It's not moral, no; you shouldn't assume somebody is less virtuous just because they're less attractive. It is legal to be prejudiced against them, just as it's legal to be prejudiced against anyone, but it's not a good idea.
Actievly discriminating against a group and just being prejudiced against them are two different things; only the former is actionable from a legal standpoint.
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterwhy? did you not get that promotion?
In the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice. Since the ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate, is it morally acceptable to be prejudiced against the "ugly"?
The New York Times article “Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift,” cites studies indicating that parents take better care of handsome children. Do parents discriminate against ugly children? As one research states in the article:
"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always articulate that, but in fact we do it. There are a lot of things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them."
Originally posted by MacSwainYour mama didn't give you enough attention?
The New York Times article “Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift,” cites studies indicating that parents take better care of handsome children. Do parents discriminate against ugly children? As one research states in the article:
"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always art ...[text shortened]... f things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them."
Oh snap! thank you, tip your waitress and I'll be hear all week.
Originally posted by der schwarze Rittersoooo... we should all go $cr%w ugly chicks?
In the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice. Since the ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate, is it morally acceptable to be prejudiced against the "ugly"?
Originally posted by MacSwainThat is utter nonsense, and it's ridiculous that "professionals" are
The New York Times article “Ugly Children May Get Parental Short Shrift,” cites studies indicating that parents take better care of handsome children. Do parents discriminate against ugly children? As one research states in the article:
"Like lots of animals, we tend to parcel out our resources on the basis of value," he said. "Maybe we can't always art ...[text shortened]... f things that make a person more valuable, and physical attractiveness may be one of them."
given money to perform such stupid studies.
Any person who has a minor under his/her responsibility (as a father,
mother, economic support, social worker, counselor, etc.), but
particularly parents, knows that you tend to protect and dedicate the
most effort with those kids that are defenseless or in "disadvantage".
And in this (sometimes) irrational western society we live in, where
form is rewarded over substance, and where image is everything,
being ugly is often seen as a disadvantage.
Ergo... [fill in the blanks]
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterPhysical beauty vs. Mental beauty.
In the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice. Since the ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate, is it morally acceptable to be prejudiced against the "ugly"?
In my volunteer work with Special Olympics I get to work with a lot of "ugly" children who are absolutely beautiful. I think it is a matter of age and maturity, but a grown-up will come to be that way when he or she FINALLY realizes that bent and ugly flesh have nothing to do with being a beautiful person.
Shavixmir could be the most handsome human on earth and he would still be an ugly abomination. He literally stinks of evil and corruption.
There is a lesson there somewhere.