venomai

I perfectly understand free will, and it certainly does apply to all of the examples that I gave. Definition of free will: the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies Wikipedia says: The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. No force is necessary. One day, God comes down, says hello for a few days, lets scientists grab a bit of him as evidence and then he retreats back to Heaven. Nobody would be forced into believing God, much like nobody is being forced into believing in the Big Bang or Evolution. The world will be presented with the facts, and then each individual will have the free will to decide whether or not they believe the evidence. Actually, no you haven't convinced anybody but yourself. Well, 'tis a shame. : PS: See my last posts edit... :o

Yes, we all want free will -- but sometimes God can give us that when other humans inhibit it from us. Unfortunately, God never seems to give us that free will, especially in times where it's most needed. Take World War Two, for example. Did the victims of the Holocaust have free will in the camps as they were being tortured and killed? Did the millions of drafted soldiers have free will with their lives? Did the millions of citizens forced to work in horrible conditions to support the war have free will? Or how about those suffering in Darfur? Or the millions dying every year from hunger? Or the people who contract fatal diseases and viruses at such a young age? Or the people who die unexpectedly in accidents? Or the people who are raped and murdered? If God really wanted us to have free will, then he would interfere to give us exactly that. If God wants the world to be a better place, then why doesn't he come down and help us out? Imagine how much more united we would be if God came down and proved to us that there was only one true belief. It has nothing to do with free will -- above I've shown that in many cases God interfering can actually give us more free will. And yes, God did create this. He, being omniscient, knew exactly what was to happen when he created humans, yet he created us anyways. EDIT: I have two questions: 1. You say the choice of right or wrong is what makes you "human" (ie: not a robot). But you can only choose "right", for choosing "wrong" (such as murder) will send you to Hell. So, if your goal is to get to Heaven (or Hell, for that matter) then you only have one choice. Wouldn't that make you a programmed robot? :-k 2. How does Heaven work with free will?

This one looks a lot more promising. :) I like the shading right now, but it's a little too simple. You should try adding details, more tones and some sort of background composition. Also, be sure to use a single light source and have all the shadows consistent throughout. Don't feel obliged to limit your details, lighting or background/foreground elements simply because it's an anime drawing. For example, adding some sort of fireball effect (or whatever he shoots out of his fists) and sketching up some sort of background would help make it look much better. :) What the hell kind of constructive criticism is that? :-s It's neither constructive nor critical. To "criticise" is to point out the strengths and weaknesses in a work and judge it accordingly.

Seems like everyone is pretty much saying the same thing. Here's a more controversial question: Is it wrong to eat dog meat? I would say it's fine, given the dog hasn't been brought up as a human companion.

Sure, but you never answered my questions. :P He has the power to intevene and save millions of lives and end years of suffering, yet he chooses not to. Is it our free will to die a horrible death of torture and pain? For the victims of the Holocaust, there was almost no free will that God could have interfered with. Sorry, I thought you were implying something else. :) Just like the Holocaust can be argued either way? Some people see it as a good thing and others don't. :? Although there are some "good" aspects that came out of Hitler's reign, I would say that the millions of deaths, years of suffering and other "bad" aspects far outweigh the "good". Feel free to take me up on it, though. He died, as will everyone else in this world, but he died only after a massive reign of destruction. Many would say that he did not die soon enough, while others would say that he died too soon. The real question is: should one person die to save millions more? Or should that one person live, and the millions others die? These are decisions that God should have made, as God giveth and God taketh away. Yet God decided to let one person live, while millions of others died. Anyways, neither of you answered my original question. Would you push the button? Furthermore, when your God makes that decision, would you want Him to push the button?

I think the argument here is that God, being omniscient, knew the exact results of creating Hitler, founders of the KKK, etc. Essentially, the argument is that God turns a blind eye to the horrors and suffering that exists on Earth. He has the power to smite evil at any time and save lives and make people happier, yet he chooses not to. For example -- say you create extremely intelligent robots for a living. Each robot is equipped with a "Shut Down" button that only you hold. Now, say a few of these robots "turned evil" and began to kill innocent lives and makes others suffer. Would you press the button to stop the robots-gone-bad? Or would you let them destroy innocent lives simply because the robots have made that choice? You, as the creator, are ultimately responsible for the robots. Now imagine the same scenario, but this time you know (in advance) exactly which robots would "turn evil". Would you still create those particular robots, even though you are well aware of the consequences? That's a huge (false) generalization to say that the reason most atheists don't believe is because they are scared and/or stubborn. :-k

I disagree. If you aren't improving at art, then there's a good chance you are doing it wrong, or that you lack the proper determination. You can continue drawing all you want, but if you never learn to tap into the right side of the brain then there's a good chance you won't make very much artistic progress. You don't need to buy that particular book. Anything that explains brain lateralization and how you can use the right side of the brain while drawing will suffice. There is plenty of material on the net. PS: No offense, but anime is a pretty poor way to learn to draw. It often avoids many important concepts such as composition, lighting, texturing and other various details. If you want to really learn to draw, you should learn to draw from life. Only then should you move on to more basic cartoons.

Hah, that's funny. I feel the same way when it comes to accepting the Big Bang, various religions (notably Christianity) and monotheism. :P

"Planet signatures"? If you mean sigs with actual planets... Why don't you make your own planets/starfields? It's super easy. http://gallery.artofgregmartin.com/tuts ... field.html http://gallery.artofgregmartin.com/tuts ... lanet.html If you mean you've lost the desire to search for renders and you want us to do it for you.. that's pretty sad. :-k

*chooses to press A and B together* Doesn't this mean you end up dying a horrible death after living through endless hours of starvation, thirst, hallucinations and generally losing your mind? Wouldn't it be more efficient just to use the gun?

Amazing topic... :D Me, I would go for door A. I would finally find the time to read books and draw some more art. I could use the experience to gain a full capacity of knowledge, and a have a lot of great sex in the meantime. :D

I see your point. :-# In most cases, society truly defines the basis of beauty when it comes to judging another being. However, those studies only seem to support my claims that the media is attempting to redefine beauty and, as a result, is distorting our view on the ideal self-image. Whether or not the media actually succeeds in changing the underlying concepts of beauty, their distortions are detrimental to the population. It ends up introducing a secondary concept of beauty, which many teens wrongly assume to be the true concept of beauty. From the article: Here's a quote from another study that Wikipedia cites: The rich are more healthy/fit, as they often are. Alright, I'll give you that one, too. But go back to my earlier images, with the jogger and the victoria secret ad. The jogger is healthy and fertile looking, and radiates a high social status. There is no doubt she is attractive, but she pales in comparison with the skinnier, bustier, more tanned and more airbrushed/made up girls below. I'll accept that, in our current society, being healthy and fertile can make you more attractive, but you will need a lot more than that to reach the "ideal beauty" as defined by the media (whether or not it is true beauty). The issue here is that female teens are NOT being fed with "healthy means attractive" but rather "skinny/busty/makeup/etc means attractive".

Essentially, yes. ;) The more the media blames a product for suicide/death/problems/etc. the less desirable the product becomes. As a result, the number of people using that product will decrease.

That's fine. Most of the books out there that deal with drawing and brain lateralization are written for people with dominant left brains, like yourself. :) Either way, those tests (most of which are inaccurate) only measure which side you tend to use dominantly. With practice, any left brain dominant person can learn to use their right brain for specific functions, such as drawing.

Sorry, let me clarify: If somebody was severely addicted to cocaine and comitted suicide (while sober) because of the addiction, should we blame the drug?

No, I'm not saying the healthy person is more beautiful. I would place all the girls I showed at equal beauty, but in different presentations (ie: makeup, clothes). We've already said it -- sex sells. I don't blame the media for portraying images of scantly clad women (as teens love it). Rather, I blame them for portraying "sexy" and "ideal beauty" as something that requires you to be very skinny/tanned/busty/etc which is very difficult for the average girl to achieve (and thus, ends up being detrimental when the girl tries to force herself into the "ideal body type"). Nevertheless, simply because something is accepted does not mean it should be continued. As I've already stated, excessive binge drinking is accepted in many cultures, yet it has shown to be an extremely detrimental activity among many individuals. Let's step back a pace, lest we forget about what we are blaming them for. I was suggesting that much of the current view of beauty (skinny, busty, tanned, young, etc) is based on the media's promotion of that particular image. Had the media continued to promote the image of fair skin and plumpness as "beautiful", then that would be our current view of beauty. I'm arguing that the only reason we find the current image to be particularly appealing is because the media has made it so. I don't mind the media influencing our view on beauty. In certain cases, it can be benefitial. However, I am blaming the media in this particular case for promoting an image of "skinny girls" to teens even though the result is a general decrease in self-esteem and an increase in teen eating disorders. "Well aware" or "aware" is somebody who realizes the majority of the lies made by the media and is able to criticize and analyze the media in an unbiased manner (ie: judging with "both sides" of the argument). I'm just talking in generalities here. There is no line or rank to how aware you are. If you want a simple answer, you are either aware or you are not aware. When I say nobody is "truly aware" I mean nobody is fully conscious of all aspects of the media at all times -- for that you would need to be omniscient (ie: some sort of God). Hell, I never said my vision of beauty is any different. I'm not preaching that women who are plump or fair skinned are beautiful, I'm preaching that the media has changed that image in a manner that is now detrimental to our society. My vision of beauty is most likely the same as yours. I love young, tanned, busty, sexy, skinny girls just as much as the next man. What opportunity? Are you talking about Noam Chomsky? Media awareness classes? Going back to that example -- the person does not realize he needs to learn anything new as the person isn't aware that anything is wrong. With a good lie, there is no suspicion that anything is wrong. Surely you've seen movies involving con artists. Is it the victim's fault because they didn't search far enough for information? No. They had no reason to search for information (such as background checks) because usually the situation is so believable. Say your girlfriend tells you she is going grocery shopping. If this is normal for her behaviour (ie: she does it often, her fridge is empty, you're in a healthy relationship, etc) then why would you suspect anything is wrong? And, if by chance something is wrong (such as an affair), is it your own fault for not doing the proper research? Is it your own fault for not following her around the city every time she claims to go shopping? If there is reason to doubt a lie then by all means you should look into it. But if there is no doubt, why look into it?

Well, that's pretty much true. :) Of course, the girl jogging isn't wearing as much make up, and her hair hasn't been done, and her bust isn't quite so defined, etc. But the point is -- teens are seeing the "sexy images" rather than the "healthy images". Hell, it could even be the same models, but the fact is that the media is showing teens the skinny/busty aspects of the models rather than their overall health and well-being. Will do.. but after dinner. :P

He was 21. Which makes it all the more pathetic that they blame the gaming world. If you want to find something to blame for suicide, look into their history. For all we know he was abused as a child, bullied and did drugs. So again, why blame video games just because he played them? We should blame underwear, I'm sure he was wearing them at the time of his death too. I agree -- it would be silly to blame video games for his suicide. Now I ask you this: If somebody was severely addicted to cocaine and comitted suicide "because of" heavy use, should we blame the drug?

Yet the examples I posted earlier show us that you don't need to be born with the ability to be able to draw well. I've taken years of art classes in school where a lot of what we did was figure drawing. I've always enjoyed drawing, but I've never been able to draw figures. I could pick up the pencil and draw a decent looking apple, but trying to draw figures was a mess for me. I see others in my art class who can do it with ease, and then there are those who are worse off than me. And then, pretty recently, I did the excercises in Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain and I drew things I never knew I was capable of. What does this mean? If you ask me, it means that most school classes don't actually help you learn to draw. Some people are gifted with a talent that gives them the advantage of not needing much teaching to learn a certain skill. Compare it to math or computer science. Some students are able to pick it up much faster simply because their minds process thoughts in a particular way -- yet this does not mean only those people are capable of becoming programmers or mathematicians. :)

Sorry BlueTear, I didn't see it. Yes, you're right. Women with no visible deformities, all their limbs attached and a standard WHR are often considered more attractive. However, referring to my original question, these aspects only comprise of a fraction of the entire concept of beauty. There is no universal concept of beauty, AFAIK, even if there may be individual shared ideals among varying cultures/periods. Plump does not mean obese. :| Obesity was often a sign of the poor, even in the 18th century. Yes, the ideals are changing in regards to weight. The media puts out an image of being healthy and excercising regularly, and it helps a lot. I like that ideal. But the concept of a healthy woman is different from the concept of a sexy woman. And the media that most teens are faced with is focused on "sexy", not "healthy". To illustrate what I mean... The healthy woman: The sexy woman:

Van Gogh wasn't born with the ability to paint. In fact, it wasn't until his twenties that he decided to learn. Before he studied painting, he forced himself to learn to draw. In his learnings, he went through the same troubles as any other creative minded person would when they are first learning to draw. Some people are born with a more dominant left sided brain, so they appear to be less creative and more logical thinkers. If they tried, they can shift their thought process to using the right side of the brain while drawing, which is all that's needed to become an artist. Drawing is a skill, plain and simple. If you've got the determination and you practice it properly then you should have no trouble learning it. http://www.drawright.com/gallery.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In12ecDFL-w I suspect every able-bodied person is born with the ability to draw. :)

You call this perfecting? :lol: If you've understood anything from this entire thread, it's that the current version of beauty is detrimental to our society!!! I can assure you that people who are well aware of the media's damage will not raise their children to fully accept it. When somebody lies to you without a shadow of doubt, is it your own fault for believing them? And if that lie went on to damage the entire society, would it still be your own fault for not picking up on the lie? You can't blame people for being ignorant. For example... If somebody died from striking a match in a house filled with gas, you may think him stupid for doing such a thing. But if an external force released the gas into the house, without the person knowing, then is it still his fault he died? No. It is the fault of that external force. Maybe you took that a little too literally. I wasn't completely serious. After all, the scenario was me as a world dictator. :twisted: Culture jamming affects the media on a very small scale, since there are very few people who do it. I like the idea of culture jamming, but I don't do it. To be aware is to realize the truth. Much like the earlier example, if the man was aware that the house was full of gas, he may have been able to save his life. Something similar is happening with the media. If we are aware of the issues, then we can effectively prevent/diminish them. If we are not aware of the issues, then we can't do anything to stop them! The issue of young women in the meida is a small one among hundreds more. I wouldn't say anyone is truly aware of the media, as the media is always changing itself. Of course, some people (Chomsky, McLuhan) are much more aware than others. There may be minor details left, but the image as a whole has been completely redefined.

I disagree. Being artistic is a skill that any able-bodied person can learn. There are two sides to the brain. The left side's thinking is more logical, sequential, organized, etc. The right side is random, imaginative, etc. Unfortunately, so much of life (school, work, etc) is based on logic and rational thinking that most people don't get the chance to truly use their "creative" side of the brain. Your friends were most likely raised in a manner that made them use their right brains more dominantly. Don't believe me about all this brain stuff? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateraliza ... n_function http://www.web-us.com/brain/LRBrain.html http://www.funderstanding.com/right_left_brain.cfm No offense, but the average art class won't do anything for you. If you really do want to learn to draw, I strongly suggest you read the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards. :) It has a lot of good information about how to use your right side of the brain while drawing. I'm in the process of reading the book and doing the excersises, and I can already see my "artistic skill" improving. The book has enabled me to draw things I've never known I could. I'll post an example in a while...

IGoddessI -- great first kiss story. :lol: I can't imagine what the people in the seats behind you were thinking... :P

Hilarious. :roll: Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy). Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty. I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition. When I say the media "defines" beauty, I did not mean it so literally. Sorry if it came off that way. It may have been more clear had I said that it defines our current view of beauty. :) Perhaps the word "redefine" is also a little more clear. Beauty exists with or without the media.