- Mar 5, 2019
- Time online
- 130d 14h 35m
It’s true unless they use a consistent, effective skin care regime, they’ll usually start looking like ass early. There’s a reason for this though.
Read, still an incredibly retarded comment.Never once, did I materially disagree with the above, highlighted. If you are going to argue then dont misrepresent my argument.
You originally said 'White people as a whole have less sun resistant skin + lower collagen production compared to ethnics due to a lack of melanin'
From this you are making an ASSUMPTION that a white person is going to be OVEREXPOSED to RADIATION due to their - and i quote you - 'less sun resistant skin', thereby suffering skin damage due to melanin issues. YOU introduced this issue by implication of your original statement. DONT be intellectual disingenuous.
In response, I implied that whatever initial benefit can be derived from a lack of melanin is rendered null by other factors like protruding bones and an assortment of other factors like whether this hypothetical white person lives in a colder or warmer client.
As for your your most recent response, regarding female attractiveness being 'not based' around bones. Again, when did I say this in substance? I brought up BONES as a tempering argument to your original contention - a factor that you missed.
Notwithstanding that, much money is spent on PLASTIC SURGERY in the form of OSTEOTOMIES (if they are poor, fillers to give the illusion of protruding bones). Your perception of looks is only half right.
Beauty isnt derived from a melted face with lots of collagen. Bones are as part of the faction of looks as bones are. You substantively miss this point in all of your analysis.
Not reading your shitty essay ngl@Blackout.xl
>'no one mentioned anyone being overexposed to radiation. What was mentioned was the impact of sunlight on skin'
i dont understand how you can distinguish these two sentences when considered in relation to my original statement which was based on LEVELS OF RADIATION affecting skin.
> 'Unless you stay inside 24/7 or wear sunscreen all the time this process can’t be avoided'
UV damage to the skin cant be avoided but it can be substantially minimized depending on location, sunscreen and clothes, the most important factor being location. the impact of UV RADIATION on skin MATERIALLY differs in impact depending on the UV index, which is a product of where you are located in the world.
White people in northern climates have whiter skin and are more susceptible to UV rays. Thus, if they were in the north and therefore subject to far less UV light it is unreasonable for you to posit that '99%' of white women age like shit. After all, your intellectually dishonest generalizations could be applied not to white women, but hypothetical colored women living in the northern climate who would be much more susceptible to suffering from extreme vitamin d deficiency and related skin diseases like PSORIASIS and ATOPIC DERMATITIS.
The point I am making is that the particular genotypic susceptibility of aging is as much a product of location and external habits as it is of collagen and elastin levels. Skin is an expression of biological adaptations which serve to temper your aforemention generalizations against all white women. Darker skin is an adaptation to prevent skin damage due to the sunny African climate, is it not? The converse is true for white people in the north is it not?
I maintain everything that I have already said in previous replies. Nothing you have said above rebuts what i have said.
> 'the context of the conversation was based around white women. Not white people as a whole'
where in my previous response did i explicitly say or at least imply that this wasnt the case? I have only been talking about women. Did you not read my response?
>Bones can make up for collagen in terms of a white mans attractiveness...This cannot be said for a woman, as a woman’s attractiveness is purely based on neoteny...Ones a woman’s skin goes, most of her SMV is gone'
I originally objected to and continue to object to your assertion of femininity being 'SOLEY' an expression of high levels of collagen and elastin. You seem to be struggling with the concept of range and variables. This isnt a black or white function with one input as you put it ('solely'). Bones clearly play an important function and as I originally said in my ORIGINAL comment, various factors like location, bones, diet, cortisol all play an important function to the aging process of white women - the original topic of the thread.
Thus, how can you reconcile your original, intellectually dishonest comment with my comments that simply provide other material consideration which influence this aging process?
Don't forget that my response was in relation to you saying white women 'age like milk 99% of the time' which is intellectually dishonest, racist and hypocritical.
> 'Learn to read next time'
jfl at your sanctimonious aspersions. I can say the exact same thing as you with regard to everything you have said in counter to what i have said. you have a myopic conception of the aging process of human being.
> You’re still autistic as shit