Genetic makeup has a HUUUUGE role.
It dictates whether you're ugly or fat.
These two could lead to bullying which influences you in later life.

It dictates whether you're good or bad at sports.

Theres shedloads!

Quote from walker90234

fat

No, whether you're lazy or not decides whether you're fat or not, unless you're one of the very few who actually has a glandular problem.

Quote from walker90234

It dictates whether you're good or bad at sports.

No, whether you practice or not decides whether you're good at sports or not, unless you're a cripple or something.

I'm not referring to generally good at sports. I'm referring to Bolt-standard. Yes, he put in loads of practice, but there was also a lot of genetics in there. I'm not saying it has MORE influence than experience, but it certainly has a lot. Furthermore, yes, genetics can have an impact on weight - being lazy affects it, yes, but some people have a genetic predisposition to get fat - at least from what i've observed.

Quote from GZento

I've already stated its impossible in my first statement

I know. I'm saying your impossible definition of "individuality" isn't a pursuit for any normal person


Here's my theory - society places value on things in two broad ways: usefulness and uniqueness. Something can be valuable by being useful without being unique in any way. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people might drive the exact same car as me doesn't make my car any less valuable to me, because I need it. It serves a necessary function and for that reason, it's valuable.

At the same time, something can be valuable purely because it's unique, even if it serves no functional purpose. Art, literature, entertainment, luxury items... creating them fulfills our creative drive, and owning them creates a statement about ourselves. Even more so if these unique items also serve a functional purpose. Things that are completely useless and aren't unique whatsoever aren't valuable in any way to a majority of people.


Apply that logic to individuality. We want ourselves to have value to the world around us, and different people value different things. Plenty of people are perfectly content spending their time working a necessary, laborious job to provide for their family. They might not stand out to everyone else, but they're content knowing they're useful.

Salvador Dali? I don't think many people would say he was contributing to anything useful when he walked around New York City with an anteater on a leash, but we still talk about it. It was surprising, no one has seen anything like that before, and that made him unique. And therefore, valuable. Some people want to stand out and catch people's attention in a way that very few people do, instead of blending into the background and being forgotten by most people they encounter. Whether they do it with their fashion, their behavior, their ideas, their creations, that's up to what that person personally values most, but to make any impact at all it needs to be something that hasn't been done before. Otherwise, why do it? If it's been done before then it's not unique, it's not useful, and therefore it's not valuable. No one has any reason to care.


No one aspires to radical, pure individuality in every aspect of their lives. But whatever you personally value in life, it's entirely possible to do something that no one's ever done before. Even one unique contribution to one field is enough to make you an individual, and most people accomplish that at least once in their lives.

/thread I think :P

Quote from Exilement

I know. I'm saying your impossible definition of "individuality" isn't a pursuit for any normal person
No one aspires to radical, pure individuality in every aspect of their lives. But whatever you personally value in life, it's entirely possible to do something that no one's ever done before. Even one unique contribution to one field is enough to make you an individual, and most people accomplish that at least once in their lives.

I feel that people would be more unique if they conformed naturally to what they find attractive or interesting. Thats all I have to say, but uniqueness in a field such as artistry is a requirement in my opinion. SO. True, true.

Quote from Gzento

I feel that people would be more unique if they conformed naturally to what they find attractive or interesting.

Honestly this sounds more like you projecting your dislike for certain subcultures onto the intentions of anyone who is part of one.

Being a member of a subculture is something a lot of people find attractive and interesting. That doesn't mean the individuals who are a part of it are faceless, indistinguishable drones.

Quote from Exilement

Honestly this sounds more like you projecting your dislike for certain subcultures onto the intentions of anyone who is part of one.

Being a member of a subculture is something a lot of people find attractive and interesting. That doesn't mean the individuals who are a part of it are faceless, indistinguishable drones.

Thats not it, and if your read my earlier posts, I'm supportive of finding your own clique, or subculture, but yes, I am expressing a dislike in the subculture known as the "hipster" movement because they criticize subcultures for being subcultures when in fact they are also within their own clique. But I also disliked the non conformist movement started by Ralph Waldo Emerson because of the same reasons. Maybe the whole point of this thread was just to say do you what no matter how many people are doing it with you, or how little.

I don't think a necessary part of the hipster subculture is blind criticism of others. If anything I see more criticism towards hipsters than the other way around. I think that's just more a case of people being assholes, most people are content to let people do and act however they want as long as they're not hurting anyone.

It's weird that you criticize Emerson, he seems to just advocate believing in your own convictions and doing what you believe is right instead of buckling to opposition

"My life is for itself and not for a spectacle. I much prefer that it should be of a lower strain, so it be genuine and equal, than that it should be glittering and unsteady" -- that sounds a lot like what you're saying. He doesn't criticize people for conforming to subcultures, he criticizes people who don't embrace their individuality out of fear being different from the people around them. You seem to be doing the same thing.

Quote from Exilement

I don't think a necessary part of the hipster subculture is blind criticism of others. If anything I see more criticism towards hipsters than the other way around. I think that's just more a case of people being assholes, most people are content to let people do and act however they want as long as they're not hurting anyone.

It's weird that you criticize Emerson, he seems to just advocate believing in your own convictions and doing what you believe is right instead of buckling to opposition

"My life is for itself and not for a spectacle. I much prefer that it should be of a lower strain, so it be genuine and equal, than that it should be glittering and unsteady" -- that sounds a lot like what you're saying. He doesn't criticize people for conforming to subcultures, he criticizes people who don't embrace their individuality out of fear being different from the people around them. You seem to be doing the same thing.

Huh, shut me down again Exhilement? You're right. That quote definitely sounds like Emerson and I can agree on something then.

I seem to do that a lot, haha. Yeah it's Emerson, it's from his essay Self-Reliance.

No clue what Thoreau or the others think, though.

Quote from Exilement

I seem to do that a lot, haha. Yeah it's Emerson, it's from his essay Self-Reliance.

No clue what Thoreau or the others think, though.

Im reading it now, by the way, your sig is boss