I'm not gonna argue that a plurality of rational people (such as ourselves, clearly) wouldn't reach a unanimous agreement that this is an inherently stupid thing to argue over. I'm just amazed that a) the Times would even print this asinine article, and b). that this so-called professor of economics is actually serious. You don't have to be a policy expert to understand that certain things have adverse consequences, no matter how pure their original intentions. As that one guy said a while back (can't remember his name), people can do the worst of things, without being the worst of men. I'll make an effort to not derail this thread into politics or anything, but there has been an abundance of so called "noble" crusades over the last forty or fifty years that have presented mountains of evidence in stark contrast to what was the original intention. I.e., feeding the homeless has actually increased homeless rates, putting poor people on welfare has actually given us more poor people, teaching sex education in public schools has actually increased teen pregnancies, etc. etc. Giving ugly people the right to file lawsuits on grounds of discrimination will make them feel better about themselves or help them get ahead in life? Yeah, I totally agree. Nonetheless, there would be a sweet irony if this did actually go to court or to Congress, and legislation or a case or whatever was enacted by some suave, debonair lawyer who was able to sway a the decision makers by his good looks and genetic gifts. I'd laugh.
You have to realize that that is the whole point of his argument. He is trying to show how the "leveling the playing field/equalize opportunity" philosophy gets itself into trouble. Greg Mankiw did something similar not too long ago by discussing height. It has been shown that, particularly for men, additional height is robustly correlated with higher income. So if we really want equal opportunity, we should tax tall people and subsidize short ones. The point is to make you confront the places the logic of the philosophy will take you and see whether or not you are willing to bite this bullet even though it feels so viscerally ridiculous. If you are a person who subscribes to the equal opportunity philosophy(I am one of them), put aside your visceral reaction and work through the logic. Most of the responses I've seen so far are rationalizing by attacking the his methodology or the conception of beauty. If you have a problem with that, think about the height example.
Now maybe I'm saying this because I'm 6'2", but height has also been positively correlated with intelligence (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.slate.com/id/2148759/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.slate.com/id/2148759/</a>). Now other factors are at play - height is socially acceptable, there's the "halo effect", so forth - but if you're willing to entertain the notion that factors such as height and attractiveness play into earnings and willing to entertain the notion of taxing taller people more than shorter people, are you also willing to tax intelligent people more than dumb people? I get the sense that people have an easier time demonizing the advantages given to tall and attractive people moreso than to intelligent people. But when it comes down to it, they're all innate things that you're born with and can't do much to change. An intelligent person might be more likely to become a high-earning CEO or doctor, but not any more than a tall person is to becoming a basketball player or an attractive person to becoming a model. You still have to make your way in one way or another.
Just because you aren't good looking doesn't mean you can't live the life of a good looking person. Popularity comes down to three things: looks, money, or power. The second two kind of go hand-in-hand, truthfully. There is also charisma, but I look at charisma as a gift. You either have or you don't. So, apply yourself in life if your face can open a garage door. Sure, you won't see a hot model on some random ugly dude's arm. But what if that random ugly dude was to have coke available and/or drive a nice car? See?
I have a feeling Durbanite would really enjoy that article. Imagine if he was compensated for what God has given/failed to give him.
I didn't mean to imply that I actually support all of this. While I do think, to an extent, we should try to level the playing field it is issues like this that fuck me up. My stance on the issue is "I'm really not sure." That is, I'd like level playing fields, but I'm not sure I'm ready to bite bullets like this. The point of my post was to try to get people to stop waiving their hands and saying this is ridiculous. The way I see it, the "level playing field" philosophy has this issue and I don't really know what to do with it.
How fucking shallow can you be? That's the bullshit you "learn" from high school. News flash, you're not in high school any more, so stop thinking like you are. Personality, a sense of humour, and character do more to win you "real world" popularity than any of that other shit you mentioned.
I'm bordering on bankrupt and paid $1500 for my car, which barely runs. The avatar is a real picture of me, and there are other photos of my face and body around - I'm clearly fat, bald and on my best day, average looking. I don't share my drugs unless people pay for what they use, my house is in a good location and is nice but isn't anything amazing. I have no political power and very little real influence. I'm a reasonably intelligent guy but not in the kind of 'changing the world with my smarts' sort of way. Physically I'm tall and reasonably strong - but not remarkably so for either point. I had two a hot girls over Friday, two hot girls over Saturday, a hot girl over Sunday, a hot girl who had to cancel on Sunday's threesome over Monday to make it up to me, I have two hot girls coming over tonight, a hot girl coming over tomorrow night, Thursday currently isn't booked but there are multiple volunteers for when I have a night free. I've got an invite to go see a hot girl on Friday that I probably won't take up because she lives 20 minutes away and I can't be bothered driving that far, I have two girls coming over Saturday night, and another pair of girls who wanted to come over Saturday night but decided to wait for next week so they didn't have to share me with the earlier booking, and another hot girl coming over on Sunday. Some of the mentioned hot girls are repeat visitors, but there are three hot girls on the regular play partner list who aren't included in the above and more hot girls flirting with me via instant messenger, looking for an invite as I write this. There are currently four hot guys who I play with and I had three hot guys offer to pay me to play with them on the weekend and had a line of girls who wanted to play with me at the party I was at. Of the hot girls listed, three model and get paid very well for it, two do professional dominatrix work, one strips and makes a fortune because she's insanely hot, and one makes white collar professional as a bar tender, in a country where tipping is incredibly uncommon, almost solely due to the fact that she has some of the most amazing tits I've ever seen on a real human being. Ugly broke and awesome trumps the fuck out of handsome, wealthy and lame. And while my life is clearly well beyond the norm? I know at least three other guys in the town I live in who get laid at least as much as I do, just from among my friends. One of them is I guess kind of handsome in a certain way. One looks like ZZ Top's weird cousin who works at a body piercing shop, and one of them is 5'3 and looks like an fat, middle aged smurf on an acid trip. ZZ top's weird cousin is a social worker who only barely makes enough to avoid being a hobo, and the fat middle aged smurf works as the Depot supervisor for a bus company part time.
Yeah but scootah, think of all the money you'd get just by being ugly! You can have all those hot chicks and a nice car.
Is their any thread you don't hijack with this shit? Obviously your sex community DOES NOT REPRESENT reality as a whole. Seriously, how many of these people do you actually just meet off the street and not through sex parties or off of fetish websites/fetish communities? Not that I don't think aesthetics is a be all end all thing but jesus dude, your arguments are becoming very lame. In other news, I'd be down with you walking stick tree top mother fuckers subsidizing my stubby legged ass.
I was born with a genetic predisposition to be skinny. Does this mean I should have money given to me to buy protein supplements? Or, since there is a demographic of women who prefer bigger, built men, should I be given a brand-new Mustang to help me get laid more easily? Or maybe we should just give free acne medication to everyone who suffers acne too. Why not? The US government already gives money to people to sit on their asses and do nothing but indulge in illegal drugs and collect a free check, so why not give more free money to anyone who has any disadvantage? That way, we can all be unique and special, but completely equal, because life is supposed to be fair and perfect. Oh, and while we're at it, let's give money to stupid people who come up with stupid, pointless ideas like the one linked in the first post. Seriously, how the FUCK can this even be debatable?
FOCUS: I read the article. It's a total load of crap, because life isn't fair and there is no rational reason to give ugly people money. I'm more likely to be given money for being asthmatic - I don't see that happening, either. So, no, I don't think legislation should be implemented. With no legislation like this, it forces ugly people to work on their personalities and other talents more, which, I think, is more important. Oh, and ugly people would be discriminated against by being singled out for this, and that is a legal no-no (I think). Oh, LucasJackson, you forgot Janet Reno on your list. Yikes. ALT. FOCUS: All the time. There's nothing that can be done about it, though. It's just life - it kicks everyone in the balls/clit on a frequent basis. carrymehome makes a good point about the "Professor", though
I don't disagree with the point, since it has been made on this board and the last ad nauseam. The fact that he repeatedly asserts his situation as representative as some sort of reality for everyone through long winded braggadocios post has just gotten annoying and almost disingenuous. Just seem like he is just trying to seek attention more than actually prove any point he has (which a lot of times are correct points).
It's a fair point. My post was bragging and that's annoying so I'll try and stop it. but fuck it. I'm over giving advice - if you're having trouble getting laid, you should probably just work on getting rich and powerful - that's almost certainly the best option.
Out of curiosity do you think the rich ugly guys that get hot chicks get them because they have awesome personalities or because they are rich and powerful?
Scootah, I just want to know where you find the time to post while spending every night with every hot girl on the planet.
Look, there's no question that you can buy yourself a whore if you want to. But arguing that all, or even most women are exclusively whores, or even predominantly whores, or that buying yourself a whore with your wealth, power or beauty is how most, or even a significant portion of guys get laid is fucking retarded. 99% of people alive would whore themselves for the right price - for most people, that price will never be on offer. But it doesn't change the fact that effectively everyone has a price, be it curing their kids cancer, or world peace, or just a fuck you pile of money - almost everyone would fuck and ugly old person if they came up with the right incentive. But most of us will go our entire lives without ever being offered the kind of money that would make us do that. And he fact that rich ugly guys can buy themselves a whore doesn't make them the average, the norm, or in any way indicative of how the vast majority of human beings function. The overwhelming majority of human beings have sex, and in the overwhelming majority of circumstances in the modern western first world, it's with someone who they met socially who they were attracted too after spending some time in each other's company. And I have a really boring job where I have unfiltered internet access. There's a reason why 95% of my posts on this board occur during Australian standard business hours. The rare exceptions are mostly when I'm working late for some reason.