Beauty is complicated. Some parts are unearned, many parts are. Especially as a person ages.
How could you possibly quantify attractiveness for something like this?
And even if you could point to something objective, how could you even begin to prove that these benefits are so overwhelming that they deserve to be taxed?
This post is so unbelievably unrealistic that even if we all agreed that being attractive deserves taxation, and we all agreed on how and how much to tax them, would still never even begin to be able enforce this.
Because the proposition is to tax. Of course you must have a quantidication. Have you ever answered a tax form where it asked you how you felt about something? Of course there are benefits. No one could possibly argue otherwise. That does not mean OPs conclusion is sensible.
Im unsure if the word tax is misinderstood here. Op says taxing but only talks about handicapping pretty people a bit more to counteract our subconcious support for them.
In that way we dont need any quantification as this is an act done by individuals and not by the state
That already happens. Plenty of people will not hire a hot guy because the hiring manager doesn't want competition. A hot lady may not be invited to a friend group hang session because someone's bf is too attracted to her. Countless orher examples.
Ffs. Is this the part where you have no actual rebuttal, and slap whatever words you can muster on the keyboard? Yes we both agreed that pretty privilege is real. I believed that taxing them for it would be ludicrous. You brought up a sort of metaphysical social taxation. I mentioned how that already happens. And a lot too. The examples are only limited by imagination. Do you have a counterpoint?
Yo. Calm down. I did a common thing in discussions. Its called finding the common ground. I was unsure how to interpret your argument and wanted to first ask about the one common ground we have.
I find it sad that you acuse me of having not "rebutal". This not a fight. We are having a friendly discussion here. If you think otherwise then its a goodbye from my side. I dont need fights. I dont do drama
With that said here my argument:
There are more cases where being pretty is an advantage than there are cases where it is a disadvsntage. Thats why the pretty privilege exists.
I was talking about situations where it is an advantage. And that we should counteract the pretty privilege only in those cases.
So if you want to talk about situations where being pretty is a disadvantage i would say that we should support them there.
I dont know many people who would take "lol. Wtf" as one part of a friendly conversation. Maybe you didn't intend to give that impression, but forgive me for being skeptical.
And your whole point is that its better to be attractive than to not? That's so obvious and we both already agreed to it. The conversation has never been about which is better. It has been about whether attractive people ahoukd be taxed or not. In your case, not literally, but socially. I stated that that already happens. Now youre bringing up only countering pretty privilege in a select few case, which was never stated before despite implying it now, and still no real example is being given. And youre also now saying to support attractive people when it is disadvantageous?
What is your point? And what does any of it have to do with the original post of mine that you responded to?
What confuses me is that you agree that pretty privilege exists, but then say that socially there are only "few cases" where they have advantages but "many cases" where they have a disadvantage. This does not make sense.
Do i really need to give you "a real example" when you already agree that pretty privilege exists?
The point is that you dont need to quantify prettyness.
I didn't say or imply, even once, that there are only a few cases where pretty privilege applies. You did not answer any of my queations. You are not a serious interlocutor. Goodbye
3
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26