I kid you not...

Ugly? You May Have a Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=2&hp)


BEING good-looking is useful in so many ways.

In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages. Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third — a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000.

Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.

Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice. Most of us, regardless of our professed attitudes, prefer as customers to buy from better-looking salespeople, as jurors to listen to better-looking attorneys, as voters to be led by better-looking politicians, as students to learn from better-looking professors. This is not a matter of evil employers’ refusing to hire the ugly: in our roles as workers, customers and potential lovers we are all responsible for these effects.

How could we remedy this injustice? With all the gains to being good-looking, you would think that more people would get plastic surgery or makeovers to improve their looks. Many of us do all those things, but as studies have shown, such refinements make only small differences in our beauty. All that spending may make us feel better, but it doesn’t help us much in getting a better job or a more desirable mate.

A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?

OK, so who's going to decide who's ugly or not? What about short people? Fat people? Bald people? People who can't pronounce "nuclear" or speak with a lisp... oh that's right, we make them president and congressmen from Massachusetts.

This is the end all be all of who decides if someone is good looking or not!! HOT or NOT (http://hotornot.com/) ;)

I want to be on the Caligula panel that decides this, thumbs up or thumbs down.

So do they get the jobs and nice looking people get fired? Don't quite understand this as ugly folks never rated before, why now?

Hello Steve:

I can't imagine having a job and somebody saying that I only got it because I was ugly. I AM pretty ugly. But, I made it this far in life without any help from anybody.

excon

Ugly would exclude most of the world, what about the closed off people who can't communicate, should we exclude them?

According to Ron White ugly can be fixed it's 'stupid' that can't be.

According to Ron White ugly can be fixed it's 'stupid' that can't be.

There are some parts of ugly than can be fixed but not all

Sorry to drag this back... but I find a problem with all forms of affirmative action. Being it Beauty impaired, Intelligence impaired, skin color or anything else.

Anyone that hires anyone else for reasons other than them being the best qualified for the job... deserves the less than optimum employee staff they WILL end up with.

Sorry to drag this back.....but I find a problem with all forms of affirmative action. Being it Beauty impaired, Intelligence impaired, skin color or anything else.

Anyone that hires anyone else for reasons other than them being the best qualified for the job......deserves the less than optimum employee staff they WILL end up with.

Hi Smoothy,

There is no blanket ascription when it comes to affirmative action.It's not that simple. Race, colour and gender would be treated differently to impaired intelligence.

Tut

Hi Smoothy,

There is no blanket ascription when it comes to affirmative action.It's not that simple. Race, colour and gender would be treated differently to impaired intelligence.

Tut

That is the logic that has existed for thousands of years. Affirmative action hasn't helped us much, in fact it has made things very difficult at times. Sure some people got jobs they wouldn't have otherwise got, but lots of good people got excluded for no good reason other than no extra places existed

Hi Smoothy,

There is no blanket ascription when it comes to affirmative action.It's not that simple. Race, colour and gender would be treated differently to impaired intelligence.

Tut



Affirmative action by its very nature is discrimination, institutionalized discrimination. You are forcing someone to put a lesser qualified person in a position than would normally be chosen based on merit.

And like I said... any company that picks people (except maybe models who can be dumb as a stump to do the job) on other than purely merit gets what they deserve. Because the company that DOES select on merit with have the best staff and all the advantage that goes with it.


I tossed the impaired intelligence thing in because of the whiners of a number of ethnic groups that complain their test scores are lower because of discrimination... when the answer is they are lower as a group, because that group doesn't expend the same energy on education that other groups do. They all have the same capacity to learn as a group that any other group has.

I.E. the Inner City dropouts that claim to be underprivileged. You get out of an education what you put into it. Don't avail yourself of that opportunity, then its your own fault. Some very bright people come out of inner city schools, and some very dumb ones out of private schools.

I.E. the Inner City dropouts that claim to be underprivileged.Hello smoothy:

If you looked at inner city kids with your typical right wing blinders on, and NO historical reference whatsoever, you COULD claim that they're NOT underprivileged... But that wouldn't be true! It's not even close to the truth.

That said, the question is, do we make up for past discrimination by discriminating today? Uhhhh, I say YES. Is it fair?? Nahhh... Justice ain't fair.

excon

Hello smoothy:

If you looked at inner city kids with your typical right wing blinders on, and NO historical reference whatsoever, you COULD claim that they're NOT underprivileged... But that wouldn't be true! It's not even close to the truth.

That said, the question is, do we make up for past discrimination by discriminating today? Uhhhh, I say YES. Is it fair??? Nahhh... Justice ain't fair.

exconBull****. If they don't study... or drop out.. they only have themselves to blame.

Lazy is a choice. Not a gateway to entitlements. But then... liberals believe inner-city people are born dumber than the rest. I don't hold that belief.

There are a LOT of rural areas that don't have schools that are any better, and have far fewer services and opportunities. Same rules apply there too.

Hello again, smoothy:

Predictably, your post is BEREFT of historical reference. It's those blinders again. Right wingers don't seem to remember ANYTHING before Obama got elected...

I don't know how they do that.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Predictably, your post is BEREFT of historical reference. It's those blinders again. Right wingers don't seem to remember ANYTHING before Obama got elected...

I dunno how they do that.

excon
So you are claiming Latinos and Blacks AREN'T historically as naturally intelligent as whites... and nobody is as smart as the Asians? Because that's exactly what you are implying.

Your comments are BEREFT of anything that proves being in an inner city causes lower intelligence. Because inner city dwellers have far more opportunities than some poor backwater rural town have.

Obama is a prime example of what happens as a result of affirmative action.

Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know HOW you're missing the point, but you ARE. It's those blinders again..

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno HOW you're missing the point, but you ARE. It's those blinders again..

excon

When did you join the KKK. Because your assertions are right in line with what they appear to believe in case you haven't noticed. I think White, blacks, latinos and Asians have the same intelligence on average... you are asserting they don't.

The inner cities are such wonderful places the left loves to flock towards. Thus they are what they make them into. Perhaps the liberal Utopia doesn't have such good results after all?

Hello again, smoothy:

Apparently, you haven't a clue WHY affirmative action was instituted in the first place, so your arguments against it are specious.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Apparently, you haven't a clue WHY affirmative action was instituted in the first place, so your arguments against it are specious.

excon

Affirmative action was ALWAYS simply reverse discrimination... was on day one... and its never changed. Lazy people whining about things that happened before their parents were born... expecting to screw people who never had any part in any discrimination.

It's a concept Liberals are completely unable to understand for some reason.


Perhaps we are due some Affirmative action for conservatives to right every real and perceived wrong by liberals... and do it the next say 40+ years. Maybe that will make them understand.

I tossed the impaired intelligence thing in because of the whiners of a number of ethnic groups that complain their test scores are lower because of discrimination......when the answer is they are lower as a group, because that group doesn't expend the same energy on education that other groups do. They all have the same capacity to learn as a group that any other group has.



Hi Smoothy,

Two separate issues here.


Impaired intelligence to most people suggest that a person is suffering from a mental disability, usually genetic or the consequent of an accident/disease. We would use the term in a similar fashion toward someone who is hearing impaired. Because of their impairment they are unable to compete with people in ordinary society. No one would suggest that you give a hearing impaired person a job that requires acute hearing.

You comments on ethnic groups seems to be a reference to Intelligent Quotient or I.Q. testing. I am sure all ethnic groups would argue they have the same capacity to learn as any other group. They would also want to argue that some groups are disadvantaged by their cultural background when it comes to I.Q. testing. In other words, there is no such things as a culturally fair I.Q. test whereby we can accurately determine intelligence across a range of cultural groups.

Cultural background can be a determining factor when it comes to education. It can and does mean that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to schooling

Tut

I have said before that all the below average intelligence people have to live somewhere. Either we are not as smart as we think we are or there are vast pockets of people with lower intelligence. Why do teenagers drop out, I suspect it isn't lack of opportunity, which affirmative action suggests, but lack of intelligence.

Research has indicated that certain ethnic groups, I won't name them becauce of PC in this place, have lower intelligence levels and it could be said that their behaviour at times reflects this. Education might lift an individual but it doesn't lift the group

Hi Smoothy,

Two separate issues here.


Impaired intelligence to most people suggest that a person is suffering from a mental disability, usually genetic or the consequent of an accident/disease. We would use the term in a similar fashion toward someone who is hearing impaired. Because of their impairment they are unable to compete with people in ordinary society. No one would suggest that you give a hearing impaired person a job that requires acute hearing.

You comments on ethnic groups seems to be a reference to Intelligent Quotient or I.Q. testing. I am sure all ethnic groups would argue they have the same capacity to learn as any other group. They would also want to argue that some groups are disadvantaged by their cultural background when it comes to I.Q. testing. In other words, there is no such things as a culturally fair I.Q. test whereby we can accurately determine intelligence across a range of cultural groups.

Cultural background can be a determining factor when it comes to education. It can and does mean that some people are disadvantaged when it comes to schooling

Tut

I consider that anyone who uses that excuse for failing to study or make the most of what they have available to them.

Without pointing fingers at specific groups... because I feel they all have the same capacity to learn... just because others in your ethnic group think its cool to hang out until 3am run in packs causing problems rather than actually study. That's their decision, not a genetic inability to learn. Compare an equal random sampling of Asian, White, Hispanic and black students from the same inner city school... you can predict who comes out on top, and who comes out on the bottom.

And its not because one group has more or less mental capacity on the average than any of the others... but because of the choices they make. There are many examples of people on any specific ethnic background that despite poverty... have risen above the rest and made themselve not only a success, but have provided contributions for the community and even the country. And they did so without contributing to stealing someone else's opportunity.

Affirmative action is in itself rascist discrimination. And no different than rascist policies of any nation past and present.

And people are held responsible for their choices. Affirmative action is about rewarding bad choices and punishing those who make good ones.

Everyone in this country today gets a free education through the 12th grade. Anyone that fails to take advantage of that fully loses any right to claim being disadvantaged. That's no different than poking your own eyes out... then blaming the world for making you blind.


Of course there are a certain number of people far belove average in intelligence in any ethnic group... I am not referring to them as they are in the vast minority.

Affirmative action is in itself rascist discrimination. And no different than rascist policies of any nation past and present.

And people are held responsible for their choices. Affirmative action is about rewarding bad choices and punishing those who make good ones.




Hi Smoothy,

My only area of disagreement is with the above. Affirmative action is a little different to racial and gender discrimination. It is often difficult not to look like the racial group you belong to. It works the same for gender. It is hard not to look like a female if you are a female. If an employer is a misogynist then he is going to discriminate against you based on your appearance.

Affirmative action takes in things that are not always obvious in terms of physical appearance. For example, sexual orientation and religion. These things are not usually obvious when one applies for a job. They only become obvious if a person admits to them or a employer asks questions along those lines. To discriminate against someone based on their religion is not racial discrimination.

Tut

I consider that anyone who uses that excuse for failing to study or make the most of what they have availible to them.

Without pointing fingers at specific groups....because I feel they all have the same capacity to learn.... just because others in your ethnic group think its cool to hang out until 3am run in packs causing problems rather than actually study. Thats their decision, not a genetic inability to learn. Compare an equal random sampling of Asian, White, Hispanic and black students from the same inner city school.....you can predict who comes out on top, and who comes out on the bottom.

And its not because one group has more or less mental capacity on the average than any of the others.....but because of the choices they make. There are many examples of people on any specific ethnic background that despite poverty....have risen above the rest and made themselve not only a sucess, but have provided contributions for the community and even the country. And they did so without contributing to stealing someone elses opportunity.

Affirmative action is in itself rascist discrimination. And no different than rascist policies of any nation past and present.

And people are held responsible for their choices. Affirmative action is about rewarding bad choices and punishing those who make good ones.

Everyone in this country today gets a free education through the 12th grade. Anyone that fails to take advantage of that fully loses any right to claim being disadvantaged. Thats no different than poking your own eyes out....then blaming the world for making you blind.


Of course there are a certain number of people far belove average in intelligence in any ethnic group.... I am not reffering to them as they are in the vast minority.

In all honesty I can't agree, not everyone has the same capacity to learn. If you say this you are suggesting that we can serve up a hamogenous course of facts and everyone can be expected to emerge with the same knowledge clearly this is wrong and why education fails some groups. Education might be available, but it is often not relevant, because it is directed at preparing candidates for higher education, directed at educating a minority.

So, affirmative action has failed us and in the environment that currently exists it could result in the wrong choices being made in who to retain. Education has failed us, producing more educated idiots than it has genuses and we are left with the results of being selective, and if you look at the economic chaos about us, you could well say this is the result of wrong thinking, of pandering to the masses, who it appears are good for one thing only, electing governments. It takes no intelligence or education to punch the election machine

You wouldn't need affirmative action if there was NO discrimination. And don't worry Smoothy or Clete, when you become minorities you can get YOUR affirmative action too.

You will probably need it. Oh wait this is about ugly people, well I am for it, I need all the help I can get.

You wouldn't need affirmative action if there was NO discrimination. And don't worry Smoothy or Clete, when you become minorities you can get YOUR affirmative action too.

You will probably need it. Oh wait this is about ugly people, well I am for it, I need all the help I can get.

I'm already part of a minority, I may even be part of more than one minority and I have never been a picture post card and have suffered discrimination, both obvious and hidden. These things are part of life and there are b*astards everywhere. If I were to rely on someone doing something for me through affirmative action I would never get anything done. This is what affirmative action does, it means lazy people don't really have to try

Hi Smoothy,

My only area of disagreement is with the above. Affirmative action is a little different to racial and gender discrimination. It is often difficult not to look like the racial group you belong to. It works the same for gender. It is hard not to look like a female if you are a female. If an employer is a misogynist then he is going to discriminate against you based on your appearance.

Affirmative action takes in things that are not always obvious in terms of physical appearance. For example, sexual orientation and religion. These things are not usually obvious when one applies for a job. They only become obvious if a person admits to them or a employer asks questions along those lines. To discriminate against someone based on their religion is not racial discrimination.

Tut

Affirmative action IS discrimintation in its purist form.

I will not hire you because you are white or male... I will hire the less qualified female or (pick a minority group).


THAT is no different than a white guy not hiring a black guy or woman because he doesn't personally think they are the best choice for ANY reason... even personal ones...

Discrimination is putting one or more groups at a disadvantage for no other reason than their race, gender or other reason. And affirmative action does exactly that, puts some groups at an advantage at the expense of other groups. In total disregard of actual job qualifications.

Affirmative action IS discrimination in its purist form.

And discrimination is hatred in any form. So what?? Whose perfect. You are lucky you aren't as ugly as I am.

And discrimination is hatred in any form. So what??? Whose perfect. You are lucky you aren't as ugly as I am.

Can't say I've ever seen your picture to say if you are or not. Hell, we might be equally ugly. But then, ugly is in the eye of the beholder. So who's to say.

But for the Former... then why do liberals endorse what is discrimination?

I don't when the rules are fair and transparent. But now that the KKK has taken off its hoods and started running for elected office, I keep my eyes peeled for haters.

I don't when the rules are fair and transparent. But now that the KKK has taken off its hoods and started running for elected office, I keep my eyes peeled for haters.

They changed their name to the National Black Caucus.

Affirmative action IS discrimintation in its purist form.

I will not hire you because you are white or male...I will hire the less qualified female or (pick a minority group).


THAT is no different than a white guy not hiring a black guy or woman because he doesn't personally think they are the best choice for ANY reason....even personal ones...

Discrimination is putting one or more groups at a disadvantage for no other reason than their race, gender or other reason. And affirmative action does exactly that, puts some groups at an advantage at the expense of other groups. In total disregard of actual job qualifications.

Yes, affirmative action is discrimination. Some might call it positive discrimination. I'm not disputing that. The point I am making is that if I discriminate on the basis of someone's skin colour then I might rightly be called a racist. If I discriminate on the basis of someone's religion then I am not a racist. I might be anti-religion, but I am not a racist. On this basis racism and affirmative action/discrimination are not exactly the same.

Tut

Yes, affirmative action is discrimination. Some might call it positive discrimination. I'm not disputing that. The point I am making is that if I discriminate on the basis of someones skin colour then I might rightly be called a racist. If I discriminate on the basis of someone's religion then I am not a racist. I might be anti-religion, but I am not a racist. On this basis racism and affirmative action/discrimination are not exactly the same.

Tut


Hi again smoothy,

If on the other hand you are saying the OUTCOMES are the same then I would tend to agree with you.


Tut

Yes, affirmative action is discrimination. Some might call it positive discrimination. I'm not disputing that. The point I am making is that if I discriminate on the basis of someones skin colour then I might rightly be called a racist. If I discriminate on the basis of someone's religion then I am not a racist. I might be anti-religion, but I am not a racist. On this basis racism and affirmative action/discrimination are not exactly the same.

Tut

Discrimination is discrimination... there is no such thing as positive discrimination, its always negative because someone is getting the shaft unwillingly... that is a falicy created in the minds of those doing the discrimination to "justify" what is an abhorant act.

I don't buy into the BS PC crap that its going to fix a damn thing... perhaps the same people that believe in that form of discrimination would also be willing to consider getting robbed as payback for having taken advantage of a situation earlier where they took advantage of someone else's mistake. After all, two wrongs make a right in the democrarts mind... don't they?

Discrimination is discrimination....there is no such thing as positive discrimination, its always negative because someone is getting the shaft unwillingly....that is a falicy created in the minds of those doing the discrimination to "justify" what is an abhorant act.




Hi Smoothy,

No problem, call it negative if you like.

The only thing I am disputing is your claim that affirmative action is the same as racism. The outcomes may well be the same, but this does not make them one and the same. I know this is nitpicking, but it is an important nit to pick in this case.

Tut

Hi Smoothy,

No problem, call it negative if you like.

The only thing I am disputing is your claim that affirmative action is the same as racism. The outcomes may well be the same, but this does not make them one and the same. I know this is nitpicking, but it is an important nit to pick in this case.

TutIt is the same because it is the same... the only differences are the excuses given for it.

Someone gets screwed in favor of another, for reasons other than actual qualifications. What Color, or gender, it doesn't matter. Its still discrimination. What the Black Caucus wants to do... and that the White Supremacists want to do... are exactly the same, in fact they are both different sides of the same card. No excuse in the world can justify the discrimination they both want to commit.

It it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... its a duck.

No excuse in the world can justify the discrimination they both want to commit.Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know about that... To ME, keeping people as SLAVES justifies some affirmative action/discrimination... It's a GOOD excuse too. You just don't agree with it.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno about that... To ME, keeping people as SLAVES justifies some affirmative action/discrimination... It's a GOOD excuse too. You just don't agree with it.

excon

Funny, if the conservatives took over, and by your rules... rightfully implement affirmative action programs to discriminate against liberals in all things due to past discrimination to conservatives and responsible people in general. Then that would not only be legal but fair. Lets see how you like it if it ever becomes reality.

And about the slavery thing... its way past time they get over it already... nobody alive, their parents, or even grandparents were ever a slave here. Its been well over 150 years... they need to grow up, accept responsibility for their own actions... and again... get over it!

I didn't even have ancestors on these shores (as in the American Continent ) in the 1800's. Nothing I or any of my ancestors ever did had ANYTHING remotely to do with that. SO therefore I am and have been suffering discrimination as a result. NOBODY in my bloodline was ever even remotely responsible for anything that happened here before the early 1900's.

It is the same because it is the same.....the only differences are the excuses given for it.

Someone gets screwed in favor of another, for reasons other than actual qualifications. What Color, or gender, it doesn't matter. Its still discrimination.


Yes, you are right discrimination based on colour is racism. However,discrimination based on gender is not racism. It's discrimination based on gender. Isn't it? If it were discrimination based on colour then it would be racism.


Consider this hypothetical...

I am an employer in a country with a large Buddhist population. According to my hiring records I have not employed any people of the Buddhist faith. Affirmative action moves in and tells me I MUST stop discriminating against Buddhists in my interviewing process. Basically this means I must start hiring Buddhists.

Affirmative action also tells me that certain penalties are in place based on various types of discrimination in the work place. I thumb my nose at affirmative action. They are not going to tell me who to hire. I would rather pay the fine.

When I find myself up before the courts the judge imposes a 24 month jail term for racial discrimination. But wait! Doesn't discrimination based on religion only carry a $500 fine?

The judge tells me yes, but then iterates, "What does it matter, it's still discrimination.If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck".

Tut

Yes, you are right discrimination based on colour is racism. However,discrimination based on gender is not racism. It's discrimination based on gender. Isn't it? If it were discrimination based on colour then it would be racism.


Consider this hypothetical.....

I am an employer in a country with a large Buddhist population. According to my hiring records I have not employed any people of the Buddhist faith. Affirmative action moves in and tells me I MUST stop discriminating against Buddhists in my interviewing process. Basically this means I must start hiring Buddhists.

Affirmative action also tells me that certain penalties are in place based on various types of discrimination in the work place. I thumb my nose at affirmative action. They are not going to tell me who to hire. I would rather pay the fine.

When I find my self up before the courts the judge imposes a 24 month jail term for racial discrimination. But wait! Doesn't discrimination based on religion only carry a $500 fine?

The judge tells me yes, but then iterates, "What does it matter, it's still discrimination.If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck".

Tut
Discrimination is discrimination. There are different kinds of discrimination, but when you look at them all, its all about NOT picking someone because you dislike them for other than their abilities. Be it you hate Blue people, People with three breasts (or without)... or tall or short people.

If you can demonstrate you have hired based on qualification then its not YOU that discriminates... the policy that DEMANDS you hire a certain number of blue people, or a certain number of three breasted people in disregard to if you can find any that are equally qualified to the other applicants is discrimititory.

And anyone that considers being qualified as a second or third on the scale of importance rather than first... gets exactly what they were after... a second or third rate work force.

Look at the post office or most government offices for examples of what affirmative action gets you.

Those are bad examples of affirmative actions Smoothy, but actually I agree with the premise that discriminations is bad. As for affirmative action to fight that discrimination, there are several details you leave out, that are discriminatory by nature. One being is your assertion to being forced to accept one who isn't as qualified as you think you are, taking something from you that you think you deserve. Your position is without facts as there is a very big difference in looking PC and being PC, and you have to agree I think that window dressing to say "See we don't discriminate" is mostly the case, and that actually being qualified, is but a secondary non important motive to those who feed into this type of thinking. Looks good on paper, but contributes nothing. But it does excite anger, and resentment, at someone else, and covers up responsibility for the one who actually discriminates for the purpose of looking like they do not.

Case in point is your own dismissal of the effects of slavery, since you had none, and so you blame the descendants for not getting there act together and getting over their anger, or whatever. Just like the southerners who are spouting the civil war was about states rights, and not slavery.

Fact is slavery, and discrimination is still alive and well in America, and the chains and whips have been replaced by money, who gets it and how much, and policy directed at keeping slaves of the masses and blaming it on those masses.

The example I give you is where the money has gone, and where it has not in the last decades, and who has made the policies that directed that money. Sure its easy to sit in our section of the world and holler what's fair or not, but to ignore the facts, is to ignore the problem and never have a solution.

Fact, in the last 10 years wealth, or the opportunity for wealth, has been sucked out of the hands of the many, and redirected to the few, and the FACT is that there are more poor people than ever before. The FACT is that the ones with the money, have directed what LAWS are made, interpreted, and enforced, and the policies by which they become LAW. Those are facts.

Now you may holler yet again that all the poor want are dope and a free ride and a cell phone, none of which is made or supplied by the poor I may add, so the question becomes, who brings the dope and cell phones to the poor and why? Hmmm history tells us it's the same ones who sold whiskey to the Indians.

My point, we are all slaves being exploited for the benefit of someone else's wealth. Though you have a few bucks more, you are as poor as the poor you decry as being beneath you, and unworthy, and at the whim of another all your hard work is going for naught, and you will hate yourself, and blame others for your misery, just like the poor people do.

That's why they are happy with a cell phone, a bag of dope, and some wine, so they can feel better about themselves. That's why they are still in a ghetto, safely put away to keep them from finding out that there is a better way out, that there is a way out, period. You found it, because you wanted out. I applaud you for that, but just like back in the day when the slaves where freed, they didn't know of a better life, just the valley and fields they grew up in.

That's the discrimination my friend, and what keeps slaves in there place, not knowing what to do with the limited freedom that others would bestow on them. They are happy with just being a window dressing so it can be said, "see, we don't discriminate".

I agree quotas and affirmative actions is another form of discrimination, but that's all you got for now to work with. Until you address the real problem of discrimination, control over the money, or the value placed on a human by another, then we are all reduced to being slaves, whether we are locked in the ghetto, or not.

I wonder, is it your own fear of being poor again, that makes you angry about those that are still poor, or is it your hatred of what you have been through, that has you hating those you left behind.

Or has all your hard work only gotten you far enough to have a few bucks more, yet not far enough to not hear that ghetto blaster, or see your neighbor with a cell phone, and no job? Or do you still feel like the slaves you hate so much. YOU ARE you know, admit it, we all are, because we ain't making the rules, we are just following them.

Hello tal:

**greenie**

excon

Tal,

Wonderful post, well done.

Discrimination is discrimination. There are different kinds of discrimination, but when you look at them all, its all about NOT picking someone because you dislike them for other than their abilities. Be it you hate Blue people, People with three breasts (or without)....or tall or short people.

If you can demonstrate you have hired based on qualification then its not YOU that discriminates.....the policy that DEMANDS you hire a certain number of blue people, or a certain number of three breasted people in disregard to if you can find any that are equally qualified to the other applicants is discrimititory.

And anyone that considers being qualified as a second or third on the scale of importance rather than first....gets exactly what they were after....a second or third rate work force.

Look at the post office or most government offices for examples of what affirmative action gets you.



Hi Smoothy,

Yes, there are a large number of different types of discriminations. Now that you recognize this I think you are starting to narrow it down pretty well. I think your distinction between institutionalized and personal discrimination is a useful one.

As far as your reference to government offices being examples of institutionalized discrimination? I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Once you institutionalize discrimination in the form of an anti discrimination policy (affirmative action) then (as you point out ) it becomes a legal requirement. Yes,sometimes the law is a donkey.

As I said, I think the distinction is an important because you can have gender discrimination in the work place ( not necessary illegal) while sexual discrimination in the form of a policy is unlawful.


I just wish you wouldn't keep saying, "discrimination is discrimination"


Tut

Hi Smoothy,

Yes, there are a large number of different types of discriminations. Now that you recognize this I think you are starting to narrow it down pretty well. I think your distinction between institutionalized and personal discrimination is a useful one.

As far as your reference to government offices being examples of institutionalized discrimination? I don't necessarily disagree with that.

Once you institutionalize discrimination in the form of an anti discrimination policy (affirmative action) then (as you point out ) it becomes a legal requirement. Yes,sometimes the law is a donkey.

As I said, I think the distinction is an important because you can have gender discrimination in the work place ( not necessary illegal) while sexual discrimination in the form of a policy is unlawful.


I just wish you wouldn't keep saying, "discrimination is discrimination"


Tut

I say discrimination is discrimination... because it is. Anything else is certain groups trying to justify their own personal preferences to discriminate angainst someone else.

Its an all or nothing affair. If you allow one form of discrimination, you are a hipocrit to complain about someone else's preferred form.

Because I had a busy day yesterday, and I will again today.

It was commented on a few posts back that Slavery and discrimination are alive and well in the USA... I call BS on the slavery end... because that was outlawed generations ago... and will result in jail time for anyone caught trying it.

Discrimination IS alive and well... and you can thank the liberals for the fact it is. Its called Affirmative action... and cute name changes doesn't change what it is. Its Discrimination, in favor of liberals... at the expense of everyone else, including other liberals.

And personally... I have a lower respect for anyone that believes in discrimination, practices discrimination, or in particular, expects to be allowed to discriminate for their own gain.

The NAACP, Black Caucus, Black PAnthers, KKK, White Supremacists, NeoNazi's, CAIR, CASA De Maryland, and any of that ilk... are all alike. They are all rascists to the core. And all believe in their own form of discrimination.

Doesn't matter if its codified into law... its STILL repugnent. And just because someone generations ago was discriminated on is NO excuse to be demanding anything right now. It didn't happen to you so grow a pair, and deal with it. When he came here my GANDFATHER, not great great or great great great grandfather was discriminated on for his ethnicity... and this was many decades after slavery ended... when blacks could get jobs that the Irish were refused... and yes... look up INNA... Irish Need Not Apply, in reference to New York City.

Do I expect reperations for that? Nope... if it didn't happen to you, then YOU aren't entitled to anything for it. If it happened before your were born... you aren't entitled to anything, nothing wrong with learning about it... but you do have to shut up and stop trying to blame your own personal shortcomings and deficiencies on events that occurred before you were a gleem in your parents eyes.

There is a famous saying because its both accurate and true. "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." Its not an excuse to keep repeating it. If it wasn't right then... its still not right now, and won't be right tomorrow either.

Hi Smooth,

Everyone, discriminates to some extent.

I discriminate against Vegemite( food based extract made from yeast) I discriminate against it at every opportunity. I can't stand the stuff( in fact I hate the stuff )and I usually make it known to everyone I meet. I do my discrimination act in front of Vegemite lovers. And yes, I do it to promote my own personal preferences. This is not made up I really have been know to do this.

Is my behaviour repugnant? According to your definition it is. Is it?

This is of course a trite example. I'm not sure about American history so I'll go along with your analysis. The only point I have been making all along is that discrimination populates itself along a very large continuum with discrimination against various products at one end to overt racism at the other. One end of the continuum is legal and everyone does it to a certain extent. Racism you can do it but it is illegal. This is why discrimination isn't discrimination.

If you can't see this then there is nothing I can do about it.


Tut

You make it sound like only liberals discriminate now. I beg to differ. Its like a black guy in a suit trying to hail a cab. I do have to say that lumping all groups into the same bucket is stopping you from seeing any differences in those groups, as the purpose of the NAACP, is quite different from the KKK, but you will never know that by your thinking, and that's prejudice, and a shame.

But since your grandfather was never chained, beaten, bought and sold, or lynched, you know nothing of slavery, Jim Crow, or any other legal discriminations going on then, or now. So please stop pretending you do, and minimizing the experience of others with such a narrow view. You don't even try to understand the real fears of others you rail so vehemently against.

That's why you will never understand your own slavery now, because money, and economic opportunity are the modern day replacement for chains, and whips. Fear is still the fence that divide have, and have NOT. Haven't you noticed the slave class growing? Haven't you noticed the total decline of dignity, and self respect? Haven't you noticed that hard, honest work is not rewarded as much as cut throat, selfish behavior?

Of course you don't. That's why you have no concept of institutional inequity, or its long term effects. Take away discrimination, then maybe you won't knock a guy for having a chance.

I respectfully submit that only a racist would even consider the opportunity of another threatens him in any way. Yes I reject all your excuses for hatred.

You make it sound like only liberals discriminate now. I beg to differ. Its like a black guy in a suit trying to hail a cab. I do have to say that lumping all groups into the same bucket is stopping you from seeing any differences in those groups, as the purpose of the NAACP, is quite different from the KKK, but you will never know that by your thinking, and thats prejudice, and a shame.

But since your grandfather was never chained, beaten, bought and sold, or lynched, you know nothing of slavery, Jim Crow, or any other legal discriminations going on then, or now. So please stop pretending you do, and minimizing the experience of others with such a narrow view. You don't even try to understand the real fears of others you rail so vehemently against.

Thats why you will never understand your own slavery now, because money, and economic opportunity are the modern day replacement for chains, and whips. Fear is still the fence that divide have, and have NOT. haven't you noticed the slave class growing? Haven't you noticed the total decline of dignity, and self respect? Haven't you noticed that hard, honest work is not rewarded as much as cut throat, selfish behavior?

Of course you don't. Thats why you have no concept of institutional inequity, or its long term effects. Take away discrimination, then maybe you won't knock a guy for having a chance.

I respectfully submit that only a racist would even consider the opportunity of another threatens him in any way. Yes I reject all your excuses for hatred.

Gee, its clear YOU support discrimination, as long as its discrimination YOU want to happen.

You are a liberal... most of those supporting this mindset are liberal... thus the liberals actually are the ones most guilty of discrimination today... and your own post proves it.

Unlike your stance that its OK to discriminate as long as it's the people you want to discriminate against, I say ALL discrimination is wrong. Don't care if its man or woman, White, black, hispanic or other.

The NAACP of TODAY has morphed into a rascist organization. I speak of today's organization that no longer is what it was originally. They don't get a free pass because they support Democrats. Blacks are no more immune from practicing rascism than any other group... and they do practice it... talk to inner city Latinos, or Asians.

Today its no different and no better than the KKK is.

Imagine the Democrats crying if someone started a NAAWP for example.


And personally... what happened 50+ years ago... they need to get over it or get therapy for it. This is today... they need to stop living in the past.

And personally.....what happened 50+ years ago......they need to get over it or get therapy for it. This is today...they need to stop living in the past.I agree. Same with that 9/11 stuff - it's been 10 years! They should stop that sappiness on TV and gte over it.

I agree. Same with that 9/11 stuff - it's been 10 years! They should stop that sappiness on TV and gte over it.

What does a crime (the Democrats called that a crime, not an act of war remember) have to do with discrimination that happened several generations ago?

So only discrimination should be forgotten then?

So only discrimination should be forgotten then?

If someone called you a bad name 50+ years ago and someone won't let go of is indication of a mental disorder.


Slavery ended over 150 years ago... get over it.

One of my Great Uncles dissappeared on the Battan Death march after having been captured earlier by the Japanese... THEY were treated far worse than slaves were. Slaves were quite valuable... but to Eperial Japan, POW's were of less than no value.

But that was 1942... I don't hold it against the Japanese of today at all. Not all Blacks in the USA at that time were slaves... not all blacks in the USA are even descendants of slaves in reality.

If someone called you a bad name 50+ years ago and someone won't let go of is indication of a mental disorder.
Well if you're equating slavery to someone calling you a bad name then I guess our conversation is over.

Well if you're equating slavery to someone calling you a bad name then I guess our conversation is over.

So name me some living former slaves? Name me ONE living former slave from when it was actually legal here. You can't because its been generations. Thus nobody alive has been affected by it in reality... so nobody alive has an excuse to complain.

Its over... it's been over for more than 150 years now, its not EVER coming back... so get over it.

Its no different than some loon having a bug up their but with Cherokee Indians because one of their ancesters were scalped by one 150 years ago. I'd tell them to get over it too.

QUOTE by smoothy;
If someone called you a bad name 50+ years ago and someone won't let go of is indication of a mental disorder.
Name calling is a lot different than subjugation, and even the name calling hasn't stopped. Your own derogatory comparisons are evidence of that.

Funny how we agree that people who cannot let it go, are suffering from a mental disorder, or in my own words, a bad attitude.

You won't get rid of affirmative action until you deal with what makes it necessary, discrimination of other peoples opportunities, or options. The existence of one, leads to the existence of the other. Wrong though they may be.

Name calling is a lot different than subjugation, and even the name calling hasn't stopped. Your own derogatory comparisons are evidence of that.

Funny how we agree that people who cannot let it go, are suffering from a mental disorder, or in my own words, a bad attitude.

You won't get rid of affirmative action until you deal with what makes it necessary, discrimination of other peoples opportunities, or options. The existence of one, leads to the existence of the other. Wrong though they may be.

Geeze... Name ONE person alive that was a slave... or even who had a mother or father that was a slave. You can't...

They need therapy , that's what they need... to get over it.

You are aware American Indians held slaves... and not black ones either, other indians and whites... you don't hear their descendants crying about it all the damn time. That's because they got over it.

They need psychiatric help... thats what they all need.

Not a damn free ride for being lazy wastes of human flesh.

And that's all the whiners are... nothing more. Everyone else gets it...

But then... Democrats are today's KKK. They are the biggest group of rascists who practice and defend discrimination. Obviously THEY think they are superior to the people they discriminate against... you know... just like the KKK used to do.

Democrats don't believe in equality... and they certainly don't practice it.

Lazy people have less opportunities, because they are lazy. They ALL get a free education... and what is the graduation rate today? Among Minorities?. and exactly WHOSE fault is that? Not mine, not yours, its theirs, they own the responsibility, lock stock and barrell.

But then... lets give the drop outs medical licenses and make democrats go there... after all, they want to give them entitlements they didn't earn. Hey, lets see the left practice what they preach.

Or hire a droppout to defend you in court... why have the BAR exam, it discriminates against people that didn't go to Law School.

Why should they not get as much and the same as someone that actually went to school and studied.

Incidentally... my grandfather came here as a result of the Subjugation of the Irish by the British... I don't think they owe me anything. And he was treated here worse than any black was... I don't think I'm owed anything for it.

But then......lets give the drop outs medical liscenses and make democrats go there....after all, they want to give them entitlements they didn't earn. Hey, lets see the left practice what they preach.

Or hire a droppout to defend you in court....why have the BAR exam, it discriminates against people that didn't go to Law School.

Why should they not get as much and the same as someone that actually went to school and studied.



Hi smoothy,

The answer to that is no one gets a degree by claiming discrimination.

You know of some medical student dropouts who became doctors that don't have a MB BSc.

Are there two classes of MB's being issued at the moment? The lazy variety for dropouts and the gold standard variety for hard working students?

You know some dropouts practising law at the moment who have been admitted to the bar because they claimed discrimination?



As far as subjugation of the Irish by the British. Yes, you are owed something. You are owed the right of history not to make the same mistakes.


Tut

Hello smoothy:

The problem with your thinking, is that there was slavery, and then there wasn't... And everybody lived happily every after...

But, there's a lot of stuff that happened AFTER slavery ended that affirmative action is designed to rectify. You're ignoring it.. I don't know why. Maybe it makes your point.. But, not really, because the people you're arguing with HAVE a memory. Why do right wingers have selective memory?

excon

@TUT, very true, affirmative action gives you opportunity, not a guarantee.

@EX, Selective memory, and selective FACTS, but righties always have a passionate rant.

You are being very selective in your views.

Affirmative action is a government saying we are going to force you to change your views and actions, to take an action you would not ordinarily take. What remained after slavery was overthrown was racial discrimination because you can legislate labour laws but you can't legislate thought patterns

When it comes to slavery you have to look beyond forced labour, maintaining low wages is a form of slavery. What was overthrown was the idea of forced labour, the idea that one person could have property rights over another but what was not overthrown was the idea that one person could exploit another, this remains endemic

You are being very selective in your views.

Affirmative action is a government saying we are going to force you to change your views and actions, to take an action you would not ordinarily take. What remained after slavery was overtrown was racial discrimination because you can legislate labour laws but you can't legislate thought patterns



Hi Clete,

Affirmative action cannot force you to change your VIEWS, but it can force you to change your ACTIONS. Anyone can hold whatever views they like when it comes to race and religion. The only thing you can't do is act on some of these views in a discriminative way.

This was one of the points I was trying to make throughout this thread.

I may well practice gender discrimination. For example, I may refuse to talk to women in the work place and I may well prefer the company of only men in the lunch room. At morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea. But there is nothing illegal about my actions. I may well be considered wrong, immature, silly but my actions are not abhorrent.

If on the other hand, I practise racial discrimination in the work place then my views are illegal and many would say abhorrent as well. In both cases no one can make anyone change their views, we can only make them change their actions if the behaviour is deemed serious enough.




When it comes to slavery you have to look beyond forced labour, maintaining low wages is a form of slavery. What was overthrown was the idea of forced labour, the idea that one person could have property rights over another but what was not overthrown was the idea that one person could exploit another, this remains endemic




Yes, this is true. I guess we could say that it is attempt to change the behaviour. As you point out in doing so we don't necessarily change the attitude.

Tut

Hi Clete,

Affirmative action cannot force you to change your VIEWS, but it can force you to change your ACTIONS. Anyone can hold whatever views they like when it comes to race and religion. The only thing you can't do is act on some of these views in a discriminative way.

This was one of the points I was trying to make throughout this thread.

I may well practice gender discrimination. For example, I may refuse to talk to women in the work place and I may well prefer the company of only men in the lunch room. at morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea. But there is nothing illegal about my actions. I may well be considered wrong, immature, silly but my actions are not abhorrent.

If on the other hand, I practise racial discrimination in the work place then my views are illegal and many would say abhorrent as well. In both cases no one can make anyone change their views, we can only make them change their actions if the behaviour is deemed serious enough.




Yes, this is true. I guess we could say that it is attempt to change the behaviour. As you point out in doing so we don't necessarily change the attitude.

Tut

Hi Tut

Really there is a difference between affirmative action and anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination makes discrimation on the basis or race, religion, gender, etc illegal and open to civil action. In other words the remedy lies in resort to the Law.

Affirmative action goes much further and requires that even though you may not discrimate you must actively discriminate on favour of certan groups, race, gender, ethnicity or culture so that even if they are not the best qualified they will be selected because you are meeting an imposed quota often much higher than the general representation of these groups in the population. This is basically unfair and can result in a dumbing down because of lower educational standards. Fortunately we are relatively free of it here and it is largely confined to government or the indigenous sector

Hi Tut

really there is a difference between affirmative action and anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination makes discrimation on the basis or race, religion, gender, etc illegal and open to civil action. In other words the remedy lies in resort to the Law.


Yes, you are correct. I was using the term in its broadest sense. In the end I was 'stuck' for a way to draw the broader issues together.
But good observation.







Affirmative action goes much further and requires that even though you may not discrimate you must actively discriminate on favour of certan groups, race, gender, ethnicity or culture so that even if they are not the best qualified they will be selected because you are meeting an imposed quota often much higher than the general representation of these groups in the population. This is basicly unfair and can result in a dumbing down becuase of lower educational standards. Fortunately we are relatively free of it here and it is largely confined to government or the indigenous sector


Again, you are largely correct. I can understand your complaint if the situation arises whereby a university sets aside a certain number of places for a minority group and such entry is below the recommended standard.

However, it is not the case that these students sit a dumbed down medical exam while the brighter students sit for the proper exam. Not in this country anyway. I would also dispute any claim that such examinations are dumbed down for everybody. Again, not in this country. Australian universities enjoy a highly respected reputation worldwide in terms of the quality of graduate turned out.

Setting aside lower entry status is not that radical in universities these days. Such things as mature age entry and accreditation based on life experience seems to be the norm.

Tut

Hello smoothy:

The problem with your thinking, is that there was slavery, and then there wasn't... And everybody lived happily every after...

But, there's a lot of stuff that happened AFTER slavery ended that affirmative action is designed to rectify. You're ignoring it.. I dunno why. Maybe it makes your point.. But, not really, because the people you're arguing with HAVE a memory. Why do right wingers have selective memory??

excon

Doesn't matter... what you are talking about are people with issues THEY need to deal with and refuse to... and instead expect to screw the rest of us.

I am talking about people with personal issues... I won't go so far as claiming they are brain damaged.. because most aren't.

They are just too damn lazy to do the work it takes everyone else to do.

They for the most part refuse to study in school... whoes fault is that? Theirs

They for the most part prefer to not apply themselves and instead blame others. Whoes fault is that? Theirs.

THey for the most part expect things handed to them without working for them. Who's fault is that? THeirs.

They think its cool and drop out of High school to hang aout at all ours and play hoodlum. Dress like slobs... talk like they never went to school and then complain they can't get a $100K a year job right off the street.
Who's fault is that? Theirs.

Now the Democrats think they should get everything handed to them on a silver platter... and get any job they want... despite lacking the education, or experience... for no other reason than their skin color.

Because heaven forbid, they pick up a shovel, wash dishes or do anything that requires labor... like anyone else has to do.


And they bellyache about how there are no jobs in the inner city. Well, the Illegals seem to find lots of work... to the tune of well over 12 million of them.

As far as I'm concerned... and LOTS of others are too... this is 2011. Not 1911. Get over it already.

Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know how you can spew so much hatred in so little time.. It must take practice.

excon

So Clete once they get into college they don't have to go to the same classes as the rest of the first year college students? They don't have to make the same grades? Or when they get into the work force the boss doesn't require they do the work? I don't see the standard being lowered to meet quotas, but you imply the don't deserve to even have the opportunity to an education, job, or contract, and that's very much what affirmative action gives them, a chance that you would not.

What about the dumb lazy kid who gets accepted to a nice university because his rich daddy and even richer granddaddy went there? That's fair too isn't it? Did they dumb things down for him? No they paid some smart poor guy to do his homework and get his grades up. What about getting a contract while competing with a bigger company whose golf buddy needs something built?

You listen to guys like smoothy and you will hear nothing but hate and resentments, as he broad brushes everybody who doesn't have what he does as there fault, and even you on a smaller level show some resentment to those you consider lesser.

Actually, affirmative action is made for people like you two, who would dismiss and discriminate against others. I think you have shown you would discriminate if you could, if you had they opportunity too.

That would be as ugly as the system you hate so much.

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno how you can spew so much hatred in so little time.. It must take practice.

excon

Gee, you are one of the ones arguing Blacks and other minoritys are somehow inferior to the rest of us and NEED affirmative action just to have a chance.

I'm not the one that doesn't think they are equal in capacity or ability.

Anone that thinks a certain group NEEDS an unfair advantage just to "level the playing field" obviously assumes they need that because they aren't the equals of everyone else.

Gee, you are one of the ones arguing Blacks and other minoritys are somehow inferior to the rest of us and NEED affirmative action just to have a chance.{/quote] Absolute misrepresentation of his position and you know it. Intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[QUOTE=smoothy;2895494]I'm not the one that doesn't think they are equal in capacity or ability.

Oh really? Here are your words:


They are just too damn lazy to do the work it takes everyone else to do.

They for the most part refuse to study in school....

They for the most part prefer to not apply themselves and instead blame others. ...

THey for the most part expect things handed to them without working for them. ...

They think its cool and drop out of High school to hang aout at all ours and play hoodlum. Dress like slobs...talk like they never went to school and then complain they can't get a $100K a year job right off the street.

[QUOTE=smoothy;2895494]Gee, you are one of the ones arguing Blacks and other minoritys are somehow inferior to the rest of us and NEED affirmative action just to have a chance.{/quote] Absolute misrepresentation of his position and you know it. Intellectually dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Oh really? Here are your words:

You have read the statistics for inner city schools haven't you? They speak for themselves. THEY are the ones underperforming... THEY are the ones dropping out... I said they are as capable as anyone else if they got off their butts and worked.

But then... cronyism is endemic with liberals, they all think they are entitled to something for nothing. They love delcaring themselves as a victim... then taking something off someone ELSE that actually earned it to give to the lazy "victim" to right some self induced problem.

Perhaps you would then agree that affirmative action is needed for Rural rednecks that are even more disadvantaged than inner city people are. But I suppose they don't rate because of skin color? More Liberal hypocrisy I see. Or is it really Liberal rascism?

Regardless of anyone's opinion on this how on earth could it be enforced since ugliness is way more subjective than race or gender?

Unless we are all obliged to wear the niqab and full body padding for all job interviews... And maybe use a voice modulator...

There is always someone who wants to take a debate like this and twist it. When I spoke of dumbing down I wasn't speaking of education but of employment. If you don't take the best qualified candidate you have the risk of dumbing down. Often the requirements for a position are artificial anyway and a person of lesser qualification can easily do what is required, but the requirements are there to set a benchmark or even a barrier to entry and if you have to breach the benchmark because of a quota then your freedom has been infringed. Look at your film industry and the mandatory inclusion of coloured people so you get quite ridiculous outcomes in period settings. It isn't a question of whether they can do the job

Tut you must have observed that in this country organisations dealing with indigenous persons go beyond affirmative action when recruiting and are not challenged but when a church organisation seeks persons of certain persuasions they will be challenged

Hey Clete, business is about making money, where ever and how ever, and qualifications are subjective to the need to make cold cash. They don't care about quotas, either and if they can market a colored guy to get some green, they will.

What you thought you were more valuable and more qualified than a monkey who gets paid bananas? Think again. The monkey wins, but you are as much a slave as the indigenous rabble you worked so hard to separate from.

We all are Clete, slaves to the system, you just like to think your hard work and qualifications makes you special, or better. You are not, you serve at the discretion of the boss like the rest of us slaves.

Since you know nothing about me you make assumptions and that only makes an as$ out of you. I long since ceased to be a slave to the system and yes, hard work, and qualifications, lift you above the rabble and should not be denigrated because some minority thinks it should be placed at the head of the queue.

You live in a place where discrimation has been endemic, I don't. When I see the B/S that originated in your place being applied in mine I feel maligned because I have not discriminated in hiring. Opportunities abound here, but all minorities do is whinge about their disadvantage

Therefore Tal I am not a slave and I know that when it comes to making money you take the best qualified. If you want someone who speaks a different language you take that person who speaks that language

Tut you must have observed that in this country organisations dealing with indigenous persons go beyond affirmative action when recruiting and are not challenged but when a church organisation seeks persons of certain persuasions they will be challenged

Hi Clete,

Yes, there is always that danger if you are talking affirmative action and employment.

I don't know the answer to that. In fact, I don't think there is an answer in terms that will suit everybody. I understand the problem someone would have who applies for a job and it is given to a less qualified person based factors other than merit. It would make them rather angry.

On the other hand everyone deserves and opportunity at employment. At the expense of someone else? I don't know, but I think we have a moral obligation to try in that area.

Affirmative action and racism is a highly complex and controversial topic. In this thread there have been some attempts to give a simplified account of racism and affirmative action that fits neatly into a particular world view. The issues don't lend themselves to this type of analysis.


Tut

You have read the statistics for inner city schools haven't you? They speak for themselves. THEY are the ones underperforming...THEY are the ones dropping out.... I said they are as capible as anyone else if they got off their butts and worked.

But then.....cronyism is endemic with liberals, they all think they are entitled to something for nothing. They love delcaring themselves as a victim....then taking something off someone ELSE that actually earned it to give to the lazy "victim" to right some self induced problem.

Perhaps you would then agree that affirmative action is needed for Rural rednecks that are even more disadvantaged than inner city people are. But I suppose they don't rate because of skin color? More Liberal hypocracy I see. Or is it really Liberal rascism?



Hi Smoothy,

I can see ( at least I think I can see) why you think affirmative action is a type of racism.

Racism is the belief that a persons race results in inherent differences in ability. Ability to achieve a high I.Q. mark, the ability to maintain constant employment. Yes,even the ability to tolerate extremes in weather conditions.

The important point is the belief that these things cannot be changed because they are encoded in particular groups genes. We could say that a persons genes are the INHIBITING FACTORS when it comes to competing with the rest of society.

To hold such views is of course racist. On this basis affirmative action should be a racist doctrine. After all it discriminates on the basis of a persons race. It looks at different racial groups and discriminates in favour of a group. Right or wrong?

Affirmative action is saying that because of your GENETIC INHIBITING FACTORS you will not compete successfully in society? Therefore we should discriminate against you in a positive rather than negative way? Right or wrong?

I think this is the crux of your affirmative action equals racism position. Again,I think this is what you are saying but I am sure you will correct me if I've got it wrong.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what affirmative action is about. Affirmative actions says the inhibiting factors to achievement are NOT found within the genes of a person or group but ARE FOUND within the structures of society. Big difference here.

On this basis affirmative action is not a form of Liberal racism. It is not any form of racism.


Tut

Since you know nothing about me you make assumptions and that only makes an as$ out of you. I long since ceased to be a slave to the system and yes, hard work, and qualifications, lift you above the rabble and should not be denigrated because some minority thinks it should be placed at the head of the queue.

You live in a place where discrimination has been endemic, I don't. When I see the B/S that originated in your place being applied in mine I feel maligned because I have not discriminated in hiring. Opportunities abound here, but all minorities do is whine about their disadvantage

Therefore Tal I am not a slave and I know that when it comes to making money you take the best qualified. If you want someone who speaks a different language you take that person who speaks that language

You can't be saying that what we are doing here is screwing up what you do there are you? Why Clete, that makes no sense, and suggests that we here tell you what to do. Doubt it. Its more like you have your own issues as a country to deal with, as do they all, so don't blame what's wrong in your neck of the woods on anyone but yourself. What ever BS being applied there is done by the ones there.

Like my friend smoothy, I bet you don't know enough about minorities to say they are all whiners about there disadvantages, yet you probably have an example or two that you justifies you painting the whole group with thee same brush.

No I don't know you personally, but I have read what you have been writing, and do not agree, big deal, and I call you on it. I have been doing my thing, as long as you have, and my view is much different.

"But for the grace of God go I", and because you escaped the rabble, doesn't mean we can't go back.

Tut Affirmative action is a form of racism just as it is a form of discrimination. Just because it is government sponsored doesn't make it right. I don't care that universities give some places to those who can't qualify by other means because I know they sink or swim on their own merits, nor do I care that the government spends money training people for jobs they may never get. I do care when the employment of these people is mandated just as I care when the employment of a certain number of migrants is mandated

Tal It may have escaped your notice but ideas like people have an unfortunate habit of migrating and many unwanted ideas arrive on our shores with well meaning experts who just have to tell us about their latest cause or they are brought here by public servants who have had their little junket and have to justify it. We don't have much of a lecture circuit but they come anyway. It is a great shame the traffic never seems to go the other way

Tut Affirmative action is a form of racism just as it is a form of discrimination. Just because it is government sponsored doesn't make it right. I don't care that universities give some places to those who can't qualify by other means because I know they sink or swim on their own merits, nor do I care that the government spends money training people for jobs they may never get. I do care when the employment of these people is mandated just as I care when the employment of a certain number of migrants is mandated


Hi Clete,

I jump in before somebody else does and claim that discrimination is a form of racism.

Ok, you've won me over. Affirmative action is wrong for the reasons you have outlined. However, that changes nothing when we come to examining the claim that affirmative action is a form of racism. Even though affirmative action is mistaken and governments are ill advised on the matter it makes no difference to the arguments I have outlined previously.

Racism is discrimination based on physical appearance. In other words, some type of physical appearance denotes you belonging to a particular race. It could be skin colour, shape of eyes, type of hair. It can be any number of recognizable physical characteristics which allow us to say that this person belongs to a certain racial group.

The important point is that having an aversion to a particular skin colour or eye shape is not racism. It is just an aversion. It becomes racism if we decide that a particular physical characteristic is due to a persons genetic make up (nothing wrong that so far). Certain genotypes will give rise to recognizable phenotypes.

It is racist when we decide that a persons genotype ( recognized by us a phenotype) is an inhibiting factor when it comes to I.Q. work ethic, lack of morality and the like. In other words, we are saying it is their genes that are the determining or inhibiting factor in all of this. They cannot achieve the same standards as us because they are limited by their genetic make up.

It is a belief that the limiting factors are contained within the persons make up and cannot be changed. This is what racism is all about. Such mistaken beliefs were given freedom of expression in the past when governments institutionalized such beliefs.

Affirmative action today seeks to make amends for the past by discriminating in favour of certain racial and ethnic groups. OK, affirmative action is wrong, mistaken misguided, what every you like to call it. But you cannot call it racist because it says that the inhibiting factors and not within the individual but are contained within the structure of society.

That's why affirmative action cannot be racist.

Tut

Tut I would love to get into anthropological arguments with you but I don't have the data, I am aware that a study was done which indicated that certain racial groups scored much lower than others. I don't know to what extent this might have been cultural rather than genetic but it did indicate that there might be reasons for suggesting that some groups may not be as bright as others

Whether affirmative action is racist or not depends upon who is making the decisions. It is observable for example that women tend to hire women, discrimination yes, but could this also carry over racially with people more likely to hire their own race for whatever reason

You can't be saying that what we are doing here is screwing up what you do there are you? Why Clete, that makes no sense, and suggests that we here tell you what to do. Doubt it. Its more like you have your own issues as a country to deal with, as do they all, so don't blame whats wrong in your neck of the woods on anyone but yourself. What ever BS being applied there is done by the ones there.

Like my friend smoothy, I bet you don't know enough about minorities to say they are all whiners about there disadvantages, yet you probably have an example or two that you justifies you painting the whole group with thee same brush.

No I don't know you personally, but I have read what you have been writing, and do not agree, big deal, and I call you on it. I have been doing my thing, as long as you have, and my view is much different.

"But for the grace of God go I", and because you escaped the rabble, doesn't mean we can't go back.

And you are an authority on minorities and whiners? Likely didn't grow up around much of either I guess.

Whiners need affirmative action... because they know they are incapible of competing fairly. Because they were Lazy, never applied themselves, studied, or just because they are just plain dumb as a stump. The Democrats have to buy those votes, and that's how.

Fact is... only Liberals think affirmative action is needed, because they have to keep these people dumb and needy. If they ever got off their butts and accepted responsibility like successful people of any background do... they would realize what a crock all of that is anyway.

It's a way to discriminate against the people who earned what they have, by giving it to people who didn't earn it after taking it off someone who actually did. Just like Democrats tax programs... take from the productive to give to the lazy and unproductive. Punish success to reward failure and laziness. Liberals have an interest in keeping them down... because they reley on all those votes these discriminatory programs buy.

There are plenty of examples of people that rose to success from poverty... there are none where success has ever been taken from someone who earned it and given it to someone who didn't.

Socialism has failed in every country it has been tried. And for good reason... laziness has never been good for anyone.

Welfare is a huge waste of money and has helped nobody improve their situation.

Affirmative action puts morons into jobs they aren't qualified to do... and takes jobs from those that were qualified to do them.

With the resultant harm to society that brings.

Fact is....only Liberals think affirmative action is needed,
Stop making up facts.

"In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats. "

Stop making up facts.

"In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats. "


I suppose you think Democrats were responsible for the civil rights act too?

I made no such statement, I only presented facts to counter your incorrect blanket assertion.

Really? Care to provide proof that Liberals (Democrats) AREN'T pro-affirmative action discrimination?

They would cease to exist as a party without those votes the discrimination is buying.

Your Messiah is all about playing Robbing Hood... stealing the earnings from the workers to give to the lazy who voted for him... He calls it redistributing the wealth.

Jobs... money. Its all the same... the lazy think they are entitled to everything without having to actually WORK for it.

Hello again, Smoothy:

I don't disagree with you about how people behave. There certainly IS a segment of our population who act exactly as you describe. The difference is, I don't believe that behavior is endemic to any one RACE, like YOU do. I think we're ALL capable of antisocial behavior.

excon

Hello again, Smoothy:

I don't disagree with you about how people behave. There certainly IS a segment of our population who act exactly as you describe. The difference is, I don't believe that behavior is endemic to any one RACE, like YOU do. I think we're ALL capable of antisocial behavior.

exconReally... where did I say in one of my posts its limited to one race? The left seems to ASSUME that it is, I said no such thing.

There are plenty of lazy bums that have entitlement mentalities of every race... just some are more prone to it than others.

Just as certain ones are more prone to lawbreaking activities... arrest rates reflect those numbers.

And a high school dropout is still a bum... and as it is... certain bums are granted special status compared to other bums based on no other reason than race... and even more rspecifically political affiliation of that group.

I don't give a hoot if its white trash, brown trash, or black trash.

Trash is trash and none shoud get anything they haven't worked to earn equally.

Really.....where did I say in one of my posts its limited to one race? The left seems to ASSUME that it is, I said no such thing.Hello again, smoothy:

Well, you intimated as much... But, that's fine. I'm HAPPY to be wrong. You and I agree about lazy good for nothings. But, affirmative action doesn't have anything to do with that. I think you're confused. Really, affirmative action doesn't waste yours, or my, tax dollars on good for nothings?? That wouldn't do no good...

excon

Please don't try to tell me I am wrong in my thoughts on myself. I am a ugly person BUT I want to get the job on my own merits. I all ready know I am ugly do I want to hear others comment on my appearance?
Judge me by how I do my job. Not on how I look, how I behave outside of work, what color I am, what race I am, what religion I am etc etc etc. Do I do a good job? That is all that should matter! If we follow that then it stops people not getting jobs due to stupid reasons.

Affirmative action puts morons into jobs they aren't qualified to do....and takes jobs from those that were qualified to do them.

With the resultant harm to society that brings.

I would say that the outworking of affirmative action is the financial crisis and economic situation we find ourselves in. If the US government had not been stupid enough to mandate loans to people who could not afford them we would not have had the GFC.

Perhaps some of those who perpetrated the fraud got their jobs through affirmative action.

Smoothy, I cannot agree that socialism has been a failure in all countries where it has been tried, but it has failed in some and it has not been tried in others, yet they are also a failure, therefore you false logic is shown for what it is, bias.

On the other hand everyone deserves and opportunity at employment. At the expense of someone else? I don't know, but I think we have a moral obligation to try in that area.

Affirmative action and racism is a highly complex and controversial topic. In this thread there have been some attempts to give a simplified account of racism and affirmative action that fits neatly into a particular world view. The issues don't lend themselves to this type of analysis.


Tut

Tut

If, as you say, everyone deserves an opportunity for employment, then let those who have no qualification do the meniel jobs and undertake training until they are equipped to get something better. We have a great need for white rocks but I don't see any. What I don't like is a government responding to underrepresentation of certain classes by mandating their inclusion in activities they are not qualified for. As a example you would be aware of the initiative to create positions for indigenous people. It is suggested that this is a success because 50,000 jobs exist but only 1% of these positions actually have people in them. Quick fix affirmative action doesn't work.

Let's face it Tut our counrty was founded on an affirmative action program of giving disadvantaged people a fresh start. It could have been called a success but I'm sure those participating in the program were unimpressed and failed to see the opportunity they were given

They said that about the American Indian, when they put them on reservations because they wouldn't change the way they wanted to live, because they were ungrateful savages.

They said the slaves should be grateful because they didn't have to be savages any longer.

Now you say the indigenous people should be grateful at the opportunities you GIVE them.

Almost like the house slave resenting the field slave for not having the qualifications to clean massa's house.

The ungrateful b@st@rds! Passing on a chance to be a qualified slave.

They said that about the American Indian, when they put them on reservations because they wouldn't change the way they wanted to live, because they were ungrateful savages.

They said the slaves should be grateful because they didn't have to be savages any longer.

Now you say the indigenous people should be grateful at the opportunities you GIVE them.

Almost like the house slave resenting the field slave for not having the qualifications to clean massa's house.

The ungrateful b@st@rds! Passing on a chance to be a qualified slave.

Tal

you have a pecular view. My observation was that people had not taken up the opportunities they told us they wanted. I have no doubt that they know their skills aren't adequate and perhaps out of fear they are unwilling to try. The government think their affirmative action program is a success because employers have responded, but there is much more to the equation, because people who are unused to employment need much more than opportunity, someone has to sell them a vision. Giving them a job where accommodation is high cost and not readily available doesn't solve the problem because they may not have the resources or expertise to take up the opportunity.


I didn't say indigenous people should be grateful, I said they had not responded well to the opportunity, so more is needed. I was pointing out the falacy in government policy. As to the attitudes of the americans to the indian population, people in alternative lifestyles generally don't meet a favourable response. I can't speak about house slave attitudes, undoubtedly you know much more about that than I do. We don't keep slaves in any form here, but we have had some foreign business people who have paid less than minimum wage. Old attitudes die hard

I am not referring to an alternative lifestyle Clete, but displacing cultures, and expecting them to be gung ho with trying to assimilate into a different culture. Especially if theirs was here first. As is the case of the American Indian. They are not an alternative lifestyle, they were living their lives before others came and moved them aside.

Some assimilate, some don't, some assimilate better than others, and some the hatred for the new way is cultural, and generational. It may take a few generations to put old resentments, hatreds, and attitudes behind you.

Some people don't adapt to change very well, especially if old ways are all they know. They have many fears to overcome before they can embrace that change. Forgive me if I mistaken your statements as condescending to those less fortunate, and I have been known as have a weird point of view.

Some of the things you have written sound just like the bigots I see all the time. That to me is weird.

Tal

You have displaced cultures just as we do, but this is also used as an excuse.We are expected to forget that this displacement took place a long time ago, not yesterday, not in this generation, but beyond the memory of anyone living today.

We have some people who want to live in a traditional way. Fine, separate yourself from everything our society provides. They, of course, don't really want to do this. They like to take the welfare, remain in a place where there is no employment and claim disadvantage. When development comes close, suddenly it is a sacred site and cannot be touched. The same people will tell you they don't benefit from development, yet employment is provided, tracks become roads, water, sewerage, power become available

No affirmative action program can get these ugly people off their butt.

I can understand both the arguments for and against affirmitive action for many groups of people. One of the main problems isn't the ideology but the implementation.

I remember these stories, and others like them,where employers were not allowed to ask for workers to be reliable or hard-working since that would discriminate against the lazy and unreliable:

Employer told they can't advertise for 'reliable' workers... because it discriminates against 'unreliable applicants | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246201/Employer-told-advertise-reliable-workers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html)

'Hard-working' job ads discriminate against the lazy | European Business Forum | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4779/is_20/ai_n29197877/)

I'm all up for putting a stop to discrimination but as soon as you make any kind of official policy the idiots running the asylum start reading things into that policy that were never there. No, the lazy and unreliable never had any protection against discrimination enshrined in law here - at least not yet

Should we be giving jobs to people unqualified to do them in order to tick quota boxes? Not in my opinion.

Should we be making every endeavor to ensure the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, can avail themselves of all they need to become qualified for that job and are then given a fair chance at securing it? Absolutely.

In the long-term I believe more equality emerges when hearts and minds are engaged in the problem rather than throwing badly worded, and ever more badly implemented legislation, at it.

Can it be done? I believe so. I have lived long enough to see many discriminations melt away for the majority of people in the country I live in, although of course there will always be a hard core of bigots anywhere, and I don't believe any legislation will actually tackle that.

I do think raising awareness of any issue is always a good first step.

Tut

If, as you say, everyone deserves an opportunity for employment, then let those who have no qualification do the meniel jobs and undertake training until they are equiped to get something better. We have a great need for white rocks but I don't see any. What I dont like is a government responding to underrepresentation of certain classes by mandating their inclusion in activities they are not qualified for. As a example you would be aware of the initiative to create positions for indigenous people. It is suggested that this is a success because 50,000 jobs exist but only 1% of these positions actually have people in them. Quick fix affirmative action doesn't work.

Let's face it Tut our counrty was founded on an affirmative action program of giving disadvantaged people a fresh start. It could have been called a success but I'm sure those participating in the program were unimpressed and failed to see the opportunity they were given


Hi Clete,

In the end I can't really devise any sort of prescriptive defense for affirmative action. Your examples are by no means unconvincing. My position is QLP's position. She has stated it better than any forthcoming attempt on my part.

If you go back over my posts you will see that defense of affirmative action was never my intention. My intention was to make us define the concepts of the discussion is an accurate way.

That's about it on my part.

Tut

I can understand both the arguments for and against affirmitive action for many groups of people. One of the main problems isn't the ideology but the implementation.

I remember these stories, and others like them,where employers were not allowed to ask for workers to be reliable or hard-working since that would discriminate against the lazy and unreliable:

Employer told they can't advertise for 'reliable' workers... because it discriminates against 'unreliable applicants | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246201/Employer-told-advertise-reliable-workers--discriminates-unreliable-applicants.html)

'Hard-working' job ads discriminate against the lazy | European Business Forum | Find Articles at BNET (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4779/is_20/ai_n29197877/)

I'm all up for putting a stop to discrimination but as soon as you make any kind of official policy the idiots running the asylum start reading things into that policy that were never there. No, the lazy and unreliable never had any protection against discrimination enshrined in law here - at least not yet

Should we be giving jobs to people unqualified to do them in order to tick quota boxes? Not in my opinion.

Should we be making every endeavor to ensure the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, can avail themselves of all they need to become qualified for that job and are then given a fair chance at securiting it? Absolutely.

In the long-term I believe more equality emerges when hearts and minds are engaged in the problem rather than throwing badly worded, and ever more badly implemented legislation, at it.

Can it be done? I believe so. I have lived long enough to see many discriminations melt away for the majority of people in the country I live in, although of course there will always be a hard core of bigots anywhere, and I don't believe any legislation will actually tackle that.

I do think raising awareness of any issue is always a good first step.

That is the definitve answer about affirmative action... now to the op.I know it's about the ugly . How do they deal with the contradiction of the government's official policy of discrimination against the fatty .

Tom that is a discrimination it is hard to eliminate because no one will actually admit it takes place. It is like aged discrimination how do you actually prove it?

I worked with some Bastard$ at times and I know I was discriminated against but how do I prove it. I think I might have been discriminated against on three counts, weight, religion and age but how do I prove it. Just because I am the best qualified doesn't entitle me to a particular position since it is also possible the discrimination was political or maybe it was because I wasn't a mason. Hush, we don't talk about that one. You see the subject is much wider than physical appearance and if you don't have the right hand shake there are some places you can't go.

Hello:

For what it's worth, we discriminate about a million times a second... At least I do... I was at an event this weekend. As I interacted with people, I kept on noticing things about them... One had a crumb on her lip. I made a judgment... Another had a comb over. That triggered something... Then I saw this girl who's eyes were too far apart... Then I saw one I wanted to ***.. Oh, yes... There was MORE.

I don't think I'm the only one. Fortunately, in my country, there's only a few things we can't discriminate on in the workplace, and violations of THOSE are hard enough to prove... I mean, do you want to be forced to hire a salesman with crumbs on his mouth?

Ugly, as in the OP?? I never took that serious.

excon

Actually I think the ugly discrimination discussion is quite timely in terms of how society is changing.

After years of stick-thin models, and air-brushed magazine covers, a back-lash is spreading, albeit slowly and subtly, throughout society against the glorification of (generally enhanced) beauty at the expense of other personal attributes.

How refreshing that 'Ugly Betty' wasn't given a makeover to fit in.
How lovely to see TV shows where the spectacle-wearing geek is the hero of the show not the punchline, and I am increasingly seeing more of these.
Those commercials featuring, 'real women' for body moisturisers. Fashion adverts featuring the middle aged.
Is all this happening elsewhere in the world? Pop singers who don't look the 'part.' Would even Susan Boyle have been given a chance a decade or two back?

Although the change is slow, and these things are still in the minority, and plastic surgery is far from waning in popularity, I see things I didn't a decade ago.

Even with body enhancements, look at the people who have alternative surgery to give themselves multiple piercings, snake tongues, full body tatooes, rather than subscribe to the 'normal beauty' ideal.

The small challenges to the values of society do effect change eventually. Otherwise the fashions and mores of society would remain static; History tells us not. Again, I say, hearts and minds.

Nice thoughts QLP, but the remaining issue on the thought of affirmative action for ugly people is who decides the beauty of a person? And can you imagine someone with self-esteem issues already standing before some committee to determine if they're ugly or not?

I think of the NFL's rule that a team must interview minority candidates for coaching positions. Why would anyone want to be interviewed, much less hired because of the color of their skin? Who wants to be the token?

I think we're actually on the same page speechless, I'm not promoting affirmative action, but change of mindset to overcome this.

We all find certain things intrinsically attractive or otherwise. To some extent this is a personal thing; very much in the eye of the beholder.

Nevertheless, societal constructs do affect us on levels we are hardly aware of. We have only to look at art through the ages to see that different ideals of beauty have been held up at different times. Would a lady from a Reubens or Renoir cut the mustard as a poster girl today?

Maybe we are actually ready to question whether physical attractiveness is such a strong measure of worth, or self worth, as it has been held to be.

I think we're actually on the same page speechless, I'm not promoting affirmative action, but change of mindset to overcome this.

We all find certain things intrinsically attractive or otherwise. To some extent this is a personal thing; very much in the eye of the beholder.

Nevertheless, societal constructs do affect us on levels we are hardly aware of. We have only to look at art through the ages to see that different ideals of beauty have been held up at different times. Would a lady from a Reubens or Renoir cut the mustard as a poster girl today?

Maybe we are actually ready to question whether physical attractiveness is such a strong measure of worth, or self worth, as it has been held to be.

How about affirmative action for short people in the NBA, for 110 lb weaklings in the NFL, Blind brain surgeons, sociopaths on the State Police force... oh, we have that one already... :D

Ugly, as in the OP???? I never took that serious.

excon

Well of course not Ex because ugly is hard to define. We can define beauty far more easily than we can define ugly. Without being racist I find some races ugly in facial appearamce, ugly in physical appearance and I certainly find certain attitudes and cultural things ugly