6 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding what he meant. At least, it seems that what you got out of what he said isn't what I did. When he said 'quality', I didn't think

I think you're misunderstanding what he meant. At least, it seems that what you got out of what he said isn't what I did. When he said 'quality', I didn't think he was talking about people as "mates" or as gene quality or some such. I took 'quality' to mean exactly what you want it to mean - attractiveness, how much fun they are to be around, etc etc. Basically, whatever you would look for in a 'significant other' - certainly not just gene quality or whatever. As for the tone, it is a bit unusual, I guess. Our crowd - hackers, programmers, engineers, nerds, whatever you want to call them - does tend to like abstracting things away, trying to model life that goes on around us in a precise and systematic way. The tone is due just to that.

foldr 17y ago
Don't you think that "quality" is an odd word to use for that? I make no apologies for responding to the connotations of a word in context as well as its literal meaning.
- PieSquared 17y ago
  Eh, not really. You can talk about quality of conversation, quality of life, quality of friendship. Why not quality of people?
  - foldr 17y ago
    I find the phrase "quality of people" pretty jarring. YMMV, I suppose.
    - enneff 17y ago
      I suppose it is important to note that we're talking about the subjective quality of the person. You're lying if you can't look at someone and tell me whether they appear to meet your personal criteria for physical quality. My suspicion is that there is a correlation between self-esteem and ones comfort with the word "quality" when applied to people. I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person", so I have no problem with the term. If I was insecure and didn't think of myself as a person of quality, then I might have an issue with the concept.
      - foldr 17y ago
        Do you honestly think I am arguing against the banal and obvious truth that some people are more attractive than other people? I'm not going to rehearse my point all over again, but please, give me some credit... > I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person" But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :)
        enneff 17y ago
        > But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :) Indeed, but that's the point, isn't it?
        foldr 17y ago
        Well, I don't agree with that. You should respect the judgment of people who think that you're a bad person if they seem to have generally good judgment in other areas. Basically, this is the jester's point in Twelfth Night: "I'm better because of my enemies and worse because of my friends."
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Of course you do--the idea of all people being equal is pretty strongly ingrained in our society, so the idea of some people being fundamentally higher or lower quality is difficult to accept.
      - foldr 17y ago
        I don't find it difficult to accept myself. Sure, some people are better at some things than other people. Some people are hot and some people are ugly. If you think that you're some kind of intellectual rebel because you've noticed these obvious truths, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this has anything to do with what I was saying. >the idea of all people being equal is pretty strongly ingrained in our society, The idea that all people have equal rights is deeply ingrained, but I've never met anyone who actually thought that everyone was equal in a dumb, literal sense; that's just a straw man.
        philwelch 17y ago
        "Sure, some people are better at some things than other people. Some people are hot and some people are ugly." No, I meant even more literally--the idea that some people are fundamentally higher or lower quality, that some people have more worth as a human being than others.
        foldr 17y ago
        That is (a) false and (b) has nothing to do with the point at hand (the OP has "good skin" as one of his indicators of quality -- he's clearly not talking about quality in a deep sense, unless you think that having good skin makes you worth more as a human being!).
        philwelch 17y ago
        Why not? It might make you worth a little more as a human being, all other things kept equal. Wouldn't the perfect human have good skin? Seriously though, the reason describing people as being "high quality" or "low quality" sounds jarring is because on a very fundamental level, it sounds like we're judging people, and judging people is taboo.
    - yters 17y ago
      People are ontologically equal, we all have the same fundamental ability to make free moral decisions, which is what makes us human. However, people are not equal in the gifts they've been given. But, I agree with your fundamental point. True relationships aren't based on our external qualities, but on the soul. Today's evolutionary stupidity completely blinds many to deeper relationships.
pvg 17y ago
Maybe you've misread the post he's responding to? 'fun to be around' did not figure, it starts out with clothes, make-up, hair, looking 'sexualized' and after a self-congratulatory bit about imposing his idea of style on some woman, it goes right to the cattle market to outline the preferences in walk, skin, hips, musculature, shoulders and diet. That tone is not 'nerd', it's 'obliviously misogynist clod'.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- enneff 17y ago
  To have strong feelings about what you want in a partner makes you misogynist?! This is too much.
  - pvg 17y ago
    Did I say that? It really makes discussion a lot more interesting if you reply (however indignantly) to something that was actually said rather than something that merely makes you indignant.

foldr 17y ago

Don't you think that "quality" is an odd word to use for that? I make no apologies for responding to the connotations of a word in context as well as its literal meaning.

PieSquared 17y ago
Eh, not really. You can talk about quality of conversation, quality of life, quality of friendship. Why not quality of people?
- foldr 17y ago
  I find the phrase "quality of people" pretty jarring. YMMV, I suppose.
  - enneff 17y ago
    I suppose it is important to note that we're talking about the subjective quality of the person. You're lying if you can't look at someone and tell me whether they appear to meet your personal criteria for physical quality. My suspicion is that there is a correlation between self-esteem and ones comfort with the word "quality" when applied to people. I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person", so I have no problem with the term. If I was insecure and didn't think of myself as a person of quality, then I might have an issue with the concept.
    - foldr 17y ago
      Do you honestly think I am arguing against the banal and obvious truth that some people are more attractive than other people? I'm not going to rehearse my point all over again, but please, give me some credit... > I know that anyone whose judgment I respect would view me as a "quality person" But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :)
      - enneff 17y ago
        > But then, presumably you wouldn't respect their judgment if they didn't :) Indeed, but that's the point, isn't it?
        foldr 17y ago
        Well, I don't agree with that. You should respect the judgment of people who think that you're a bad person if they seem to have generally good judgment in other areas. Basically, this is the jester's point in Twelfth Night: "I'm better because of my enemies and worse because of my friends."
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Of course you do--the idea of all people being equal is pretty strongly ingrained in our society, so the idea of some people being fundamentally higher or lower quality is difficult to accept.
    - foldr 17y ago
      I don't find it difficult to accept myself. Sure, some people are better at some things than other people. Some people are hot and some people are ugly. If you think that you're some kind of intellectual rebel because you've noticed these obvious truths, then I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but none of this has anything to do with what I was saying. >the idea of all people being equal is pretty strongly ingrained in our society, The idea that all people have equal rights is deeply ingrained, but I've never met anyone who actually thought that everyone was equal in a dumb, literal sense; that's just a straw man.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        "Sure, some people are better at some things than other people. Some people are hot and some people are ugly." No, I meant even more literally--the idea that some people are fundamentally higher or lower quality, that some people have more worth as a human being than others.
        foldr 17y ago
        That is (a) false and (b) has nothing to do with the point at hand (the OP has "good skin" as one of his indicators of quality -- he's clearly not talking about quality in a deep sense, unless you think that having good skin makes you worth more as a human being!).
        philwelch 17y ago
        Why not? It might make you worth a little more as a human being, all other things kept equal. Wouldn't the perfect human have good skin? Seriously though, the reason describing people as being "high quality" or "low quality" sounds jarring is because on a very fundamental level, it sounds like we're judging people, and judging people is taboo.
  - yters 17y ago
    People are ontologically equal, we all have the same fundamental ability to make free moral decisions, which is what makes us human. However, people are not equal in the gifts they've been given. But, I agree with your fundamental point. True relationships aren't based on our external qualities, but on the soul. Today's evolutionary stupidity completely blinds many to deeper relationships.

pvg 17y ago

Maybe you've misread the post he's responding to? 'fun to be around' did not figure, it starts out with clothes, make-up, hair, looking 'sexualized' and after a self-congratulatory bit about imposing his idea of style on some woman, it goes right to the cattle market to outline the preferences in walk, skin, hips, musculature, shoulders and diet. That tone is not 'nerd', it's 'obliviously misogynist clod'.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
enneff 17y ago
To have strong feelings about what you want in a partner makes you misogynist?! This is too much.
- pvg 17y ago
  Did I say that? It really makes discussion a lot more interesting if you reply (however indignantly) to something that was actually said rather than something that merely makes you indignant.