Angles and upper eyelid exposure

[Deleted member 7580]

If I take selfie from below angle I have lots of uee in pics. Took few selfies while driving and noticed uee and honestly wanted to throw my phone outside and drive over it

but when I take pics from eye level there’s minimum uee (what I see in mirror) and doesn’t look bad

wtf is this ? Which pics are real me ?

 

[Deleted member 6217]

you're subhuman sorry bro

 

[recessed]

Its over
Chad looks good under all angles

 

[Deleted member 7580]

Should I get fillers for uee ? I’ve read they can migrate and fuck up your face and make you look bloated

 

[wagbox]

Fillers are legit for uee

 

[Deleted member 7580]

I have similar uee, maybe little less from good angles
Fillers worth it ?

 

[MisterMercedes]

I wouldn’t waste money on it as you have decent fat pads, it’s just your high set brow ridge gives you UEE. You could get “hooded” eyes with more fat pads, but it doesn’t look as aesthetic/aggressive as hooded eyes that come from a low brow ridge.

Hooding from prominent fat pads:

Hooding from low brow ridge:

 

[MisterMercedes]

Shit advice as usual.

How so?

 

[MisterMercedes]

Because what you said was incorrect.

What was incorrect?

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Depends if u are looking straight or down. Down more uee. up less uee. but if thats not the problem then idk

 

[MisterMercedes]

If you can’t see how it’s incorrect then it’ll be futile for me to try and explain it to you.

So you’re making claims without backing them up, as usual.

 

[Deleted member 7580]

Depends if u are looking straight or down. Down more uee. up less uee. but if thats not the problem then idk

Well you look down if camera is below your eye level

 

[Entschuldigung]

Slight UEE is not death sentence if you have a good eye shape
i'm saying SLIGHT

 

[MisterMercedes]

Why should I bother backing this one up? If what you said isn’t obviously incorrect to you, then you clearly won’t be capable of understanding how it’s incorrect, no matter how noble my efforts to explain it to you are.

If you gave it a shot you would know whether you could convince me. You’re not even trying to back your claim up and then assuming I can’t be convinced because I’m not accepting it right off the bat without support.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Well you look down if camera is below your eye level

well u weren't specific u just said the camera is in a below angle, you could look up even in a below angle. If u look down u will get less uee. try looking up and you will see you will have less uee

 

[MisterMercedes]

Slight UEE is not death sentence if you have a good eye shape
i'm saying SLIGHT

Indeed. If his eye shape is the same as the picture he used, he’s good.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I already know I can’t convince you. So why bother?

Should I try to explain how 2+2 = 4? If you can’t get the underlying logic immediately, there’s no hope.

Why do you think you can’t convince me?

You didn’t present any “underlying logic”. You just made a claim and, when asked why you think it, said it’s not worth backing it up as not believing it immediately means I can never be convinced.

 

[Deleted member 7580]

I’d pm someone pic but can’t trust anyone

 

[MisterMercedes]

Because if you were capable of being convinced you would have already realized how foolish what you said is.

Not believing your claim immediately without any explanation or support provided means I could never be convinced by explanation or support?

 

[MisterMercedes]

In this instance, yes.

Do you apply that consistently or just using it here so you don’t have to back up your claim?

 

[Deleted member 6723]

@abmonger @MisterMercedes idk why u 2 here having an argument but I bet u @MisterMercedes u give me a react if @abmonger wins but I'll give u a react if u win.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I don’t apply it as a general rule. It’s just that, in this instance, it’s so painstakingly obvious that what you say is incorrect that if you don’t realize it already, there’s no way I can convince you of it.

Then what I said earlier still applies: you’re making claims without backing them up, as usual.

You’re also adding a bit of begging the question by simply saying “it’s obvious you’re wrong and there's no hope trying to explain why”.

 

[MisterMercedes]

@abmonger @MisterMercedes idk why u 2 here having an argument but I bet u @MisterMercedes u give me a react if @abmonger wins but I'll give u a react if u win.

This isn’t a debate. For it to be a debate, he would have to present an argument in support of his claim. He’s refusing to do so on the grounds that “it should be obvious so there’s no hope explaining”.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

This isn’t a debate. For it to be a debate, he would have to present an argument in support of his claim. He’s refusing to do so on the grounds that “it should be obvious so there’s no hope explaining”.

No need to make a paragraph im just betting retard

 

[MisterMercedes]

I suppose you could say I’m doing that.

My point stands regardless. How you haven’t realized that what you said earlier is patently untrue is beyond me. Over for your intelligence.

That’s just a rephrasing of your claim, which isn’t making a point. Saying “how haven’t you realized you’re wrong” is a rephrasing of “you should accept my claim”.

To make a point, you would have to present some argument to support your claim, which you’ve refused to do.

 

[MisterMercedes]

No,

My point is that you’re dumb for not realizing how what you said is wrong. I don’t have to back that up in order for it to be a point.

If you disagree, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word “point.”

Saying “you’re dumb for not realizing you’re wrong” is also rephrasing “you should accept my claim that you’re wrong”.

You said “my point still stands”, implying you gave something for it to stand on. All you’ve done is make a claim. You’ve presented a “point” without anything for it to stand on, so saying “it still stands” is incorrect.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

I'm just angry reacting mercedes and jfl reacting abmonger so he'll be the only one to get rep tbh ngl

 

[MisterMercedes]

Yes, I suppose that’s one way of putting it.

You should accept my claim that you’re wrong, and the reasons are obvious, even I myself am not putting them forwards. The underlying logic in what you said was wrong, and you can figure that out independently of what I’m saying.



My point stands on the underlying logic. The logic is there, you just can’t see it.

Saying a point stands on support that you refuse to articulate is an oxymoron. In a discussion, if you make a claim that you say “stands”, that implies you articulated support/explanation for it to stand on. If you didn’t, it’s just a claim that doesn’t stand on anything.

I can make any claim I want and say “it still stands”, but if I’m refusing to articulate support for it, it doesn’t stand on anything, it’s just a claim.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Your entire argument falls apart when you consider the claim 2+2=4. The underlying reasoning is still there, even if I don’t go in depth as to why 2+2=4. And yet the point stands regardless.

If I were a mathematician and claimed 2 + 2 = 4, and someone asked me to prove that claim (as that does require proof), and I responded with “if you don’t believe my claim now you’ll never understand it”, that wouldn’t be giving something for that point to stand on, and saying “that point still stands” would be incorrect. All I did was claim it. It only “stands” in my own head, which is just me believing my own claim.

 

[MisterMercedes]

The proof is inherent and self-embedded. So the point would stand, even if you didn’t elaborate.

Saying “the proof is inherent” is begging the question. 2 + 2 = 4 is not inherently true without further proof/support. If you talked to a mathematician you would quickly be corrected.

The same applies to the claim you made.

 

[MisterMercedes]

The proof is inherent in the claim 2+2=4, just as it would be in more complex mathematical statements. Now, it might take more time comprehending those proofs, but that doesn’t make them any less inherent or embedded.

If by “the proof is inherent” you mean “it exists”, you’re correct. However, it is not “inherent” in that “the claim is true by default”.

Again, saying that “the evidence exists but I’m not articulating it” means that you’re not giving a point anything to stand on. It may stand on logic/support that exists in your head, but, without articulating it in a discussion, you’re not making a point that stands on anything. You’re just claiming something.

 

[MisterMercedes]

in this case, the point I’m making is supported not by reasoning I’m making, but by how faulty your reasoning is, which gives credence to my claim.

Your point that you claim “still stands” was “you should accept my claim”, which is really just another way of saying “my claim is correct”. I never gave reasoning against this as it’s merely a claim that your claim is correct. Until you give support for your claim, saying that “my claim is correct” isn’t a point that stands on anything, so saying “it still stands” is incorrect.

 

[MisterMercedes]

My claim is correct and it does stand by virtue of your faulty reasoning. Just because you don’t accept it as evidence doesn’t make it any less so.

The “faulty reasoning” was just the opinion of mine that you claim is incorrect. Claiming “x is incorrect and this claim is supported by X’s reasoning” is just another rephrasing of “X is incorrect”, which is just your claim. You’re again begging the question.

Begging the question argument similar to yours: “Hillary Clinton is wrong about abortion and this is supported by Hillary Clinton’s opinion on abortion.”

 

[MisterMercedes]

It wasn’t an opinion. It related to whether hooding is caused by fat pads or a prominent brow ridge, which can be examined objectively, and isn’t really an opinion.

Now you’re being specific as to what you think is incorrect, except you’re wrong about what I said.

Hooding (eyelid being covered with fat) is always caused by fat, by definition. However, there are different “types” of hooding in that what causes fat to cover the eyelid differs.

If you’re obese, your upper eyelid will often be covered by fat and thus hooded.

If you have prominent fat pads even at a low body fat, your upper eyelid will be hooded.

If you have a low set brow ridge with minimal or prominent fat pads your upper eyelid will be hooded.

Obese:

Highish brow ridge, prominent fat pads:

Low Brow ridge with minimal fat pads:

Fat is always what hoods the eye, but the key is what’s the main driver of it. Is it high body fat, prominent upper eye fat pads even at a low body fat, or a low brow bone (which pushes the fat down, even if it’s minimal)?

 

[MisterMercedes]

Didn’t read lol

You concede then as it was a correction of your strawman of my position.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

Now you’re being specific as to what you think is incorrect, except you’re wrong about what I said.

Hooding (eyelid being covered with fat) is always caused by fat, by definition. However, there are different “types” of hooding in that what causes fat to cover the eyelid differs.

If you’re obese, your upper eyelid will often be covered by fat and thus hooded.

If you have prominent fat pads even at a low body fat, your upper eyelid will be hooded.

If you have a low set brow ridge with minimal or prominent fat pads your upper eyelid will be hooded.

Obese:
View attachment 697656
Highish brow ridge, prominent fat pads:

View attachment 697657
Low Brow ridge with minimal fat pads:
View attachment 697658
Fat is always hooding the eye, but the key is what’s the main driver of it. Is it high body fat, prominent upper eye fat pads even at a low body fat, or a low brow bone (which pushes the fat down, even if it’s minimal).

Correct me if I am wrong. But the thread isnt about what causes hooding, it is about why he has UEE when the camera angle is down.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I’m not conceding anything.

Until you read and respond to the correction of your strawman, you are conceding.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Correct me if I am wrong. But the thread isnt about what causes hooding, it is about why he has UEE when the camera angle is down.

No, he was asking if he should get upper eye filler to hood his eye and thus get rid of UEE. I said he shouldn’t as hooding from prominent fat pads won’t look as aesthetic as hooding from a low brow bone.

He also has good eye shape so covering the upper eyelid would hurt him (when it doesn’t come from brow bone).

 

[MisterMercedes]

I disagree.

Doesn’t matter. Refusing to address a counter is concession by retreat.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Support your claim.

In a debate, the argument that isn’t refuted is the one that “wins”. This is taught in logic classes.

My rebuttal was voluntarily not addressed or refuted, so my argument is the one that won, and, since you were the opponent, you conceded.

 

[Deleted member 6723]

In a debate, the argument that isn’t refuted is the one that “wins”. This is taught in logic classes.

My rebuttal was voluntarily not addressed or refuted, so my argument is the one that won, and, since you were the opponent, you conceded.

No bro. He wins since u got pissed off. Look u replied to 3 words with 2 paragraphs.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I question the authority of “logic classes.”

You disagree that the argument that wins in a debate is the one that isn’t refuted?

If that’s the case, what would you say determines which argument “wins” in a debate?

 

[Deleted member 5746]

UEE doesn't matter

 

[MisterMercedes]

There is no “objective” winner, unless there’s premeditated winning criteria beforehand for the specific argument, which in this case, there wasn’t.

I don’t agree to your terms that ceasing to address your points is conceding.

There is criteria that has been provided for every debate/discourse that is centered on logic. You disagree with it and instead say that there should be set criteria for each debate to determine the winner.

That’s a dodge, unfortunately, as I asked what your criteria would be. What do you think should determine which argument “Wins” in a debate?

 

[MisterMercedes]

Depends on the argument. In this case, I don’t think there can be a winner, as both of us are biased towards believing we’re the winner, and I don’t agree with your terms that ceasing to address the other’s claims is conceding.

If you believe that the person arguing being biased in favor of their argument means their argument can’t “win” in a debate, then you can’t believe that there is any “winner” argument in a debate, as we are always biased in favor of our own conclusions/arguments.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Incorrect.
what I am saying is, IN ABSENCE OF ANY PREMEDITATED RULES ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A WINNER IN A FORMAL DEBATE OR ARGUMENT, there can’t be an objective winner.

As said earlier, that’s a dodge, as the question was what your criteria or rules would be. You responded with “in this argument, there can’t be a winner as we are biased in favor of our own arguments”. If you apply this rule consistently, there can’t be a winner argument in any debate as we are always biased in favor of our own arguments/conclusions.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Can you read?

I said " IN ABSENCE OF ANY PREMEDITATED RULES ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A WINNER IN A FORMAL DEBATE OR ARGUMENT, there can’t be an objective winner. "

That implies that I DON'T apply this rule consistently.

If you wanted a way to be crowned winner in this argument, we should have established winning criteria beforehand, but you unfortunately didn't think to do so.

That wouldn’t imply you don’t apply the “bias means no winner” rule consistently. The “no rules for winning preceding the argument means no winner” was you saying there should be set criteria for winning for their to be a winner. I asked what those criteria should be. You said that, since we are biased towards our own arguments, there can’t be a winner. If you apply this consistently, there can’t be a winner argument in any debate as we are always biased in favor of our own conclusions/arguments.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I don't apply this rule consistently. My point is that since we didn't establish winning criteria beforehand, the fact that we both have our own biases excludes the possibility of there being an objective winner.

If there WERE premeditated winning criteria, it wouldn't matter that we have our own biases, because they would be overruled by the objective criteria.

Is that simple enough to grasp?

Then your “bias means no winner” answer was also a dodge, as the question was what your criteria would be.

So, again, what would your criteria be for which argument wins in a debate?

 

[MisterMercedes]

In what way is it a dodge? The reason I keep bringing up the fact that our biases rules out the possibility of an objective winner is because WE DIDN'T establish criteria beforehand.

It's useless for you to ask me what my criteria would be, as it's too late to establish this criteria.

It’s a dodge as the answer you gave didn’t answer the question, which is what your criteria would be.

Saying “it’s useless to ask” is also a dodge.

Would your criteria for which argument wins in a debate not be consistent as long as it’s set beforehand? If the answer is yes, it’s not late to give your criteria as it would apply to future debates as well.

 

[MisterMercedes]

"Dodge" implies I'm doing it deceitfully. I'm not. I just didn't see the merit in answering it.

And no, I can't give you criteria that would apply to every debate. We'd have to establish them on a case-by-case basis.

Not seeing the merit in answering doesn’t mean you’re not intentionally responding to the question with phrases that don’t answer the question, which is dodging.

Why would you have to establish it on a case by case basis?