“Beautiful people dont hate ugly people, but beautiful people are better treated than ugly people, thats proven.
Due to that, ugly people feel treated unfairly because beautiful people are treated better and they feel resentment.”
Well said, Lil Bitchiness. There’s much truth in the above statement. You’ll hear racists go ”I hate those (insert ethic group) because they steal our jobs.” Frankly, I doubt some ethnic person has actually tip-toed in and stolen a vacant position, but the racist doesn’t blame the employer.
It’s just like “I hate beautiful people cause they get better treated than me.”
Strange logic – if ugly people hate beautiful people that is.
Originally posted by BackFireWell said 💃
Like I said, I hate both equally. Beautiful people are shallow and stupid for the most part.Ugly people whine and moan all the time, and too top it off, they aren't pleasant to look at.
although personally I dont like to run around telling people whether they're ugly or beautiful etc. I just dont like people who put on a charade of thier cute/hotness just to later show off thier dirty booze drinking coke habits... very annoying.. easy to point out though.
Beautifull people are only beautifull through the perspective of other people. Like pride,it can only exist in the company of others. through this perception of other people, "beautifull people" Live on an acknowledged stage in life from other people. this can change apersons perspective very easily.
Originally posted by Linkalicious
i hate beautiful women, because they get special treatment just for their looks. Girls get into clubs, cut in lines, don't pay for drinks, get out of traffic tickets.....amongst many other things.
Men will generally be kinder to a woman than they will to another man. I don't know if it's just beautiful girls or girls in general that get these privileges. I think the more attractive you are, the higher your chance of success. I recently saw a woman get out of a fine for not having a valid ticket on a tram. Of course, the ticket inspector was a man. While her excuse was legitimate, I know for a fact that had it been a man without a ticket, he would have been fined. It made me think that perhaps it's not people getting special treatment for their appearance that bothers me. Rather, it could be that we seem so incapable of showing compassion and respect to a stranger unless they have something we can use or appeals to our primal urges. 😬
WELL....Lil Bitchiness...
Is this a philosophical argument/discussion or is it NOT ?
I think it is !
As you seem to be the one with the axe here I was wondering what your definition of "philosophy" is ?
What do the rest of you think....?
Is this just about pretty versus ugly or is it a bit deeper than that ?
Originally posted by Papaumau
[b]WELL....Lil Bitchiness...Is this a philosophical argument/discussion or is it NOT ?
I think it is !
As you seem to be the one with the axe here I was wondering what your definition of "philosophy" is ?
What do the rest of you think....?
Is this just about pretty versus ugly or is it a bit deeper than that ? [/B]
No actually it is not a philosophical argument, Its a sociological one. Why do people discriminate against other people, is sociologica/phsychological, not phiolosphical. sheesh.
^ LOL ! Sociology being the bridge that tries to connect philosophy with modern 'urban' lifestyle musings, I think it fits in both categories. Yet it's an ancient fact that people hate people and the root cause is not so much sociology but an insight to ones self and a battling out with our demons (demonology fits too 🙂).
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No actually it is not a philosophical argument, Its a sociological one. Why do people discriminate against other people, is sociologica/phsychological, not phiolosphical. sheesh.
Methinks you do not look deep enough, Lil !
If you only see the title then OK "Socialogical", but if you see the story behind the title and you read what many of the other contributors say then the Philosophical flow becomes apparent to those that are sensitive to it.
Sheesh !
This is staying in the General Discussion forum. End of discussion. Im not going to argue with you about this, since its off topic.
Get back on topic, or this thread is getting closed.
Oh and for further of what the philosophy actually seeks to understand please refer to the following quote.
definition of philosophy-
They [Philosophers] are striving towards a fundamental understanding of whatever exists, including ourselves. And they are trying to do this without making it a question of religious faith, or appealing to the say-so of an authority. They may as individuals have religious beliefs - most great philosophers have had, though some have not - yet as good philosophers they do not attempt to support their philosophical arguments with appeals to religion. A philosophical argument is one that carries its own credentials with it, in the form of reasons: it asks you for your rational assent, not for faith or obedience. Philosophy tries to see how far reason alone will take us.
Because philosophy is a quest for rational understanding of the most fundamental kind it raises important questions about the nature of understanding and hence of enquiry and knowledge. How are we to go about finding answers to all these questions of ours? Can we ever really know, in the sense of being sure of, anything? If so, what? And even if we do know, how will we be able to be sure that we know; in other words can we ever know that we know? Questions like this have themselves come to occupy a place near the centre of philosophy. Alongside questions about the world around us, the philosopher asks questions about the nature of human perception, experience, and understanding.So, put at its most basic, philosophy has developed in such a way that two fundamental questions lie at its heart: the first is "What is the nature of whatever it is that exists?" and the second is "How, if at all, can we know?" Investigation into the first question, about what exists and the nature of existence, constitutes the branch of philosophy known as ontology. Investigation into the second question - about the nature of knowledge, and what, if anything, we can know - is called epistemology. It is the development of these two over the centuries - and of all the subsidiary questions that arise out of them - that constitute the mainstream of philosophy's history.