Occupy the Internet
The Chamber of Politics General Should discrimination on the basis of physical looks be illegal?
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
Should discrimination on the basis of physical looks be illegal?
In an essay in Newsweek (June 14, 2010), Dahlia Lithwick wonders if bias based on looks should be illegal.  She notes that a Stanford law professor, Deborah Rhode,
has proposed "a legal regime in which discrimination on the basis of looks is as serious as discrimination based on gender or race."  Rhode goes on to suggest that in America, "discrimination against unattractive women and short men is as pernicious and widespread as bias based on race, sex, age, ethnicity, religion, and disability."  She notes that "11 percent of surveyed couples say they would abort a fetus predisposed toward obesity.  College students tell surveyors they'd rather have a spouse who is an embezzler, drug user, or a shoplifter than one who is obese.  The less attractive you are in America, the more likely you are to receive a longer prison sentence, a lower damage award, a lower salary, and poorer performance reviews.  You are less likely to be married and more likely to be poor."

You get the idea.  I thought it might be of interest for us to think about this issue: should our bias towards good looks, in the many ways it plays out in American society, be made illegal?
Dr. Plum  When I was a child I had a playmate named Wendell.  Wendell was born to be a General.  He had a natural ability at command and inspiring confidence.  He carried himself with quiet certainty.  There was a store here in town called Redmans Military supply stocked with all things military and Wendell always got his dad to take us there and he went through it like any other kid would go through a toy store.  He was sixteen when he went off to military academy and his talent showed, earning him well deserved promotion. One night, after being in academy for several years,  Wendell was a passenger in a car that collided head-on with a truck and he was killed instantly.  He was buried in full uniform and was greatly mourned by all that knew him.  His death was in some way a blessing because the Army would never have taken him into its ranks. Wendell was a dwarf. Virgil Trahan
@ Mr. Plum

The Supreme Court has long held that unclear laws are unconstitutional, because they deny the 5th amendment right to due process. Since a law based on subjective ideas about who looks good or not would inevitably be unclear. There is at least a general (although fraught) consensus regarding membership in a given race or gender. Whether someone meets an arbitrary (an once again, utterly subjective) threshold of ugliness or obesity so as to qualify as a protected group does not sound like a clear enough legal standard to have on the books...

I vote no.

In response to Andrew Esch
Demands for entitlement have gotten out of hand.

This revolt against managerial discretion leads me to wonder:
What would those fatcats do for a living after we blast ourselves this way?

Oh, I know. The unending fear of lawsuits would be their sole reason for existing. In that sense it is no different from today.

I yearn for the day when this wave breaks. Entitlement is the driver of our degeneracy.

We should ask ourselves this: Favoritism based on legal threats in furtherance of entitlement favour certain sorts of work ethic. What sort of work ethic does it favour?

This is why I won't start a business in America.
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: August 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Number of posts: 39
Spans 24 days

  
Searching
No results found.