I have an innate feeling upon seeing the inbred bull terrier: disgust. Without the intervention of humans, it would not look this way. When we look at those who have surgery'd themselves due to gender ideology or are covered in tattoos and piercings, does natural aversion not find its natural home despite media saying the opposite? Here I think it right to follow one's instincts: it leads us to safety.
But from logic and reason we know veterans, the disabled, and the old have reasons for their appearance and are deserving in character. Because of this, I can't say ugliness is inherently bad despite the horror of a cripple gurgling for food. Man does not willingly reach into a can of worms, but I suppose I'll manage it for the deserving.
And those who are drawn to tattoos and piercings must find a beauty or attraction in them, or they would not do it. How then can a recognition of beauty take place when some are merely drawn to unnatural horrors such as this dog! The only feeling I can arrive at is that they are evil incarnate and I wish no further association for they would taint me!
i think it’s fair to say that ugliness is inherently bad. we can recognize, for example, the nobility and sacrifice of many elderly while also not affirming the degeneration and decay of the body as anything other than damaging to higher life. if i am ever a gurgling 90 year old, i just want them to pull the plug. and we can see among the boomers that being old is not inherently noble, that often physical decay and ugliness brings resentment towards the youth and selfishness on the part of the ugly.
Physical forms are representations of more subtle energies. Take the time to observe people's features as well as their countenance. Some people have tremendously attractive bodies and features, but their eyes and faces are dull and lifeless. While others have unharmonious features and bodies yet are charismatic, charming, and magnetic. In future lives these harmonious inner energies will manifest as attractive forms. But perhaps the difficulty of their future experiences will dampen their energy, so they end up like former example. Samsara! Many such cases.
Tattoos, piercings, hair dye, etc. are a manifestation of both inner energies as well as broad cultural trends. But much like with Amazonian frogs, insects, and so on, the brighter and shinier, the greater the likelihood that you may encounter a venomous creature!
I think it's worthwhile to connect sociology to aesthetics. It's good to think about why we classify things as "ugly" or "beautiful." You've invited the reader to imagine a dust-colored hooligan with his neck covered in ink, his ears and nostrils full of metal, holding a degenerated fighting dog at the end of a lead. I don't have a natural aversion to any of this—to a dog bred away from the genetics of its early ancestors, to body art, or to piercings—but, still, I am fearful and revolted. I'm a son of the lower middle class, and a striver, so my revulsion is familiar ("I fear that I will become that, irrevocably"); my aristocratic friends, who fund an edgy style magazine, would commission a spread ("Jeans, Vetements [$4,670]; poncho, Celine by Hedi Slimane [$6,700]; Cookie Monster pajama pants, model's own"), because, to them, the revulsion can be thrilling ("I can be that for a moment").
Trannies, that's more a natural response. Still, since we're talking, I think, about a particularly Western, modern sort of transgenderism—plastic wigs and fake eyelashes and the physical results of artificial hormonal instability, and square-jawed computer programmers with stubble poking through their foundation, and men going as monstrous, bimbofied caricatures of caricatures of women, and all of this accompanied by ridiculous slogans—a judgement of taste, which is not universal or natural, is still at play, as well as something sociological. Weird fetish shit, born from American pornography culture. But unspoiled androgyny, without ideological and chemical intervention, can be fine, after all.
What was the question? Both of those dogs are ugly.
Today I met a woman with a man's name. She was testy in the way that women can be, despite change in outward form. After disarming such aggression from her toward me in conversation, I could not help but notice the familiar group personality characteristics that remained true.
The energy has a form, and if the influx of broad cultural trends shapes that form rather than an efflux shaping the culture, then I think it not strong enough. Something enough to distort man in same likeness as that dog in one lifetime would be monstrously powerful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Tomorrows. Even sex changers and body distorters remain in the original image, so it can be said that inbred dog is more repulsive than human modifications for we know the actions can be undone and reflect a manageable difference in aesthetics and opinion. And there remains possibility for inbred dog's descendants if crossed with less inbred dogs, so that is not hopeless too.
The only similar thing I can think of is smallpox as it ravages your entire town, mutilating those who do happen to survive, or fire burn victims. Maybe we are lucky in that modern problems are not nearly as bad as it could be, which makes me feel quite optimistic about solving them.
I've felt what you described in the first paragraph before in my life. The necessity of taking a strong stance against something others can afford to play with and dabble in because they would never truly be part of it, who may seem puzzled as to why anyone would care.
Most of the old that I knew and appreciated in my life were stable and even-keeled. They were strict yet kind, doing as they saw necessary to maintain the stability of their classrooms or households while wary of their limits in influencing the minds and souls of those who could not and would not take to them.
If there lies resentment toward the youth, I wonder if these were not the adults who partied as if they were their own children, never outgrowing the era of life they found themselves in, either simply by never meeting another of different character or willfully ignoring the possibility.
the theologians say that the blessed martyrs do not lose all indications of the death they suffered in this world. But their wounds in the Resurrection will only add to their glory rather than take it away. it seems like the nobility of the disabled veteran is similar to this
