Ugly people are genetically inferior?

constitutionus

Thirdfox wrote:

Well in general more affluent classes can afford better nutrition, better healthcare, better clothing/beauty products. So I would agree with the general statement that affluent areas has more "beautiful" people.

true, but then its been my experience that the more affluent the area the LESS likely you are to find a naturally good looking women. to paraphrase to old debbie magee joke "tell me young man, what first attracted you to the ugly milloinairess":D
lets be honest, if you dont have good looks in a poor enviroment you dont get laid by a brad pitt type . but any minger from foxrock will get fixed up with that type if moneys there. throw in all the inbreeding between the solicitors/consultants/doctors and its monsterville (i mean hell just look what copper face jacks is doing to the genepool ,its like some nurse/gardai breeding program )

Pigman II

Hobbes wrote:

Looks aint everything... Look at Nikki on bigbrother find me someone who would breed with her that wouldn't mean the person would impale themselves onto a rusty Iron railing rather then put up with her.

For those who don't know her..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLYsO_r3wiE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPU4cl3Vag

I'd still give her one tho .... 'a bottle of water' that is!

Haha I'm joking! I of course mean 'a slap'

No no, I'm still joking. I of course mean 'aggressive sexual intercourse'.

Thirdfox

constitutionus wrote:

true, but then its been my experience that the more affluent the area the LESS likely you are to find a naturally good looking women. to paraphrase to old debbie magee joke "tell me young man, what first attracted you to the ugly milloinairess"
lets be honest, if you dont have good looks in a poor enviroment you dont get laid by a brad pitt type . but any minger from foxrock will get fixed up with that type if moneys there. throw in all the inbreeding between the solicitors/consultants/doctors and its monsterville (i mean hell just look what copper face jacks is doing to the genepool ,its like some nurse/gardai breeding program )

Actually I just find that people from these "affluent" areas (girls mostly) look the same - same top, same hair, clothes - quite scary actually!

I would have thought that guys are less attracted to the money and more towards the looks - rich people can afford to battle it out and out do each other in terms of beauty treatments, holidays in the sun etc.

constitutionus

not to mention the scourge of fake tan i mean what the hell is that all about? no bloke i know likes tanned girls unless their foreign. you do bring up an interesting thing on beauty treatments. seems to me alot of girls seem to be trying to impress other girls which is why we seem to be getting this little waif thing. i cant speak for every guy but the stick insect thing doesnt do anything for me so why do girls try to look like posh spice.

Thirdfox

Oh yes competition is fierce!

Girl: "I shall wear high heels to the cobblestone ball"
Me: "But wouldn't your feet be swollen after a while?"
Girl: "Yes, I'm bringing some flats too - I'll change after everyone is too drunk to notice."
Me: "...?"

gerrycollins

i thought this started as a ugly vs. good looking debate and now it has turned into a class debate

I'm ugly lol and not afraid to say it but the one thing i did notice

im 27 and last year got married

for our wedding my now wife and i joined weight watchers to lose weight obviously for the big day

i lost 5 stone to trim to what is medically regarded as my ideal weight

then i noticed more women look at me on the street or in the shops(did i become vain i dont think so)

the funny part is i never had any problems pulling women in clubs or social events when i was fat i dont think they looked at that part of me only my personaility,

but one night my wife was at a work "do" when i called to collect her i was in the suit just after work and one of her new collegues who i never met before started cracking onto me so for once is was not me doin the chasing lol

im fiancally suscessful,married baby on the way,college degree,own my own house but i always consider myself ugly so i dont think looks has anything to do with your outcome but what you make of it

we rely and look towards the media too much and this is whats mentally retarded us to others regardless of their looks or "class" status

Dudess

constitutionus wrote:

i mean hell just look what copper face jacks is doing to the genepool ,its like some nurse/gardai breeding program )

Hee hee! Brilliant!

CathyMoran

I have found that really masculine men can be also borderline ugly but there is something really attractive about them and they are the only ones that give me massive chemistry. Masculine men would be the alpha males and would not be considered genetically inferior.

constitutionus

CathyMoran wrote:

I have found that really masculine men can be also borderline ugly but there is something really attractive about them and they are the only ones that give me massive chemistry. Masculine men would be the alpha males and would not be considered genetically inferior.

actually this is quite interesting cause i was writing from a blokes point of view. girls dont seem to employ the same criteria we do in terms of whats considered classically good looking. i know alot of girls of model standard in terms of looks going out with some compleate brutes, nice guys but sweet jesus you'd **** yourself if you met them in a dark alley, a good looking face doesnt seem to be up there in a girls view.
personally i have to have a pretty face, shallow prehaps, but thats me. but then again there is the phenomenon where the more you get to know a girl the better looking she gets. fecked if i know how that really works but its happened to me on many occasion (and no, beer ISNT involved )

CathyMoran

constitutionus wrote:

actually this is quite interesting cause i was writing from a blokes point of view. girls dont seem to employ the same criteria we do in terms of whats considered classically good looking. i know alot of girls of model standard in terms of looks going out with some compleate brutes, nice guys but sweet jesus you'd **** yourself if you met them in a dark alley, a good looking face doesnt seem to be up there in a girls view.
personally i have to have a pretty face, shallow prehaps, but thats me. but then again there is the phenomenon where the more you get to know a girl the better looking she gets. fecked if i know how that really works but its happened to me on many occasion (and no, beer ISNT involved )

I never got it either until I met my first love - he had something, I knew it the moment I saw him even though his looks repulsed me, sure he had the most wonderful eyes but...he just had "it", whatever that is, he was the first guy that I had to bite my lips to stop myself kissing him. He did have a great personality as well as it turns out! I do think that those kind of men evoke a lust response more than a love response though, more if you wanted a good time than a lifelong partner.

PHB

I firmly believe that better looking people will tend to have better lives that ugly people. It's just easier for them. We're all pretty shallow ultimately, and we'll give more time to get to know a person if he/she is hot. And since most people are nice deep down, this extra time gives you the chance to get to know them. It's why hotter people tend to be nicer too, it's cause you give yourself time to get to know them, cause it's nice to look at them.

Catney

Thirdfox wrote:

Well in general more affluent classes can afford better nutrition, better healthcare, better clothing/beauty products. So I would agree with the general statement that affluent areas has more "beautiful" people.

I agree. You ever walk down Talbot Street and see the knacks there? Now you could book them into the four seasons, bathe them in the finest minerals, cut their hair, put them in a suit like bono's in the "sweetest thing", and I tell you those knacks would still look like knacks, It's in their eyes, you can just tell. And their skin.

Im not proud of saying it, but its true.

Catney

gerrycollins wrote:

i thought this started as a ugly vs. good looking debate and now it has turned into a class debate

I'm ugly lol and not afraid to say it but the one thing i did notice

im 27 and last year got married

for our wedding my now wife and i joined weight watchers to lose weight obviously for the big day

i lost 5 stone to trim to what is medically regarded as my ideal weight

then i noticed more women look at me on the street or in the shops(did i become vain i dont think so)

the funny part is i never had any problems pulling women in clubs or social events when i was fat i dont think they looked at that part of me only my personaility,

but one night my wife was at a work "do" when i called to collect her i was in the suit just after work and one of her new collegues who i never met before started cracking onto me so for once is was not me doin the chasing lol

im fiancally suscessful,married baby on the way,college degree,own my own house but i always consider myself ugly so i dont think looks has anything to do with your outcome but what you make of it

we rely and look towards the media too much and this is whats mentally retarded us to others regardless of their looks or "class" status

good man Gerry Collins!!!!

jimmycrackcorm

Bill Gates is ugly so should the theory be refined to - ugly people are inferior but richer?

Lothaar

I think this has gone way off topic. The O's post was about the ugliness and gene quality. Thing is, "ugly" in this instance is actually synonymous with "genetically inferior". That is why people can say that we all have different tastes. In the OP he refers to evolution. Y'see 'Survival of the Fittest' has nothing to do with fitness, as in going to the gym and stuff. 'Fit' means 'most apt'.
To put that in the context of the original post, I believe the OP has basically restated some of Darwin's theory of evolution, although I think he made a bad choice of words. "Ugly" confuses the issue, as we see it as a subjective concept. This is particularly true when you consider the level of intelligence the human race has reached compared to the days we were tadpoles swimming around the evolutionary soup looking for a strong tadpole to mate with.

When we consider a person as a potential partner, looks comes into it, but we all want different things (however there are some general rules of thumb). Intelligence, success, personality, leadership, emotional support, etc, etc, are also traits that can be just as attractive as a strong jawline in a man or wide hips in a woman. And these traits can be passed on to offspring, so they fall into the category of 'traits we would like our children to have'.

If a person with no ears mates with a person with ears, there is a chance the baby will have no ears. Now this baby's offspring may have no ears, and they won't be able to hear or see (cos their hat will keep falling over their eyes). Even if the person is beautiful in every other way, a hereditary lack of ears is a genetically inferior trait.

So I think the original post is stating the obvious, as "ugly" and "genetically inferior" are the same thing.

Archeron

I'm still looking for a strong tadpole to mate with.....

pbsuxok1znja4r

I think maybe there are two kinds of "genetically fit". One is the type with the mathematically beautiful face (yes, folks, it is a fact. On average, the people with these ratios are regarded as more attractive). I guess their attractiveness increase their likelyhood of breeding. The other type is the physically fit (with matching attractive fit body) type. I'm sure everyone remembers that big lad from school who, facially, looked like a complete horse but was a superb athlete. Women (not all, of course) find these guys attractive and it's largely down to testosterone, so their likelyhood of breeding is also greater.

One thing that is a certain scientific fact is that the older you wait (for women, at least), to have children; the greater the likelyhood of genetic defect, or possible chromozone problems; greater likelyhood of being down syndrome, etc. Heh, are older people uglier? If so, is this unattractive agedness a sign to potential mates that there is a greater likelyhood of birth defect? Maybe.

Instead of looking at decidedly unattractive people and trying to find out if they are genetically inferior, rather you should look at those who are definitely genetically inferior and decide whether you find them attractive. Quite likely not.

mysterious

I'm going to throw a little spinner here!

It's not uncommon either for two ugly parents to have a good looking child
As long as the Parents have a wider selection of genes.... not both inbred but at least they are different.

I can relate to this, as one of my parents is ugly and I'm not exactly ugly:) I can point out some families who have ugly parents and nearly all the offspring are stunners!

It's funny people in remote parts of Kerry and the west seem to be less attractive than places like Limerick or Dublin. And this because the fact is the cities have a wider gene pool and the more remote a place is the more inbred people are. (no offence to the bogmen and bogwomen:D )

Also some of the best looking people in the world are mixed raced. Needless to say their parents might not have been so good looking, but because both parents had different genes and this gives the offspring a more wider selection of genes, i.e better looking etc..

examples
Jennifer anniston
Halle Berry
Christina Agilera
Mariah Carey

I could mention many more...

Dudess

PHB wrote:

I firmly believe that better looking people will tend to have better lives that ugly people. It's just easier for them. We're all pretty shallow ultimately, and we'll give more time to get to know a person if he/she is hot. And since most people are nice deep down, this extra time gives you the chance to get to know them. It's why hotter people tend to be nicer too, it's cause you give yourself time to get to know them, cause it's nice to look at them.

Agreed. Sad but true. Although I wouldn't agree that hotter people tend to be nicer.

Pigman II

Dudess wrote:

Agreed. Sad but true.

Why is that 'sad but true' tho? Good looks (like intelligence or talent many other aspects that make up a person) are desirable characteristics to have and if they contribute to a better life then so be it.

I mean I wouldn't forsee you (or many others) saying its 'sad but true' if a study proved that intelligent people have better lives that stupid people or that talented people have better lives than useless people?

WhiteWashMan

well, if only we all had the exact same taste, then we could have an objective discussion about it.

but since we dont, i guess its all just subjective opinion....

on the other hand, i am an incredible handsome chap, so thats ok...

Dudess

Pigman II wrote:

Why is that 'sad but true' tho? Good looks (like intelligence or talent many other aspects that make up a person) are desirable characteristics to have and if they contribute to a better life then so be it.

I mean I wouldn't forsee you (or many others) saying its 'sad but true' if a study proved that intelligent people have better lives that stupid people or that talented people have better lives than useless people?

I think it's sad but true that good-looking people have easier lives simply because they're good-looking. It's an accident of birth to be good-looking, not an achievement. So is being intelligent, but at least you have to do something to demonstrate your intelligence. When it comes down to purely looks, it's a sign of how shallow we are and it's unfair on those who don't have the looks. Why should good-looking people have an easier time getting jobs when they may not be as qualified or as good at the work than someone whom they're up against in an interview? Why should good-looking people be more popular than those who are just as nice, interesting etc, just because they're good-looking? It's definitely the reality, though, and I'm probably as responsible for perpetuating it as much as anyone else, but it's not very fair really, is it? Good lucks have their qualities obviously, but they hardly merit the same respect as being a decent, honest, genuine person.

uncle ernie

DOLEMAN wrote:

Now... here comes the controversial bit...

Blackrock people are much better looking than Ballyfermot people.

QUOTE]

fact

uncle ernie

mysterious wrote:

It's not uncommon either for two ugly parents to have a good looking child
QUOTE]

This phenomenon is known as adultery

mysterious

uncle ernie wrote:

DOLEMAN wrote:

Now... here comes the controversial bit...

Blackrock people are much better looking than Ballyfermot people.

QUOTE]

fact

Maybe so, but where is the fact. Blackrock is an upper class suburb, people would appear to be better looking because their bank balance's are healthy and would mean people from there would have healthier lifystyles, stylish clothes, the way they talk and the way they carry themselves.
I'm sure there is more people in Blackrock who has been under knife than Ballyfermot people..:p


Ballyfermot area is lower to middle class suburb, so people who have less money will have less to show, cheaper food, cheaper haircuts, and poorer health, This will affect how you look and other's perceptions of you.


Now that's not to say that most people in Ballyfermot would be this way. Anyone who would be succesful (good looking or intellegent) would go to areas much more higer class!! etc..

Also throw in a bit of a stirr up, Ballyfermot is drug ridden and is full of underage drinking, these have major effects on a person's looks too. I would even say it would affect the child of parents who smoke,drink and take drugs ecessively.


I'm not defending any region, as I'm better looking, ehem:D just kidding, well no I'm not ah maybe though... well I'm from neither of the suburbs...

mang87

thank god im so pretty

Thirdfox

Care to back that up with a "know your nerds post" ?

slipss

Lothaar wrote:

I think this has gone way off topic. The O's post was about the ugliness and gene quality. Thing is, "ugly" in this instance is actually synonymous with "genetically inferior". That is why people can say that we all have different tastes. In the OP he refers to evolution. Y'see 'Survival of the Fittest' has nothing to do with fitness, as in going to the gym and stuff. 'Fit' means 'most apt'.
To put that in the context of the original post, I believe the OP has basically restated some of Darwin's theory of evolution, although I think he made a bad choice of words. "Ugly" confuses the issue, as we see it as a subjective concept. This is particularly true when you consider the level of intelligence the human race has reached compared to the days we were tadpoles swimming around the evolutionary soup looking for a strong tadpole to mate with.

When we consider a person as a potential partner, looks comes into it, but we all want different things (however there are some general rules of thumb). Intelligence, success, personality, leadership, emotional support, etc, etc, are also traits that can be just as attractive as a strong jawline in a man or wide hips in a woman. And these traits can be passed on to offspring, so they fall into the category of 'traits we would like our children to have'.

If a person with no ears mates with a person with ears, there is a chance the baby will have no ears. Now this baby's offspring may have no ears, and they won't be able to hear or see (cos their hat will keep falling over their eyes). Even if the person is beautiful in every other way, a hereditary lack of ears is a genetically inferior trait.

So I think the original post is stating the obvious, as "ugly" and "genetically inferior" are the same thing.

Yeah Lothaar, thats spot on, well explained bud tnx. Lmao I cant believe this thread has four pages of responses, it was written at 1:30am or something, based on something a giddy blonde mate of mine said out of nowhere on a Monday night and I was so full of drink I fell off me chair twice while writting it, guess it touched a nerve with a few ppl or something.

mang87

Thirdfox wrote:

Care to back that up with a "know your nerds post" ?

fook no

last time my picture was taken I was in nappies








...it's just a weekend thing honest

Terry

what about good looking people who have ugly children?
look at paris hilton for an example. she's dumb and ugly. money doesn't buy you everything.

mysterious

julep wrote:

what about good looking people who have ugly children?
look at paris hilton for an example. she's dumb and ugly. money doesn't buy you everything.

:mad: """"GOD DAMN it.""" why do you contradict the point i just made:D ..

Well of course she is dumb and ugly, she prefer's toy dogs cus they'll only ride her:D

Emm, if she walked down the street in Blackrock she would get noticed as most of the people there are in her league.:rolleyes:

winter soldier

the last time a group of people got together to discuss how other people were genetically inferior was in Germany in the 1930's. they even formed their own political group, the national socialist party.

Terry

You bumped a 3 year old thread to Godwin it?

Jumpy

It took 3 years before Godwins Law set in. My god.

Jumpy

Damn you Terry and your faster fingers.

JohnGalt

There isn't a correlation between physical attractiveness and intellect. If there were I would right on board with this.

Terry

Jumpy wrote: »

Damn you Terry and your faster fingers.

It comes with being a complete wanker.

Jumpy

JohnGalt wrote: »

There isn't a correlation between physical attractiveness and intellect. If there were I would right on board with this.

No because if someone is hot you dont care if they are as dumb as a plank. Therefore dumb genes are passed amongst the pretty.

teeheehee *fluffs hair*

Tar.Aldarion

So eugenics eh, what's so bad?

Terry

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

So eugenics eh, what's so bad?

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Terry

Terry wrote: »

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and that lame episode of Enterprise.

HouseHippo

I don't know if i'm ugly or not. I've never been told I was ugly but I don't find myslef attractive....
I'm pretty intelligent tho. Usually intelligent people aren't good looking(stereotypically) but if ugly people are genetically inferior then that doesn't really make sense does it lol.

winter soldier

sorry about replying to a 3 year old thread. they call that trolling dont they? well i like to go through the different topics and posts when i am online. and yes khan hmmm what a villain. i wonder will he be in the sequel of the new star trek movie? (and now i am going off topic) surely to god terry i deserved to be banned!!:p:D

rossie1977

slipss wrote: »

after all ugly people do tend to spend more time studying and reading than good looking people so wouldn't that explain why the top scoring people in school and college always seemed to be the ugliest.

lol at this, one of the girls in my undergrad class got a first class in her degree and she was a stunner with huge bewbs

brummytom

I've been told once or twice I was fit (which I assume were dares :P)

I presume this because I've been told dozens of times I'm ugly... it's a lovely thing to hear.

My mom and dad are hardly hideous though.. God knows where they got me from

Tar.Aldarion

brummytom wrote: »

I've been told once or twice I was fit (which I assume were dares :P)

I presume this because I've been told dozens of times I'm ugly... it's a lovely thing to hear.

My mom and dad are hardly hideous though.. God knows where they got me from

Ah yeah, first time a girl calls you hawt is quite a confidence boost. You're like the fonze

Jumpy

rossie1977 wrote: »

lol at this, one of the girls in my undergrad class got a first class in her degree and she was a stunner with huge bewbs

Not some degree on optics or anything was it?

rossie1977

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Ah yeah, first time a girl calls you hawt is quite a confidence boost. You're like the fonze

even coming from the mouth of one of these??

http://lovelifelikeyourself.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fat-women-bbw-singles.jpg

Jumpy

rossie1977 wrote: »

even coming from the mouth of one of these??

http://lovelifelikeyourself.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/fat-women-bbw-singles.jpg

Thats like two women telling you that you are hot.

rossie1977

Jumpy wrote: »

Not some degree on optics or anything was it?

nah it was business IT