No, it isn’t fair. “Rugged” isn’t an objective measurement. Not all of them are outdoorsy. Some have emigrated to other climates. To Hollywood even. A lot of Aussies are doing everything they can to mitigate the impact of harmful UV rays. Especially actors might do more for their physical appearance than the average Bruce or Sheila.
Maybe it’s poorly phrased, but I don’t think this is a question that deserves the vitriol of your last question. It’s completely valid to wonder if higher exposure to UV rays would lead to a more “rugged” appearance in a place like Australia. I think the fault is them asking, “is it safe to assume…”, but that doesn’t imply that someone is focused on other’s looks, more the curiosity of environment to effects on aging.
No, it isn’t fair. “Rugged” isn’t an objective measurement. Not all of them are outdoorsy. Some have emigrated to other climates. To Hollywood even. A lot of Aussies are doing everything they can to mitigate the impact of harmful UV rays. Especially actors might do more for their physical appearance than the average Bruce or Sheila.
Why are you so focused on how people look?
Maybe it’s poorly phrased, but I don’t think this is a question that deserves the vitriol of your last question. It’s completely valid to wonder if higher exposure to UV rays would lead to a more “rugged” appearance in a place like Australia. I think the fault is them asking, “is it safe to assume…”, but that doesn’t imply that someone is focused on other’s looks, more the curiosity of environment to effects on aging.
What now?
Vitriol means bitterly harsh, cruel, or venomous language and criticism.
Look at OPs post history. 13 day old account and multiple posts exactly like this