Should it be a crime to be ugly and/or stupid?

Only if there are no redeemable whatsoever values of such a person:D

Let's say an Ugly, Stupid and Clumsy person ( add more 'traits' ) :)

Fade, lol, you made that the first post on a new highbrow forum? Oh well, when in Rome:
yes, it should be, and punishable by death too.

Should it be a crime to be ugly and/or stupid?No. I want to live free.

>>>No. I want to live free.

What is freedom, Sigrun?

>>>No. I want to live free.

What is freedom, Sigrun?
The freedom to be ugly & stupid if I choose, or rather if nature decides that for me, and not be crimianlly punished for it. To be able to live as an ugly and stupid human, without interference and encumbrace, so long as I afford the same to others. My ugliness and stupidity may be annoying, but annoying doesn't meet the criteria for violating the rights and liberties of others - it's too subjective a criteria. You can ignore me. Don't look at me. Stay away from me. My ugliness and stupidity only cause you harm if you allow it and that is your fault, not mine.

No, it's too subjective and would be a mess. However, private institutions should choose to discriminate at will.

Should it be a crime to be ugly and/or stupid?
No need for the government to punish what is punished by nature.

No need for the government to punish what is punished by nature. :D

Ja, I'm already miserable enough. Let me be, for Chryst's sake.

>>>The freedom to be ugly & stupid if I choose, or rather if nature decides that for me, and not be crimianlly punished for it.

Would Jews also enjoy such freedoms, Sigrun? What about transsexuals?

>>>To be able to live as an ugly and stupid human, without interference and encumbrace, so long as I afford the same to others.

I think you are confusing liberty with license here. There is an important difference between these two concepts. Well, I would argue at least there used to be a difference.

>>>My ugliness and stupidity may be annoying, but annoying doesn't meet the criteria for violating the rights and liberties of others - it's too subjective a criteria.

Rights and liberties? Who maintains such rights and liberties? :p

>>>You can ignore me. Don't look at me. Stay away from me. My ugliness and stupidity only cause you harm if you allow it and that is your fault, not mine.

In other words, ugly and disgusting people should be allowed to pollute with the public sphere with their presence. Why should we want to such a society in the first place, Sigrun?

Well, Fade. The beautiful and intelligent feel and appear so because they are contrasted with the ugly and the stupid. ;)

:D

Ja, I'm already miserable enough. Let me be, for Chryst's sake.
Ill make one addendum, the stupider among us should be "discouraged" from reproducing. At least at less of a rate then the smart.

Ill make one addendum, the stupider among us should be "discouraged" from reproducing. At least at less of a rate then the smart.You're in luck. I have no children and no prospects.

Ill make one addendum, the stupider among us should be "discouraged" from reproducing. At least at less of a rate then the smart.
I agree. You should lead by example.

An aristocratic class system can probably give you what you want without making some legal mess of people trying to decide who is ugly or stupid.

If beauty and intelligence are highly valued in society, beauty and intelligence will be what is needed to enter certain institutions which are necessary for social and economic upward mobility. A city is divided into sections. There is an aristocratic section, various middling sections, and the lower section. The aristocratic section is collectively owned by the individuals who were able to climb the social ladder in a society where the main assets are beauty and intelligence. Only aristocrats and their invited servants or temporary guests are allowed here. The lower masses may not have brains or beauty, but they may have other assets, such as brawn and willingness to do menial labor. They can fill the role of soldier, guard, laboror, servant. Someone who is of average intelligence and possibly quite ugly can still fill a role as artisan (and thus create beauty). ETC.

No need for the government to punish what is punished by nature.

Who says that nature punishes the stupid? Some of the most vacuous people are also some of the most successful and happy. Look at Hollywood. Or better yet, look at George W. Bush.

Who says that nature punishes the stupid? Some of the most vacuous people are also some of the most successful and happy. Look at Hollywood. Or better yet, look at George W. Bush.
Excellent point, as usual.

Who says that nature punishes the stupid? Some of the most vacuous people are also some of the most successful and happy. Look at Hollywood. Or better yet, look at George W. Bush.
On the other hand, how long could Dubya or the typical Hollywood star survive out in nature's wilderness, stranded away from the life-support system of liberal-capitalist society?

I consider myself to be somewhat of a communitarian. For me, humans are social beings. I don't see a purely associational society of atomised individuals with no responsibilities to each other as being a 'free society' at all (or even a desirable way to live). Far from it. I see such societies as being utterly tyrannical because no man (or woman) is more vulnerable to tyranny than the man (or woman) who is utterly isolated from his (or her) fellows. So I would argue that in order to increase the freedom of the individual, one must strengthen his (or her) community/culture and his (or her) connectedness with that community/culture. This is the exact opposite approach taken by those who would shower the individual with rights against his/her neighbours. It should be noted that the community/culture is not the state. The state can easily become an enemy of the community or the culture. This is the precisely the type of situation we are in today. The state has been hijacked by a hostile and highly organised group of cultural aliens, the Jews. This situation was made possible in the first place by this constant thinking in terms of individuals, freedom, rights of man, humanity and so on. The Jews have taken advantage of this self-destructive ideology and are now in the process of consolidating their power by closing the door behind them (e.g., hate speech legislation). The fundamental reason the Jews have been so successful is because thinking in terms of individuals (like the shabbos goy) as opposed to the hive is so foreign to their way of understanding the world around them. A highly organised, fanatical minority can easily dominate a much larger atomised majority.

What's with all the (or her)'s?

We have some people here who are notoriously sensitive. :p

We have some people here who are notoriously sensitive. :p
You're kidding, I hope? And since when are you Mr. Sensitive Feminist Guy? :rolleyes:

When one refers to 'man' or 'his' in certain contexts, it is understood (by intelligent, secure people) that it includes wo-man and her. Wo-men are a part of men.

We have had several recent debates here where there has been such nitpicking. For instance, there was a debate about whether Romanians were Central Europeans or Eastern Europeans. Mynydd also made sure to point out that I should not confuse Western Europe with 'Southwestern Europe'. Then there are the 'National Socialists' who are offended when they are called 'Nazis'.

Back to the topic, no, I would not make ugliness illegal. People who are physically ugly are capable of creating beauty through art. People who make beautiful music, paintings, buildings, sculptures, dances, and plays are not necessarily good looking.

Back to the topic, no, I would not make ugliness illegal. People who are physically ugly are capable of creating beauty through art. People who make beautiful music, paintings, buildings, sculptures, dances, and plays are not necessarily good looking.
But what about those people who are neither beautiful nor able to create beauty?

Who says that nature punishes the stupid? Some of the most vacuous people are also some of the most successful and happy. Look at Hollywood. Or better yet, look at George W. Bush.
Ussually those people are less stupid then they probably appear to you, occasionally some people get lucky but in general nature punishes the stupid.

But what about those people who are neither beautiful nor able to create beauty?

Soldiers and laborers. Someone who designs a beautiful building or statue can't build it by himself.

'Ugly' is far too vague; who would arbitrate 'ugliness'? As for stupidity, it would be fine and good to shoot everyone who fails to pass a given intelligence test, but this would be no end to the existence of stupid people; intelligent parents often have unintelligent children, and vice versa.

Perhaps ugly people and stupid people could be excluded from others so that they will not 'pollute' by means of a caste system, but for reasons all too obvious, a hereditary caste system would not be a solution to ugliness and stupidity. 'Natural aristocracies' and 'meritocracies' tend not to work in practice, despite the denials of Social Darwinists. What's left, then? Hmm, I'm still pondering this.

No need for the government to punish what is punished by nature.
That's ridiculous. Nature punishes whoever is not born at the right place and the right time; there is no rhyme and reason to this. Society tends to punish the ugly and stupid; much of it is still a matter of chance, though. I can name very many people who are or were ugly or stupid who have made good names for themselves (though very few who are or were both; I suppose this is where society's punishment comes in).

An aristocratic class system can probably give you what you want without making some legal mess of people trying to decide who is ugly or stupid.

If beauty and intelligence are highly valued in society, beauty and intelligence will be what is needed to enter certain institutions which are necessary for social and economic upward mobility. A city is divided into sections. There is an aristocratic section, various middling sections, and the lower section. The aristocratic section is collectively owned by the individuals who were able to climb the social ladder in a society where the main assets are beauty and intelligence. Only aristocrats and their invited servants or temporary guests are allowed here. The lower masses may not have brains or beauty, but they may have other assets, such as brawn and willingness to do menial labor. They can fill the role of soldier, guard, laboror, servant. Someone who is of average intelligence and possibly quite ugly can still fill a role as artisan (and thus create beauty). ETC.
Yes; I was thinking this, but the whole notion of 'climbing the social ladder' reeks of Social Darwinism, which I discarded long ago.

I agree with Edana that stupidity and ugliness are too subjective to try to impose by law. As much as I find the idea appealing, Im far too aware of the short-comings and flaws in trying to put this into law.

So what is the criteria for stupid? And ugly? And who sets the limits? Compared to a certified genius, we're all stupid. Compared to Vendela [or insert your favorite model here], we're all ugly.

What about people who are stupid and/or ugly through no fault of their own? For example, people who received brain damage or have horrible scars from an injury?

Wait. I have much more objective solution:

Let us execute people who refuse to use proper punctuation.

>>>'Ugly' is far too vague

I disagree. I don't take words literally either. Language, by its very nature, is quite imprecise.

>>>who would arbitrate 'ugliness'?

Who would interpret the law? That's why we have judges.

>>>As for stupidity, it would be fine and good to shoot everyone who fails to pass a given intelligence test, but this would be no end to the existence of stupid people; intelligent parents often have unintelligent children, and vice versa.

I didn't suggest that such people should be executed. I am simply of the view that there is much room for improvement.

>>>Perhaps ugly people and stupid people could be excluded from others so that they will not 'pollute' by means of a caste system, but for reasons all too obvious, a hereditary caste system would not be a solution to ugliness and stupidity.

I never said anything about a hereditary caste system.

>>>'Natural aristocracies' and 'meritocracies' tend not to work in practice, despite the denials of Social Darwinists. What's left, then? Hmm, I'm still pondering this.

I don't believe in hereditary aristocracies or meritocracies, actually. This thread was intended to be about my social ideal (e.g., a beautiful society full of smart and beautiful people) and how best to realise that ideal.

Ugly people suck, but they shouldn't be killed only enslaved. We need them to do manual labor. This includes Untermenschen.

>>>who would arbitrate 'ugliness'?

Who would interpret the law? That's why we have judges.

LOL... yeah give more power to the shyster cocksuckers.

I could see a mandatory fat camp for all the fat people in society. Ugliness... no.

>>>LOL... yeah give more power to the shyster cocksuckers.

This is amusing coming from a monarchist.

>>>I could see a mandatory fat camp for all the fat people in society. Ugliness... no.

I don't see a reason why we need any Rosie O'Donnell's.

>>>'Ugly' is far too vague

I disagree. I don't take words literally either. Language, by its very nature, is quite imprecise.
Yes, I already know you think this; why then do you disagree that 'ugliness' is vague?

>>>who would arbitrate 'ugliness'?

Who would interpret the law? That's why we have judges.
Each judge would have his own ideas about what 'ugliness' constitutes.

>>>As for stupidity, it would be fine and good to shoot everyone who fails to pass a given intelligence test, but this would be no end to the existence of stupid people; intelligent parents often have unintelligent children, and vice versa.

I didn't suggest that such people should be executed. I am simply of the view that there is much room for improvement.
I know you didn't suggest it; I myself was pondering the idea of stupidity as a crime punishable by death.

>>>Perhaps ugly people and stupid people could be excluded from others so that they will not 'pollute' by means of a caste system, but for reasons all too obvious, a hereditary caste system would not be a solution to ugliness and stupidity.

I never said anything about a hereditary caste system.
I know you didn't. I came up with it myself!

>>>'Natural aristocracies' and 'meritocracies' tend not to work in practice, despite the denials of Social Darwinists. What's left, then? Hmm, I'm still pondering this.

I don't believe in hereditary aristocracies or meritocracies, actually. This thread was intended to be about my social ideal (e.g., a beautiful society full of smart and beautiful people) and how best to realise that ideal.
Yes, and I was thinking of ways to realize that ideal.

>>>Yes, I already know you think this; why then do you disagree that 'ugliness' is vague?

Because you are setting and knocking over a linguistic straw man. No one has argued that language literally represents anything.

>>>Each judge would have his own ideas about what 'ugliness' constitutes.

Not really. Empirically speaking, the ideal of beauty has remained remarkably consistent across time, unlike morality.