It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ugly People More Dangerous? Federally Funded Study Says So.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
The point I was making soficrow is that the studies I presented show these antisocial behaviours as most likely caused by the person's environment, and they never blame the person for that. I'm sorry if you feel no one should ever be blamed for anything ever, but, I guess that's the difference between our cultures. Responsibilty. I'm logging off now, work to get to. Ciao.


~MFP




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
And my point BSdoc, is that whether or not you know it, you are presenting a eugenics argument. Here's the scoop:

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




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Can you show me, perhaps in bold or italics, where your eugenics argument mentions my stance as to the environment causing these problems, not genetics or character, but environment? Thanks =).


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


Are you suggesting no birth defect, disability, or condition is ever inherited? That's a very ignorant standpoint.

~MFP

[edit on 2/22/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Can you show me, perhaps in bold or italics, where your eugenics argument mentions my stance as to the environment causing these problems, not genetics or character, but environment? Thanks =).


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





One more time:


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





Are you suggesting no birth defect, disability, or condition is ever inherited? That's a very ignorant standpoint.



Erm. No. I am saying that eugenicists are hitchhiking on real inherited traits, and saying the "environment" responds to those traits, thus causing "character flaws" as a direct result of the inherited 'birth defect, disability, or condition.' The backdoor "proof."

May I suggest you check your assumptions at the door? Along with your attitude, arrogance and propensity to insult?


.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Your bolded quote points out the suggestion that inherited physical flaws lead to character flaws, which is not even related to what I asked you to point out. Let me lay my argument out in steps for you, since it's apparently hard to grasp.

1) Child A goes to school and is picked on by Child B because Child B has a low self esteem.
2) Child A grows up in schools with Child B and develops low self-esteem as well.
3) Child A is excluded from many social events due to low self-esteem giving rise to some minor antisocial behaviour, not his fault.
4) Child A grows up with minor antisocial problems, which may make him more inclined to commit a crime than Child C who was never bullied.

Now show me the eugenics and inherited traits I mentioned in that argument. I've yet to see your evidence.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
BSdoc, I don't think it's possible to be more clear than I have been:

However you twist, turn, and try to dazzle the fans - saying "ugly people are more likely to become criminals" is a eugenics argument at the core.



caio



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
It's a sociological argument. You just refuse to look past the dramatic title a journalist and poster put on it. Sad.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
parent a, b, c, d, e and f all have a tendency to party late at night, get drunk and shout obcenties up and down the street. child a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, and m really do try to go to ignore the loud music and constant yelling and go to sleep so they can get a decent amount of sleep for the morning.

well, one day, child f shouts an obscenity that has never been spoken in his home at one of the ladies, who then commences to drag him to his parent complaining....
parent of child f smiles snugly...and just suggests....well, don't expect the children to act any more adult than the adults do.....he heard that word while layin in his bed late at night trying to sleep.....while yous were out partying. the lady gets mad, says something about the kid ending up in prison long before he graduates and stomps off. parent of child f quietly closes the door and has a talk with her child.....

child f is now serving in the US military, no criminal record...the children of the complaining parent?? both "bullies" by the way...well, one's in jail, the other might be heading in that direction...



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Your post made no sense, dawnstar...if I understand it corrently, you just agreed with me that it is environmental, not genetic. I can't decipher your grammar, though.

~MFP



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I did some digging and found the original report. You can d/l it (pdf)here

from the footnotes:

3 One can especially argue that in some white-collar crimes, such as financial fraud, attractiveness may be
an advantage by helping the criminals gain trust of their victims as discussed above. However, fraud is not
among the crime types analyzed in this paper.


Yeah, wouldn't want to skew the results away from the preconceived notion, would we?


The collection of "data":

At the end of each interview, the interviewer filled out a short survey marking
his/her opinions on several characteristics of the respondent. To gauge the level of beauty
of the respondents, the interviewers were asked the following question: “How physically
attractive is the respondent?” Possible answers include: 1) very unattractive 2) unattractive 3) about average 4) attractive 5) very attractive.


So, the interviewer's were asked their opinion of the attractiveness of the people interviewed. Then those statistics were cross referenced against evidence supplied by the people being interviewed of their criminal activity. Bollocks.

This is an economic study, not a sociological one, the main use I can see for this is adding line items on insurance policies and plastic surgery propoganda. I doubt we'll see a push for acceptance of the" beauty challanged" as a result of this study. Will police be taught new techniques on interviewing attractive vs. unattractive people ? Will they be taught to go for the "uglies" first as they're "predisposed" to crime ? Beauty profiling ?

The "true cost" economics movement has been saying that current economics
is "autistic". On reading this report, I would tend to agree. Beauty as determined by statistic evaluation of the judgement of interviewer's and relating that to criminality. . .??? Gimme a break.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Thanks very much for that, very informative post, and good rhetoric to boot.


Indeed, attractiveness is quite an asset to a lot of criminals, most of all politicians and other assorted con artists. (Con, in case anyone didn't know, is short for confidence scam )



A confidence trick, confidence game, also known as a con or scam, is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the "mark") usually with the goal of financial or other gain.

The confidence trickster, con man, grifter, scam artist or con artist often works with one or more accomplices called shills, who try to encourage the mark by pretending to believe the trickster. In a traditional con, the mark is encouraged to believe that they will obtain money dishonestly by cheating a third party, and is stunned to find that due to what appears to be an error in pulling off the scam they are the one who loses money; in more general use, the term con is used for any fraud in which the victim is tricked into losing money by false promises of gain.

Most confidence tricks exploit the greed and dishonesty of their victims. Often, the mark tries to out-cheat the conmen, only to discover that they have been manipulated into this from the start. This is such a general principle in confidence tricks that there is a saying among conmen that "you can't cheat an honest man."


That's good Wicki.




posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
look, the fact of the matter is that the western world is one where beauty and physical adeptivness is held in higher esteem than intelligence. That is a fact, and if you argue it, why do we pay movie stars and sports stars millions while teachers get 50k a year?

the point of this study was to show that because of the way our world works ( world as in western countries) is that the people who may not be as attractive or physically adept are pushed to the bottom and that can have a very damaging effect on the human psyche. BSdoc has the point nailed down to the ground but no one seems to understand.

This article is not saying all ugly people are criminals. All it is saying is that these people are put into the position by today's society where their psyche may be damaged enough to commit a crime. It has nothing to do with some gene that ugly people have that make them criminals. It has very much to do with the way society treats individuals such as these and the levels society holds people to. Look at our magazines. The pressure put on today's people to look their best is insane. People are programmed everyday from television and movies that if they don't look like movie star A or TV star B then they are inferior.

why is everyone having such a hard time discerning that from this article?



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   


look, the fact of the matter is that the western world is one where beauty and physical adeptivness is held in higher esteem than intelligence. That is a fact, and if you argue it, why do we pay movie stars and sports stars millions while teachers get 50k a year?


Yeah, I think everyone can agree that's true. What we can't agree about, apparently, is whether that's a good thing or not. I happen to think it's crap, and it's turning our society into a cesspool. Others beg to differ. : shrug :



the point of this study was to show that because of the way our world works ( world as in western countries) is that the people who may not be as attractive or physically adept are pushed to the bottom and that can have a very damaging effect on the human psyche. BSdoc has the point nailed down to the ground but no one seems to understand.


You mean the government survey, or the study conducted using the numbers produced by the survey?



This article is not saying all ugly people are criminals.


We ALL realize that.



All it is saying is that these people are put into the position by today's society where their psyche may be damaged enough to commit a crime.


Could you show me where it says that? Besides, the number of factors that are not being considered should boggle the mind, if the mind accurately appreciates the number of potential variables.

If this study is used to generate support for measures to change our society for the better, I'm all for it. But what are the odds of that happening?




It has nothing to do with some gene that ugly people have that make them criminals. It has very much to do with the way society treats individuals such as these and the levels society holds people to. Look at our magazines. The pressure put on today's people to look their best is insane. People are programmed everyday from television and movies that if they don't look like movie star A or TV star B then they are inferior.


They're not just being trained by the television, they're being trained by experience. Our popular culture is vain and stupid, and proud of it.



why is everyone having such a hard time discerning that from this article?


Be aware, there are three separate elements under discussion here, the article, the study, and the survey.

IMO, the survey was a waste of money, the article will give many people the wrong idea, and the study reminds me of this for some reason:



Care to discuss?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Very interesting thread WyrdeOne - and great posts.



You have voted WyrdeOne for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Thankee.


Fox News ran a segment on this, and it was pretty strange.

First off, they showed a handful of black muslims in prison, kneeling on prayer mats, some of them wearing CDC PRISONER outfits (very bizarre), while one of the guys responsible for the study droned on about ugly people being more likely to commit crimes. The associate professor who was doing the interview with Cavuto, well, let's just say he's more likely to be a criminal.


So that in and of itself was humorous.

But anyway, the interview wasn't long or in depth. Regardless, I thought the fact that the phrase "small but consistent" didn't come up once was important to our discussion here on ATS. Mom and Pop TV watcher didn't get that snippet.

All they got was, ugly folks get lower wages and commit more crimes.

:shk:



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
"All they got was, ugly folks get lower wages and commit more crimes"


with a little bit of subliminal messaging regarding black muslims to latch onto their anti-Islam paranoia???

what the hey???

[edit on 2-3-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
"All they got was, ugly folks get lower wages and commit more crimes"


with a little bit of subliminal messaging regarding black muslims to latch onto their anti-Islam paranoia???

what the hey???



Uh huh.

I am seeing a huge and multifaceted campaign to identify the "unfit," "inferior" and other wise "genetically compromised."

Something is afoot.

IMO - bird flu is less likely to be fatal than to cause long term chronic illness - the plan is to cull the herd, not take care of the disabled and debilitated - and the targets are being promoted to the public so the support is in place when the poop hits the fan.





posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
potential future scapegoats.......

welfare moms, deadbeat dads.
people in debt up to their arse.
"liberals"
smokers and drug addicts
people of wrong religions
homosexuals
and now......

ugly people......
have we left anyone out???

actually, I don't think they need the bird flu to debilitate us, there's so many other things doing that one...


[edit on 2-3-2006 by dawnstar]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
I don't think it mentioned anything at all about genetics in this work. It merely points out social effects of childhood distress due to a different appearance. No hint of discrimination by the researchers or discrimination of any other group at all. Interesting that you guys read it that way.

~MFP



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I think the point they're trying to make is people who are left out of normal teenage cliques and society, whether due to physical appearance or other reasons, are more likely to exhibit antisocial behaviour later in life, including commiting crimes. I can see this as a viable standpoint. Take, for instance, this quote from the study:

Other studies have shown that unattractive men and women are less likely to be hired....


Quite subjective to begin with, as I assume the ones doing the study decided who was attractive and who wasn't (someone had to decide this!); Views with which I would possibly (probably?) disagree.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join