos alo largo d su vida?!,uu pero se ke christina los bajara!!y le cerrara la boka a esta persona detestable,xq si cris alguna vez la llamo gorda..ke le hizo ella primero?salu2
aluminum86 5 months ago
i love that people are saying kellys a nobody, but now kellys a somebody and christinas a nobody now. no one cares about christina agulera.
InvadorKim 5 months ago
@InvadorKim kelly's a somebody????/when???????lmao
griik123 5 months ago
@griik123 since she got on fashion police, lost a bunch of weight, and christina declined....a lot.
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim Being a fashion police is a job? Christina doesn't make the best music, but she surely has talent to back her up and she got fame on her own. Kelly was born into it. I dislike people like Kelly a lot more because she's judging fashion and she was born into a rich family. God forbid she was born into the poor family, would she be a fashion police then?
PopRocknSoul 4 months ago
@PopRocknSoul I'm not intending to get into an interweb argument, in all honesty, i kind of dislike them both. I just think kelly appears to be less stupid, thought there's no denying that christina has SO MUCH talent. She just acts kind of....stupid, and on the Voice, a bit immature.
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim Immature? You're assuming you know Christina just from the show? Have you met her? Had dinner with her? Lived with her? I judged Kelly from being a brat and spoiled, but I'm not saying that I know for a fact she always acts like this.
PopRocknSoul 4 months ago
@PopRocknSoul dude, i said she ACTS kind of stupid and a bit immature. i didn't say she is, i said she appears stupid. i honestly don't care. i came across this video, made a comment and got into a stupid argument. to be frank, i dont really like either of their public appearances.
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim So if you don't know the whole story, why bother make such remarks dude? And you dislike them both, why bother waste your time on this. You previously wrote "i love that people are saying kellys a nobody, but now kellys a somebody and christinas a nobody now. no one cares about christina agulera." Yeah, it seems like you really dislike Kelly. Kelly's a nobody because she didn't work for her success, it was handed to her. That doesn't make you a somebody nor what she does is a job.
PopRocknSoul 4 months ago
@PopRocknSoul dude, hahahahaha. I really don't care. You're quoting me now? haha. I'm sorry i have a different opinion than you. Are you that upset over two people you don't even know? This is really the issue you're upset with? hahaha. I just said that because i felt bad for kelly, because everyone was commenting how awful she is. I dislike her a bit less than christina, and decided to comment something on her side. i just don't care.
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim I'm quoting you because you're contradicting yourself buddy. And of course you have a different opnion than me, I was just pointing out how flawed yours was. I'm not the type to put celebrities on a pedestal, but I can at least respect that Christina worked her way up and has somewhat talent. Kelly? Where's hers? Fashion Police and a reality show isn't a job. Even if I hated Christina as well, Christina would still be the lesser of the two evils.
PopRocknSoul 4 months ago
@PopRocknSoul Listen dude, i don't care. I'm not replying to anymore comments left because this is getting ridiculous. I decided to troll on a video, and frankly, Im bored of trolling on this video now.
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim Yeah, that's what I thought. You see where trolling gets you. What's more ridiculous is that you don't care yet you responded for the past 3 posts with the most ignorant accusations. But whatever, take your leave.
PopRocknSoul 4 months ago
@PopRocknSoul Ok. Now i'm actually contradicting myself. I said i would leave, and i didn't. You see, that's what a contradiction is. I'd like to tell you that trolling is acting ignorant and stupid, and offending someone on purpose just to get them angry and laugh at them. I was doing that. And I'd also like to request that you tell me exactly how any of my posts were, and i quote, "the most ignorant accusations."
InvadorKim 4 months ago
@InvadorKim Plain and simple: "since she got on fashion police, lost a bunch of weight, and christina declined....a lot." That's an ignorant accusation as to how Kelly is a somebody compared to the "nobody" Christina. I've already stated before countless of times as to how fashion police isn't a job, two, Kelly was born into fame, so she gets money from inheritance (she doesn't have to do shit). And three, she isn't a somebody because she lost weight. As if low weight means you're a somebody.
PopRocknSoul 3 months ago
@PopRocknSoul hmm, well you've misinterpreted my statement about Kelly loosing weight. In no way do i believe low weight makes you a somebody. I think that it takes a lot of work to lose weight, and that she's inspired many women. And Fashion Police is a job. It's a television show. That's like saying The Voice isn't a show. She shows knowledge in the most popular trends, which i don't care about, but someone does. And just because she was born into money doesn't mean shes any less important
InvadorKim 3 months ago
@InvadorKim Then why did you tell that person in his reply to how is Kelly a somebody. How is the fashion police a job? By "job" I don't mean any job since being a hooker, paparazzi, pornographer aren't jobs that do ANYTHING for the world. I don't consider The Voice a job of Christina either. Christina's music is a craft. What is the fashion police besides talking about stupid stuff on who wore it the best and who's the worst? The world can live without it, hence it's not a real job.
PopRocknSoul 3 months ago
@PopRocknSoul Ok, so by your standards, for something to be a job, the world can't live without it. So that means actor,'s singer's, dancer;s, artist's and photographer's aren't employed. You would've hated the renaissance.
InvadorKim 3 months ago
@InvadorKim Not actually. That's entertainment, but it requires skill to do it...and to do it right. Plus without music, this would be a much more depressing world (fact). Back 3000 years they had no forms of entertainment. We all listen to music, watch movies, see dancers and look at photography because it's an art. Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect.
PopRocknSoul 3 months ago
@PopRocknSoul Did you just say it's a fact this world would be more depressing without music? as if it was scientifically proven? Well, moving on, not everyone can afford the museum, concerts, and certainly not the ballet. They're actually quite expensive, and there actually is skill in judging fashion. You have to have a knowledge on what trends are popular, what style clothes compliment what body type. I wear whatever the fuck i want, but even i can see the skill required in fashion.
InvadorKim 3 months ago
@InvadorKim If it's not scientifically proven, what do you do during your free time? Exercise, dancing, listening to music? Up to the extent of it requiring talent is what makes it good. That's a skill? What importance does it have for the rest? 80% can't afford those clothes on a daily basis, but to listen to music, see music videos, ect. it's not expensive. Knowledge of history, science ect. takes talent and time. Just like learning the prinicples of music. That crap has none. All subjective.
PopRocknSoul 3 months ago
@PopRocknSoul
3000 years ago they had many forms of entertainment. Various 'ball' games, plenty of strategic games used with sticks/rocks/etc, pottery, artwork (paintings), rough-housing, gardening, sewing, etc.
To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale, go to any store and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range. Fasion=art as well.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
There was plenty of dancing and music in the past, as well. And not just in the form of festivals.
In fact, the roots of all music goes back to the past where people were just whistling, humming, banging on random objects, singing, etc.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
For fashion - do you even understand the work and thought put into developing clothing? Have you ever been to a fashion show? Ever seen designers doing the hard work? Ever seen the development phase of fashion? Or do you just dismiss fashion as unartistic and talentless because you can't afford the expensive clothing?
Should I dismiss certain paintings as unartistic because I'm forced to pay a lot of money to see them?
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 First off, nice argument that took you three paragraphs, and still doesn't prove what I was saying. From an objective point of view, is there a "correct" way of judging? It's all a matter of opinion. I'm not saying the people who designed the clothing are talentless, but the people judging the clothes are. There's a huge difference in judging and actually doing something, and that's what I was saying.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
You said there were no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago, and you are wrong. That was a solid 2 comments there, that you seem so eager to dismiss.
Right. So if I judge a certain artistic item, that means I'm talentless. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember that next time I'm listening to someone play the piano like an amateur, and totally forget the 10 years of practice I've put into it.
Yawn. You are such a bore.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 *"You're", You should keep that in mind. Of course those other things are entertainment, but they didn't have what we have today. That's what I'm talking about. We're more open to entertainment than people back in the days. Do you know how to read? I said from an objective view is there any way of judging fashion. It's all subjective, one can think one item looks nice and another could be horrible to another etc. Considering musical talent can be measured, nice try at an argument.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
We are more open to entertainment? How so? Please, elaborate.
Is there an 'objective' way of judging musical talent? Vocal range, flexibility, power, etc?
For fashion - originality, fit, cut, texture, color, quality, presentation?
Subjective - whether you personally enjoy the music or the particular fashion.
Nice try at an argument.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Bahaha, you don't even understand what I mean by more open to entertainment? So now you can't understand common sense. Example: Internet, Cell Phones, Laptops, Game Systems, YouTube, Social media etc. I know musical talent can be measured hence why I said your argument of judging someone who plays piano is pointless comparing it to judging fashion. "For fashion - originality, fit, cut, texture, color, quality, presentation?" These are mostly subjective things.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Actually, those are mostly not subjective things.
Have you abandoned all hopes of engaging in a logical debate here? Judging from you repeated ad hominems, it sure seems that way.
Also, in the comment of yours that I originally addressed, you did not say, 'we are more open to entertainment' you said there were 'no form of entertainment 3000 years ago'.
Go back and read your comment if you forget.
Do you know how to read?
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Repeated ad hominems? Very ironic considering you were the one saying that I was a "bore" but yet continues to insinuate the conversation. So now you're going to judge my views from a paragraph and then attack on that matter 500 times? So much for me using repeated ad hominems, take a look at yourself first. Like I have all the time in the day to state everything I believe and see in the page of this video. Sorry if I don't have much time on my hands to write all my beliefs.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
"We are more open to entertainment" - You mean we have more access to entertainment? Could have meant we are more willing to accept various different types of entertainment than in the past. If you looked up the definition of 'open' you would understand how vague your claim that 'we are more open to entertainment' really is.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 How can you judge color? Can I judge tone color? Can I judge that black is a better color than purple? I've seen the fashion police and they have different views on what looks good and what doesn't. Where's the science that they're right is what I'm saying. " Could have meant we are more willing to accept various different types of entertainment than in the past." No. If I were to say we're more open to cyberbullies than ever before, where am I getting at? Vulnerability.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
So, you're entire claim that fashion cannot be judged objectively is based off of the fashion police? Yes, a lot of what the fashion police says opinion, but how does that mean fashion cannot be judged objectively or from a more 'scientific' point of view in the variety of ways I have listed before.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Um, *your, not you're. So know I see you're doing exactly what I did now. More hypocrisy. Now that I've lashed onto a point you were trying to prove, you seem to have edged it to the side and decided to make ridiculous claims that "it can be judged scientifically" yet there's no proof on your behalf.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Sure, you can insert the subjective part into the equation - whether you personally like those qualities present in a particular item. Stil doesn't mean there's no objective way of measuring fashion.
I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on what you meant by 'more open to entertainment'. I'm looking for a very clear definition from you so you can't keep beating around the bush (oh, I didn't mean they had NO forms of entertainment even though that's what I claimed.)
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 "Stil doesn't mean there's no objective way of measuring fashion." But that's where I was getting at. At the end of the day, YOU told me that I shouldn't talk about fashion when I don't have the money to pay for it (ad hominem from which you started and then dare to say I used them first). The production to make a certain item value is subjective as well. I bet if Christina Aguilera autographed on my $50 sweater, I could sell it for thousands just because she signed on it.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
You are merely taking me out of context and throwing up yet another straw man.
I told you that you shouldn't say that fashion is unable to be judged objectively or that it is meaningless because you or someone else can't afford to buy the higher end pieces of clothing or accessories.
The production CAN be objectively judged (i.e. HOW it was produced, what methods were used).
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Value can only be judged to a certain extent. Ex: if all the food around the world was completely scarce to the point where it's hard to find or grow, what would be valued more? The food or the 5000$ purse? In this case, the value changes dramatically, and so does if something goes out of style EVEN in a matter of weeks. If anyone is talking out of context it's certainly you. So a 5000$ sweater might drop down to 3000$ in just one week. So, where's the logic?
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Where and when did I ever say or imply that value could be objectively judged? Please, provide quotes from my earlier comments.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 You've talked about quality haven't you and what type of material they use? Or now have you forgotten? Quality and what takes time, YES. Depending on the Material: NO.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Uh? Quality as in quality, not value? They are two different concepts.
Going off on your red herrings again?
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 How are they different? Value is dependent on quality just like morals is dependent of a mind. And how is it off topic when your first intelligent comment derived that I COULDN'T afford the clothes, so therefore I shouldn't be in the position to talk about it? Smart.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Value is a monetary quality. I.e. the clothes are worth $10 dollars.
Quality refers to stability, how sturdy,etc.
Sure, you can say value is related to quality, but quality can still be measured objectively. Going off on your red herrings again?
Morals and the mind are two different things, much like value and quality are.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Morals and the minds are two different things? So then why does an animal like a Tiger not think the way we do; for example can it control its actions? Can it feel remorse? In order to have morals, you need to have a mind. That was what I was talking about in terms of value dependent on quality. However it's all DIFFERENT to people. People hold things in higher and low standards.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Often times, value is dependent on quality. I am not arguing this point. I am saying that value and quality are two different things.
For instance, if a baby is dependent on a mother, if position is dependent on time, does that mean they are the same thing? No, they are two different things. Just like quality and value, morals and the mind are each their own individual thing.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Here are my comments you seem so eager to take out of context:
"To assume that the name brand clothing is the only thing that is considered 'fashionable' is fallacious at best. Go to a thrift store, find a sale, go to any store and you will find 'fashionable' clothing to buy, for any price range. Fasion=art as well."
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Yeah, I just quoted "the one I was eager to take out of context" just like you did to mines (except you had a heart attack over it). Nice attempt in thinking I wasn't going to find the comment "I took very seriously." I wouldn't take it seriously if you weren't taking mines (which wasn't even directed towards you and you generalized). To assume I thought they did absolutely nothing shows how lazy you became, and yet now when I point fingers, it's "out of context." Figures.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
No, I did not take you out of context.
"There were no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago"
How can you take THAT statement out of context? I didn't.
You just chose your words poorly and now this has come back to bite you in the ass.
The context and intent of my comments were VERY clear, yet you still eagerly took them out of context and twisted my words into something I obviously never implied or even hinted at.
Seriously, take English 101. It'll help you.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 "you take out of context" You mean "you took." From this, I can tell you need English 101. Get the grammar book too while you're at it. I'm sure from your phone, it doesn't cost 3 minutes to LOOK that hard for it. Yes, very clear. So you find "open to entertainment" ambiguous but not "no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago." Then, your comments are telling me "my comments are very clear." I Might as well list all the hypocrisy you've just created (sadly, with a working brain.)
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Actually, this is proper grammar. "You take me out of context"
One possible meaning is that you are currently taking me out of context.
Nothing wrong with that 'improper grammar'
Seriously, take an English class. You're making a fool of yourself. Your junk arguments are getting old, but I guess this is what happens when a fool doesn't want to admit how flawed his arguments are. Cute.
Try again, I'm eagerly waiting for your next 'logical' reply.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 It wasn't correct grammar because you're talking about the past, so no, it's not proper grammar. Just like "we are conversating" is wrong. It would be "we are conversing". And then you jump to "take an English class" and yet you say I'm the one off topic. Your grammar is horrendous. I'm wondering at this point if you write your research papers with this abomination. Try again, I'm waiting for more grammatical fails and the same old response to an old argument.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
You take me out of context is proper grammar (as in you currently take me out of context). I was not implying past tense. I shouldn't be held accountable for your failed inferences, or failed understanding of the English language.
Please learn about the word take and the various forms of this word.
Take, taking, took, etc.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "From my comments, and even this short snippet of the comment you take out of context" You were implying past tense here since you're talking about a past action of where I TOOK you out of context. You should be held accountable for this atrocity since after all I was the one who mistakenly posted "no forms of entertainment" wrong, right? Did I write it wrongly? YES, and I admit to that, but it was a month ago, it wasn't directed to you, and I've moved on.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
And, you are still continuing to take me out of context, thus my sentence is correct.
Finally you freely admit that your comment of 'no forms of entertainment 3000 years ago' is unsupported and wrong. Glad we could clear this up.
No amount of attacking my grammar will make your 'arguments' regarding this topic valid, though. But, keep changing the subject, it's okay.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 You responded the same day *shocker*. Yes, we still have to wait until you CAN clear up that your statements are unsupported and wrong. As if attacking your grammar is the only thing I have up my sleeve. Tell me, have you even quoted ONE supporting detail to anything you've said about fashion or how the internet hasn't INCREASED our knowledge? All you’re telling me is to quote, what about you book worm?
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I've brought up several valid ways to objectively judge fashion, which you have denied. I never said the internet has 'increased' our knowledge, nor do I need to support that claim.
Also, we were having a discussion about the effects of the internet on intelligence, not knowledge. Why change the subject..?
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
I'm telling you to quote MY comments and YOUR comments to support your claims about the arguments I have put forth (because you have a tendency to cherry pick my comments and throw up straw men) and to quote your own comments to support your claim of what you are arguing (since you have a tendency to change the subject and dodge the points I'm bringing up).
For instance, quote the place where I was the first to 'attack' your grammar.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
And still your comment of, 'judging from stupid fashion is useless,' isn't exactly the epitome of excellence in regards to grammar.
Yes, 'Keep trying, though' is in proper form. Sorry if you didn't know that prior to this discussion.
Also, if you had a college education you would know many colleges refer to English classes as ENG or ENGL for short.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "And still your comment of, 'judging from stupid fashion is useless,' isn't exactly the epitome of excellence in regards to grammar." Care to explain, ah that's right, you can't! What's your brilliant way of correcting this? "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless." Go back to my previous comments and see how exactly I tore this up.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Hahahaha, you need to simmer down.
Please, explain how 'judging from stupid fashion is useless' is proper grammar. In case you didn't know, it's not. But, leave it to you to dodge the point and try to attack me instead, lol.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
"No forms of entertainment 3000 years ago" is not an ambiguous statement.
"Open to entertainment" is an ambiguous statement.
"Open" is an ambiguous word.
"No forms" is not an ambiguous phrase.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong? You're just grasping at straws.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 "Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?" What a hypocrite I tell you. When I proved you threw the first ad hominem, you didn't admit you were wrong considering you were the one point fingers....hypocrite.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Do I really need to repost my comments yet again? Why don't your read my comments in context, and in full? How did I imply that you shouldn't judge fashion because you can't afford the more expensive clothing? In fact, my FIRST comment was saying how you don't even need money to buy 'fashionable' clothing.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Why don't your read my comments" I thought by ENG 101, one would know the difference between "you" and "your". Don't look at me. You're telling me to take the class, which I'm assuming you TOOK, but this proves otherwise.
"Things which are more entertaining than learning get in the way of learning."
Kids didn't have cell phones, ipods, ipads to get in their way in school in the 50s. You'd be surprised the percentage of people texting during class, or do you really want to know?
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
Yes, people in the 50s didn't have the technology we have today.
Do you think they didn't get as distracted in class though?
Do you think they didn't pass notes, draw pictures, skip class, play games, go completely off topic, etc.?
Once again, things which are more entertaining than learning get in the way of learning (including in the past before we possessed the technology we currently do).
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
And, here's your quote to support my earlier claims in my comments above. (Notice how I actually bring sources into this discussion as opposed to blindly taking people way out of context and throwing up straw men?)
"Judging from stupid fashion is useless. Like does the lower class have enough money to afford those clothes? No. We can all afford to go the museum, concerts, ballet, ect. "
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Just ironic how you are attacking me about my grammar when considering you earlier comments.
For example:
"Judging from stupid fashion is useless"
This would be slightly more accurate if it was
'Judging from stupid, fashion is useless'
Then we would all know that the judgement that fashion is useless is coming from stupidity.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 "Judging from stupid, fashion is useless" You just made the stupidity of that sentence a billion fold. "Judging from stupid makes no sense. That's like saying "judging from retard". Oh and speaking of it.....
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
And now once again, I bring it to your attention that the comment of, 'judging from stupid fashion is useless' was your comment. Your brilliant grammar at work, there.
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 Dude, ANYTHING CONSTITUTES as entertainment. That's why I have been wondering why you were still on that, hence why I said you took a one month ago comment seriously (that wasn't even directed AT you.) Biting your nails is even considered entertainment. Do you know the def. of entertainment? It could be an ACTION, event, activity between individuals OR just ONE person. So yes, masturbating is even a form of entertainment. I wonder if you're still going to ask that same question over.
PopRocknSoul 3 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
And I am saying that when you provide examples of the type of entertainment you were referring to, you are in essence giving a brief, though vague, definition of entertainment.. which I then provided examples of entertainment (that fit your definition) that exited 3,000 years ago. =)
cmadison93 3 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "Once again, remember that you don't need to buy the expensive pieces of clothing in order for it to be considered 'fashion', as I've mentioned earlier." This doesn't tell me how I am fashionable than another fashionable person. Like I said, the idea of one object appealing to another is subjective. I may like to wear plastic bags as a form of fashion. Does that make me scientifically unfashionable?
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
That would depend on how the plastic bags measured up in the objective elements of judging fashion.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
@cmadison93 "I receive an e-mail is partly because I am taking 3 lab classes, thus I need to be in contact with my lab partners." Oh how sweet, do you put my emails a priority than your own lab partners? The number of comments you reply are the number of comments I will reply back. Simple. So soon enough, you'll probably receive 50 e-mails rofl. From this I can infer you're one the phone or inernet all throughout the day. Luckily, debating with someone online is my last priority.
PopRocknSoul 2 weeks ago
@PopRocknSoul
"you're one the phone or internet all throughout the day"
Might want to crack open a grammar book.
Since I reply to YouTube comments on the same day they were posted (usually), that clearly means I'm on the internet/phone all day. Brilliant logic, kid. lol.
cmadison93 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PopRocknSoul
"For fashion - do you even understand the work and thought put into developing clothing? Have you ever been to a fashion show? Ever seen designers doing the hard work? Ever seen the development phase of fashion? Or do you just dismiss fashion as unartistic and talentless because you can't afford the expensive clothing?
Should I dismiss certain paintings as unartistic because I'm forced to pay a lot of money to see them?"
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
PLEASE indicate where I implied that you shouldn't be in a position to talk about it because you can't afford the expensive clothing. PLEASE do. I gave you the WHOLE comment you are so eager to take out of context. Can you provide ANY evidence for your claim?
cmadison93 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
You can judge the color palette, the brightness of the color, dullness, whether that color flatters or not, etc. How you personally feel about the color=subjective
You said that there was NO way of judging fashion objectively. I countered this claim by providing examples of how it could be judged objectively. I don't bear any burden of proof to 'prove that what they say can't be opinion' as this is entirely unrelated and irrelevant.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 So what's the difference between a 50 dollar purse and a 5000 dollar purse. The 5000 dollar purse isn't even all that difficult to make from a 50 dollar purse and it could even be smaller. That's where holding things in high standards comes from. Again, the subjectiveness. Those weren't objective points though, so your counter argument had failed. Now you decide to say it's unrelated and irrelevant. Dear lord, you start this conversation and now you're trying to run away.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Also, I never said you can judge that one color is a better color than another. Just like you can't judge whether one note is better than another.
Nice try, though. Keep up the straw men.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 "Keep up the straw men." *man. You should work on your grammar skills and you should come back with relevant points as to how it's objective. "We are more open to entertainment." For the fiftieth time, in words you can understand: We are more vulnerable to entertainment. Ex: Try to stop someone in the city that doesn't have a cell phone, watch, car, laptop, computer, etc.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Actually, no. I used 'men' to indicate the plural, meaning you have provided many fallacious arguments of the sort defined as 'straw man'.
More vulnerability to entertainment? Meaning we are more likely to be harmed by it? Mm, pretty sure entertainment 3,000 years ago was just about as dangerous as it is now.. I think you are looking for a different word.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Plural refers to more than one person though, so it's wrong. Or are you talking to imaginary people now? By vulnerability it's pretty obvious: Damage that is foreseen and people continue to use it. Tell me, after all the technology in the world, how much has the integrity of the human brain increased. Answer: It hasn't. You'd think with all the technology we have in the world, being exposed to so much info, it's not helping us get any smarter. My point exactly.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Do you know what a straw man is? The straw man I am referring to is not an actual person. A straw man is a sham argument set up to be defeated. Guess what you can have several sham arguments, resulting in the proper plural version of the term 'straw man' as 'straw men'.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Well, unfortunately, good for you. However, you had a bunch of other mistakes and you spelled "still" as "stil." Might want to take another look and by the way I even quoted that sentence with the mistake.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Right. I love how your point magically changed from your original comment (remember, back when you said people 3,000 years ago had no forms of entertainment and I thoroughly disproved that while you went off on a tangent?)
How do you know the average level of intelligence over the past few thousand years hasn't increased? Do you have knowledge (preferably verified by scientific study) regarding the intelligence of ancient civilization in comparison to us?
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 I LOVE how you dwell on a sentence 2 months ago that wasn't even directed to you. In fact, you generalized my statement. Like I said, killing a person was goddamn entertainment, even sex was, walking to look for food, so did you think I literally meant they did ABSOLUTELY nothing?
My point exactly on the average level of intelligence hasn't increased: You somehow have no common sense. If you're still taking my comment from this point of view, it's pretty obvious.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago
@PopRocknSoul
Lol, you're still grasping at straws. How cute.
In fact, I took your statement, "They had no entertainment 3000 years ago" quite literally. Perhaps you should be more careful with what you say, lest you sound like a fool.
Can you actually address my counter arguments without your fallacious red herrings (i.e. ad hominem)? Or do you have no substance to your 'arguments' anymore? Cute.
cmadison93 1 month ago
@cmadison93 Aha, so why are you jumping to conclusions then with "no entertainment 3000 years ago" versus "open to entertainment"? That's what I thought. I should be careful with what I say? This is coming from the person who says I'm throwing an ad hominem meanwhile you were the first to throw that I couldn't afford the clothes, so I shouldn't be speaking about fashion. Careful with what you say champ, and was I having THAT debate with you? No. You decided to have a heart attack over that.
PopRocknSoul 1 month ago