You don't. As I explained, it is the most subjective of the three categories evaluated at a pro show. This explains why a guy with great striations bu with muscles that look soft as well as one with very hard muscles but no striations can win shows. Conditioning is the category where judges have the most leverage to exercise their biases. For instance, some judges love vascularity, while others regard it isa the hallmark of the amateur bodybuilder, and consider it inadequate at the pro level.
During my adolescence, I worked briefly as a salesman. Good to see that my sales pitch is still sharp... 
No, this has been debunked. Feminists love to spill this bullshit about masculinity being a social construct, but the bottom line is that there are physiological differences between the male and the female brain, and this is refelected in behavioral/occupational differences that can be observed even in toddlers.
There were tribes studied where the males took stereotyoically female roles, and so forth. However, what was ignored is that while the gender roles reversed, the significance of the roles changed as well. In this tribes, what was deemed the more important status roles were the ones that were sterotypically female in Western Societies. So, the males played at females roles, but they maintained a "male" or superior status significance. See the book "The Inevitability Of The Patriarchy", which touches these issues.
Breaking it down to logically evaluate it's consistency is one thing, but to break it down to debate how the words used to define what the argument inplies and how this is relevant in the especific context at hand is a typical post-modern tactic. Sartre would be proud of you.
This is exactly what I'm saying. I never said that bodybuilding is mathematical. You just arrived very, very late at this discussion and lost it. I was arguing a specific measure, which is mathematical. You can argue that Ronnie's lats looked as wide as Dorian's, but you cannot say that they were as wide without a mathematical proof. This is not even debatable.
Futhermore, you have confirmed what I said: bodybuilding is visual up to some point, becasue absolute measures evenetually overwhelm the subjectivity of visual perception. No matter how much smaller Wheeler's joints were and how much rounder his muscles were than Nasser's, the former still looks smaller than the latter due to the difference of 60 lbs.
That perception at the metaphysical level is dependent on axiomatic definition. Conversely, visual perception is an interpretative process that occurs in the human brain. Two completely different things.
Likewise, to meta-reality, the perception of our specific reality is also subjective. It all breaks down when you try to define the samllest gradient of reality and why reality exists as it is.
Exactly. They interact metaphysically by subjectively determining that out reality is objectively restrained.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Blame Coleman and his somatostatin-C induced gut. 
SUCKMYMUSCLE
- Cool. So how would you overcome this? It seems that the main Yates trump card is conditioning (along with what camp Yates claims is better proportion and symmetry)- that real granite quality he had. However, compared to coleman, this seems to come at the expense of vascularity and separation. How would you ensure that the judging of this comparison is fair- that the judges aren't all in favour of granite-ness at the expense of vascularity and separation?
- That's interesting. So, the gender roles were switched- the male played the conventional-western female role and vice versa- but the male was still given superiority- that is, the conventional-western female role held primacy over the conventional-male?
I can't think of the original point that was being argued, lol
I'm obviously not trying to spin that masculinity is a social construct- a quick look in your pants should go far to dispelling any doubts
- but social context goes a long way to shaping
how masculinity manifests itself.
- I didn't do that. And if I did, it was for a simple reason. You can only take things literally when you read them off the screen in a debate like this. If you don't, and you leave it open to interpretation, well, then interpretation knows no bounds.
- Yes, I thought as much. And I don't think I was seriously suggesting that you were saying that bodybuilding was mathematical- I was questioning whether you thought it such, but it's pretty self-evident that it isn't. What I
was asking was whether or not you thought the best way of judging it
would be mathematically.
- Fine. But now consider a Wheeler next to a Nasser with the exact same total muscle volume and distribution (perhaps it would be better ot use Dillet for this). But, Wheeler has incredibly tiny joints and consequentially what appear to be flaring muscle bellies, whereas Nasser has his typical thick joints. Obviously, the total amount of muscle is the same; however, is it not the case that Wheeler would look significantly more impressive and muscular?
- Sorry- what do you mean by perception at the metaphysical level? I agree with your definition of visual perception (it includes interpretation, doesn't preceed it).
- How does this happen? And reality itself doesn't break down, obviously.
