Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The Ugly Penalty

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Should ugliness be considered a disability (legally)?
Yes! People should not be allowed to discriminate against the ugly. 31%  31%  [ 5 ]
No! I hate ugly people. They deserve all the abuse they get. 25%  25%  [ 4 ]
Oh look, SHEEP! .... I mean chupacabras! AARRRGGGGHHH! MY GOATS ARE SUCKED! 44%  44%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 16

iBlockhead
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 408

08 Feb 2014, 8:09 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
video


And from the opposite sex:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7myjFBwDlIk[/youtube]

This hit #1 on the charts in 1963.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,158
Location: temperate zone

08 Feb 2014, 8:11 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Fnord wrote:

Ugliness a disability? More like just another excuse for some people to whine about how "unfair" life is to them.


Not really. Most people refuse to self-identify as ugly. That's why, in my opinion, you'll never see ugly as a protected class.


Thats why you need to concoct some kind of new PC term for them as a class.

Hmmmm.....
You cant call them "visually impaired"(that would be taken to mean they have bad eyesight), nor "asthetically impaired"(which implies that they have bad taste in furniture or something)

I suggest calling them "Asymmetrical Americans"..



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

08 Feb 2014, 8:14 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Quote:
Should ugliness be considered a disability (legally)?


This is a pertinent question with regards to whether health insurance should cover cosmetic surgery for transsexual people.

If a transsexual woman has masculine face, and takes much ridicule, or whose life could be greatly improved, then isn't ugliness a disability ?


Hmm, that's interesting. Honestly, when I made this post, I was mostly thinking about discrimination in regards to employment and promotions, because we have precedent for government intervention there.

The more personal you get, the shakier things get legally, I think.

However, a trans-girl with a man-face would be at an obvious disadvantage.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

08 Feb 2014, 8:30 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
@ Ana,


Okay... Try this....

Go back to your post above and replace ugly people with black people.

Would that be okay?

The whole point of this thread is this--

As a society we have decided that is is not acceptable to discriminate on the basis of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc.

But for some reason we still think it's alright to discriminate on the basis of appearance (other than skin color).

I'm just curious ad to how that works and how people reconcile these issues...

Sure, personally I don't think we should discriminate on the basis of appearance, but I'm mostly interesed in the psychology of discrimination here...

My question to you, goonsquad: Are most people black or is being black part of a minority? The majority of people are some measure of ugly. How do you measure is too much? How do you propose to find out if someone is ugly enough for disability? What if someone could have their ugliness fixed with surgery? What about wigs? Liposuction? What if a doctor says they receive disability only long enough to fix the ugly. as in losing weight if that is the reason deemed for the chronic debilitating unsightly state?
There are a lot of obese people in America. Do you believe they are all disabled because some people equate excess body fat with ugliness?
Why not just include them in affirmative action programs instead since most of these people have superficial appearance working against them.
And what if the aliens land? They are bound to be ugly to our earthly senses. What will we do with them?

And what about inner ugliness? We can all agree that can definitely be a disability because if someone has a repulsive personality, they usually end up sad, broke, poor and horribly alone. Should that be included, too?



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

08 Feb 2014, 8:59 pm

^^^ okay, even though you haven't answered my question...

To answer yours, there have been several studies done that have established that facial symmetry is a key factor in what makes people attractive. This has been established to be true across all cultures.

Therefore, while facial symmetry may not be the only factor in what makes people attractive, it is a major factor and it applies across all cultures.

Also, facial symmetry can be accurately and consistently measured with a computer.

Finally, it has been established that a symmetry score of 92 is average human. People who score above 92 are consistently identified as 'beautiful' in studies.

Conversely, people who score below 92 are consistently identified as less attractive, and ugliness has shown to follow symmetry scores--the lower the symmetry score the uglier you are.

This might not be the only measure of ugly, but in study after study this has been proven as a scientifically legitimate and consistent way to measure one dimension of "ugly."

Using the scientific method, we could easily establish that people who score, say, 77 and below are in significant danger of being discriminated against.

Using a system like this, it would be easier to objectively establish discrimination on the basis of ugliness than it would be to establish discrimination on the basis of skin color.

So, now answer my question.

If you replace ugly person with black person in your previous post, would it change anything?
Why or why not?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

08 Feb 2014, 9:05 pm

it depends whether or not the ugliness is severe enough to be classed as a deformity. In that case, yes i think a case could be argued.

I've also wondered if having a significantly low IQ should in its own right, be or is classed as a disability.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

08 Feb 2014, 9:18 pm

thomas81 wrote:
it depends whether or not the ugliness is severe enough to be classed as a deformity. In that case, yes i think a case could be argued.

I've also wondered if having a significantly low IQ should in its own right, be or is classed as a disability.


It is if it's below 70, a person will automatically get disability benefits if he applies for them. However, someone with an IQ of 75, won't survive on his own in a regular, non-sheltered job either these days. Out of 5.1 million people in Norway, only 39 are in regular jobs--and just two of them are full-time employed.

With that being said, while someone with an IQ of 85 can't become an engineer, he can become a forklift operator and at least provide for himself.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

08 Feb 2014, 9:32 pm

Kurgan wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
it depends whether or not the ugliness is severe enough to be classed as a deformity. In that case, yes i think a case could be argued.

I've also wondered if having a significantly low IQ should in its own right, be or is classed as a disability.


It is if it's below 70, a person will automatically get disability benefits if he applies for them. However, someone with an IQ of 75, won't survive on his own in a regular, non-sheltered job either these days. Out of 5.1 million people in Norway, only 39 are in regular jobs--and just two of them are full-time employed.

With that being said, while someone with an IQ of 85 can't become an engineer, he can become a forklift operator and at least provide for himself.


I know a man with an IQ of 62 who has a wife, children and supports them with a job.

IQ scores are... slippery.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

08 Feb 2014, 9:43 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
it depends whether or not the ugliness is severe enough to be classed as a deformity. In that case, yes i think a case could be argued.

I've also wondered if having a significantly low IQ should in its own right, be or is classed as a disability.


It is if it's below 70, a person will automatically get disability benefits if he applies for them. However, someone with an IQ of 75, won't survive on his own in a regular, non-sheltered job either these days. Out of 5.1 million people in Norway, only 39 are in regular jobs--and just two of them are full-time employed.

With that being said, while someone with an IQ of 85 can't become an engineer, he can become a forklift operator and at least provide for himself.


I know a man with an IQ of 62 who has a wife, children and supports them with a job.

IQ scores are... slippery.


I also know of a case who worked as a licensed truck driver who was diagnosed as mentally ret*d, but his diagnosis was set on him when he was 7 years old, and there was currently very little linking him to that diagnosis.

Keep in mind that many who are mentally challenged and work, do so in sheltered conditions, where they receive a very small paycheck next to their disability pensions.



WA5p
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 20

08 Feb 2014, 10:37 pm

Wow, this thread was very interesting to me....

I was raised in a lower-tier income household. Many of the kids around me were good-looking in their teens and early-20's, but many of them did not really maintain it. Things like alcoholism, over-eating, drugs, children, and overwork/stress in menial jobs seemed to be the main culprits. Besides this, many of the kids around me did not really know HOW to maintain youthful appearances as they aged.

When I was about 14/15, I started working out because I was tired of getting picked on (I had undiagnosed AS).... Honestly, I think that working out and trying to stay in shape helped improve my looks, by building up the muscles of my neck and jaw, and giving me more of a "square face." I think staying fit and slender just helps me look younger overall, and I do not have a high income to afford a fancy gym or trainer....

I think the fact that I have a higher-IQ also helps a bit too, as I am more "aware" of things like maintaining good dental hygiene. I can not afford to see a dentist more than once a year, but I am very disciplined when it comes to flossing/brushing/mouthwash, as I wish to keep my teeth.

I also was not born with stunning good looks. I was a very ugly kid, and I have always had a bit of an underbite. However, I do make sure I always have my hair trimmed, I am kind of fit, and I wear decent clothes. All of these things seem to help, and don't cost a huge amount of money....

Long story short, I think it is EASIER for richer people to maintain their youthful appearances They have more options and tend be interested in things like tennis and vegan-lifestyles. With many of my peers who had "trailer trash" families, it seemed to be a case of "the blind leading the blind leading the blind...." Many girls I went to school with were "hot" as teenagers, but it seemed that they let themselves go later on, as they didn't really know how to maintain their looks once their natural metabolisms slowed down. (their mothers were also all crones by age 40)... Also, I think that the ravages of alcohol and overeating hit you more quickly than you realize.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

08 Feb 2014, 10:50 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
^^^ okay, even though you haven't answered my question...

To answer yours, there have been several studies done that have established that facial symmetry is a key factor in what makes people attractive. This has been established to be true across all cultures.

Therefore, while facial symmetry may not be the only factor in what makes people attractive, it is a major factor and it applies across all cultures.

Also, facial symmetry can be accurately and consistently measured with a computer.

Finally, it has been established that a symmetry score of 92 is average human. People who score above 92 are consistently identified as 'beautiful' in studies.

Conversely, people who score below 92 are consistently identified as less attractive, and ugliness has shown to follow symmetry scores--the lower the symmetry score the uglier you are.

This might not be the only measure of ugly, but in study after study this has been proven as a scientifically legitimate and consistent way to measure one dimension of "ugly."

Using the scientific method, we could easily establish that people who score, say, 77 and below are in significant danger of being discriminated against.

Using a system like this, it would be easier to objectively establish discrimination on the basis of ugliness than it would be to establish discrimination on the basis of skin color.

So, now answer my question.

If you replace ugly person with black person in your previous post, would it change anything?
Why or why not?

I did answer your question. There are more ugly people than black so I cannot take this situation and apply it to blacks, if I did, they would be the majority and would have the power to discriminate against others. I see hoards of them every time I go in public so how can you say that 92 is average. I'd say 77 is where I live. Maybe there are higher concentrations of people who score higher than 92 in places like Hollywood, for example, although many of them have had stuff done to make them more attractive.
One thing you ignore is the fact many people undergo procedures. I really do think you are looking at this issue in a very black/white way.
Studies are often flawed, results manipulated.

Studies like the one you mentioned seem custom tailored to manipulate people into falsely believing their looks are inferior and will, in fact, harm their chances in life.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

08 Feb 2014, 10:55 pm

Kurgan wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
it depends whether or not the ugliness is severe enough to be classed as a deformity. In that case, yes i think a case could be argued.

I've also wondered if having a significantly low IQ should in its own right, be or is classed as a disability.


It is if it's below 70, a person will automatically get disability benefits if he applies for them. However, someone with an IQ of 75, won't survive on his own in a regular, non-sheltered job either these days. Out of 5.1 million people in Norway, only 39 are in regular jobs--and just two of them are full-time employed.

With that being said, while someone with an IQ of 85 can't become an engineer, he can become a forklift operator and at least provide for himself.


I know a man with an IQ of 62 who has a wife, children and supports them with a job.

IQ scores are... slippery.


I also know of a case who worked as a licensed truck driver who was diagnosed as mentally ret*d, but his diagnosis was set on him when he was 7 years old, and there was currently very little linking him to that diagnosis.

Keep in mind that many who are mentally challenged and work, do so in sheltered conditions, where they receive a very small paycheck next to their disability pensions.


The guy I'm talking about was tested as an adult by the USMC on his way to Vietnam... He boasted of having the second lowest IQ in the Marine Corps, really.

When I knew him, he was working in a very dangerous industrial environment. His job was fairly simple and repetitive though.

He didn't have any problems. He couldn't read or do math, but he could follow verbal instructions pretty well.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

08 Feb 2014, 11:04 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I did answer your question. There are more ugly people than black so I cannot take this situation and apply it to blacks, if I did, they would be the majority and would have the power to discriminate against others. I see hoards of them every time I go in public so how can you say that 92 is average. I'd say 77 is where I live. Maybe there are higher concentrations of people who score higher than 92 in places like Hollywood, for example, although many of them have had stuff done to make them more attractive.
One thing you ignore is the fact many people undergo procedures. I really do think you are looking at this issue in a very black/white way.
Studies are often flawed, results manipulated.

Studies like the one you mentioned seem custom tailored to manipulate people into falsely believing their looks are inferior and will, in fact, harm their chances in life.


None of this stuff comes from me. It's from an Economist at a major University in Texas. I gotta say, I get really annoyed when people dismiss academic research simply because it conflicts with their world view. The guy doing the research has no specific agenda. In fact, despite the fact that his research uncovered clear evidence of discrimination, he is not in favor of having any legal protections for ugly people...

He's just in it for kicks.

Go figure.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 Feb 2014, 12:06 am

GoonSquad wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I did answer your question. There are more ugly people than black so I cannot take this situation and apply it to blacks, if I did, they would be the majority and would have the power to discriminate against others. I see hoards of them every time I go in public so how can you say that 92 is average. I'd say 77 is where I live. Maybe there are higher concentrations of people who score higher than 92 in places like Hollywood, for example, although many of them have had stuff done to make them more attractive.
One thing you ignore is the fact many people undergo procedures. I really do think you are looking at this issue in a very black/white way.
Studies are often flawed, results manipulated.

Studies like the one you mentioned seem custom tailored to manipulate people into falsely believing their looks are inferior and will, in fact, harm their chances in life.


None of this stuff comes from me. It's from an Economist at a major University in Texas. I gotta say, I get really annoyed when people dismiss academic research simply because it conflicts with their world view. The guy doing the research has no specific agenda. In fact, despite the fact that his research uncovered clear evidence of discrimination, he is not in favor of having any legal protections for ugly people...

He's just in it for kicks.

Go figure.

Actually he is most likely getting a grant that's why most studies happen. To get grant money. Go figure.
I mean look at Donald Trump. Look at most politicians. Do you really think many of them are good looking? People say JFK was but to me he isn't. Am I missing something?
There is not one politician from my state I would call attractive.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,904
Location: Stendec

09 Feb 2014, 12:19 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Ugliness a disability? More like just another excuse for some people to whine about how "unfair" life is to them.
Not really. Most people refuse to self-identify as ugly. That's why, in my opinion, you'll never see ugly as a protected class.

Most "ugly" people don't need to ... :wink:



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 Feb 2014, 12:25 am

Another thing I wonder, does that computer program just measure symmetry as in bone structure because I just saw a picture of a girl I thought looked attractive but she had something like 10,000 freckles on her face and I don't think those are attractive at all so if I were conducting a job interview and she walked in with those freckles all over I'd probably have to deduct on that :(