a few points I would like to point out in my rant.....

we also had a women wander into our little neck of the woods. she wasn't quite mentally there, had just lost her cat, and was trying to talk to everyone who would talk to her into giving her theirs.
she wasn't pretty, she just didn't fit in, and well, no one chased her out of the village. although many of us went to searching out and chasing down our cats!!

the man that was chased out, well, I really don't know that much about him. but there didn't seem to be anything that would set him out from anyone else.

as far as the kids that were in my house that day. well, sorry, wouldn't consider my kids ugly, nor any of the other ones that were in there. matter of fact, a few were part of the in crowd a few weeks before this happened. I don't know if they did something that ticked the group off, or maybe mom finally put her foot down, but well...the only thing that set these kids apart from the rest was that they just weren't responding to the mob mentality....individual free thinkers, not prone to be easily led...

I imagine eventually after a long time of being harassed by this mob, well, some might just decide to play alone just for the peace. others, like my kids, would just opt to not associate with the outside world....that antisocialism that you speak of.....and well, a few brave souls would eventually decide to kick some arse themselves, and thus win the priveledge of being left alone!

but, no where in the midst of all this do I see where appearance played any significant role.

I don't buy the study. think it's a bunch of bs myself.

I don't buy the study. think it's a bunch of bs myself.

This coming from the person who admits to NOT READING the study.

I guess that's why YOU aren't a federaly funded researcher, huh?

~MFP

did you read the study?? point me to it? all that I've seen link to is a small little write up about the study....am I missing something?

"bullying" is not the same as "ugliness"

where's the study that says that being "ugly" makes you more prone to criminal behavior??

and yes....I will place more stock in my own observations than I will a three paragraph article.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by dawnstar]

"bullying" is not the same as "ugliness"

where's the study that says that being "ugly" makes you more prone to criminal behavior??

Oh come now, use some logic here. Come on, take the journey with me through the land of reasonable cause and effect. Why are children bullied by others? Typically, the child who becomes the target of a bully is weaker or different. This "difference" is sometimes seen as ugly by children and even teens. Hence, these "different" children become the targets of bullies. I thought that was a very easy logical relationship to see, but I guess you proved me wrong. It even says in both studies I linked to for you that this bullying is often a reaction to physical nonconformity. It's amazing that I don't have children but can see this behaviour easier than someone who has spawned.

and yes....I will place more stock in my own observations than I will a three paragraph article.

I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the studies you asked for and then refused to read. Quaint.

~MFP

Ugly People More Dangerous? Federally Funded Study Says So.

I have personal experience that refutes this claim!!!

Once I crashed into a car in front of me because I was looking at a very good looking girl walking on the pavement.

The other time I bumped the back of a bus because I was looking at a very good looking girl walking on the pavement.

I haven't got a car anymore.

(Edit - Got confused...read story wrong way round)

[edit on 22-2-2006 by KhieuSamphan]

It would take me at least a day to read them....fact one...you just provided me with them, didn't you?? Sorry, I'm not a speed reader in my best of days, and well, this isn't one of my best of days...flu!!

the nonconformity bit, I'll buy....that goes along with what I said....many of the bullied are those that just aren't gonna follow the self-appointed leaders of the playground!!

but, okay, if it's the oddballs of society that are being bullied, who's doing the bullying? The act of bullying is antisocial!! and there's many studies out there that will also say that today's little bullies will become tomorrow's criminals!! so, if their victims have a tiny, really small chance of becoming criminals because of their experiences....ummmm it seems to me that those "normal" people who take to picking on them have a greater chance of it!! seems to negate each other out, doesn't it....

Soficrow, I'm sorry you didn't understand the links I posted. It's really not my fault though. These studies suggested programs to help alleviate bullying in school. They sided WITH the victim, not against them. I don't see where killing a victim of bullying, in the literal or figurative sense, comes into play here. Again, I truly regret you were not able to read and fully digest those articles. Perhaps next time, you should take more time reading them? Just a suggestion.

~MFP

but, okay, if it's the oddballs of society that are being bullied, who's doing the bullying? The act of bullying is antisocial!! and there's many studies out there that will also say that today's little bullies will become tomorrow's criminals!! so, if their victims have a tiny, really small chance of becoming criminals because of their experiences....ummmm it seems to me that those "normal" people who take to picking on them have a greater chance of it!! seems to negate each other out, doesn't it....

You're absolutely right, bullying IS a form of antisocial behaviour and it can lead to greater risk of criminal activity. This is where your argument breaks down though. People who are bullies typically already have low self-image. This can be due to less than attractive appearance in other children's eyes, home environment, a feeling of inadequacy, etc. Bullying, however, is not the norm whatsoever. I would venture a guess to say most people are neither bullies nor victims of bullies. There are a select few though, and I think it's possible to find trends in these groups. I don't as soficrow so weirdly suggested, think the answer is removing them from society. I think the answer is looking at the root of this behaviour and trying to prevent it in the future, just as all the links I have posted suggested. Seems no one likes reading anymore, though...

~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Here are two very good studies on the exact topic, one from Cambridge, the other from the Australian Institute of Criminology. Both show bullying can lead to antisocial behaviour and sometimes criminal activity in the victims.

Your words BSdoc:

Both show bullying can lead to antisocial behaviour and sometimes criminal activity in the victims.

Throughout this thread, you have promoted the idea that "ugly people are more likely to be criminals."

Perhaps it is just your interpretation and focus that is straight up eugenics theory, not the studies you cited.


.

All throughout grade school I was an anti-bully, and I remember the bullies being ugly. Maybe it's just coincidence, but I would suggest ugliness is just as likely to influence the behaviors of the persecutors as it is the persecuted.

People handle having an unusual physical appearance in a number of ways.

I think there's a real logical disconnect happening between bsl4doc and a couple of other members. On their behalf, I'd like to assure our Italian almost-a-doctor friend that much of the discussion going on in this thread incorporates elements from a number of prior discussions that he wasn't privvy to.

Nobody is jumping to conclusions about eugenics based on one article or three, or a hundred. I think I can safely assume Sofi has been at this long enough to the point where she's exploring redundant indicators of a eugenics conspiracy, not just seizing on this evidence and extrapolating whole conspiracies. Her comments are just as welcome on my threads as yours, doc.

The studies do NOT explicitly condone eugenics or social darwinism, or anything of the sort. They will, however, show up in the arsenals of proponents of those theories going forward. Mark my words. I think that's the point people are trying to make, and yes, I do think it's a valid point.

People should be vigilant when it comes to eugenics. America is the nation most associated with the eugenics movement, so it should come as no surprise if it ressurects itself under the current conditions (which are extremely fertile for just that sort of madness).

In any case, heads up.

[edit on 22-2-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Do you understand what eugenics is, soficrow? It's selecting people based on genetic profiles. It can also be applied to the process of selecting embryos based on genetic viabilty. It is a horrible practice. What I and these studies are doing is showing a possible PSYCHOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL, NOT GENETIC, cause for SOME criminal behaviour. No where in there is genetics mention even in passing. Get your facts straight before you claim someone is supporting genetics, and stop being such a jerk, too. It's really unattractive. Maybe you're a criminal? hehe just kidding.

~MFP

"I would venture a guess to say most people are neither bullies nor victims of bullies. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

okay, and you've admitted that of those few people who experience being bullied, not all of them have been bullied because of thier physical appearance, haven't you?

which, I wonder, leaves just what percentage of the population, who are bullied, because they are "ugly", who then go on to become criminals??

I bet there is more criminals in DC, good looking enough to be voted into public office!!

and yet, the article that this thread points out claims that those who are "ugly" have a greater chance of being found in a mugshot than their better looking counterparts?? hog wash!!

Dawnstar, you really just don't get it, do you? In no study does it say ugly people are definitely more likely to become criminals. That statement in the first article was dramatization by the journalist, a point that's already been made twice. The real authors of the study, and two others I've given, show that, yes, there may be a SMALL link, and appearance CAN lead to bullying (on both ends) and possibly criminal or antisocial behaviour, but in no way is appearance an indicator. I'm sorry if all the words got in the way of the point being made in this thread.

~MFP

"The real authors of the study, and two others I've given, show that, yes, there may be a SMALL link"

------------------------------------------

how do you know that the authors of this particular study didn't say this?? did you read the study? is there a link to this particular study??

the only link is that sometimes, people pick on others because of their appearance. they also pick on them because of the clothes they wear, they talk funny, their parent is weird, or well, they kids just need someone to pick on!!

and, I already pointed out, we don't need to steriotype anyone to deal with the problem, just quit turning a blind eye to innappropriate behavior and try to teach our kids a better way of dealing with life. the solution doesn't involve doing much of anything with those "ugly" people, or those who are bullied even.....it involves doing something with those that are exhibiting the anit-social behavior to begin with. the kids that bully, the parent that tends to send their kid flying into walls for no appearant reason, the teachers who just can't resist singling out one or two kids in class to treat diferently, the cops who just don't want to do their job, ect. ect.

unless this is done, well, there's not gonna be much of an improvement. and it shouldn't take three, or two, or even one study to convince people that this is the correct thing to do!

and, I already pointed out, we don't need to steriotype anyone to deal with the problem, just quit turning a blind eye to innappropriate behavior and try to teach our kids a better way of dealing with life. the solution doesn't involve doing much of anything with those "ugly" people, or those who are bullied even.....it involves doing something with those that are exhibiting the anit-social behavior to begin with. the kids that bully, the parent that tends to send their kid flying into walls for no appearant reason, the teachers who just can't resist singling out one or two kids in class to treat diferently, the cops who just don't want to do their job, ect. ect.

OH
MY
GOD.

I have said that exact thing THREE times now, that it is a matter of fixing the environment and the society, not changing anything about the children. I'm not responding to this anymore, Dawnstar, because it's apparent you don't even read people's replies. Ciao ciao.

~MFP

still no link to the actual study......

by the way...

I read the posts, comprehension might sometimes be a problem....expecially if I am getting the impression that I'm being talked down to...

how many times have I been criticised by you for not reading this study???

well, where is it, so I can read it!!!

physical appearance has less to do with criminal behavior as your neighborhood, your family, your economic status, your school, or a whole list of other variables....

just wondering, anyone watch the fox news program about this?? what kind of slant did they put on it?

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Do you understand what eugenics is, soficrow? ...Maybe you're a criminal?

BSdoc - I know patronizing, and egocentric arrogance too.

And yes, I do know what eugenics is; I'm well aware of the history, arguments and fencing games. In short form:

1. Eugenicists have been trying to prove that "character flaws" are genetic for over a century.

2. No "character genes" ever were found, despite billions spent on mapping the human genome and looking for criminal and other "character genes."

3. The eugenics movement responded to this unfortunate lack of proof - the absence of "character genes" - by shifting tactics.

4. Now, eugenicists are trying to prove that genetically inherited "physical flaws" cause "character flaws." It's a backdoor "proof."

5. The eugenics movement is alive and well, and still using "genetics" to justify stomping on the poor, disabled and different.

SSDD