This is as absurd as claiming that if a guy walks into a room and tells someone "I love you", that means they do not love and even hate everyone else in the room.
Absurd comparison, nothing like enunciating political policy.
IT is a false dichotomy. When a waiter recommends the fish to you, do you assume he is secretly telling you there is something wrong with every other item on the menu, and that he does not like anything else? A person who absolutely adores equality of outcomes and wants it to increase can and would speak about equal opportunity, and doing so in no way implies otherwise.
It does if someone enuniciating political policy speaks specifically and exclusively about equality of opportunity. Otherwise he'd simply speak of equality. He's either expressing himself badly or has an agenda.
The validity of an analogy lies in the comparibility of the logical relations among things. The similarity of the things themselves has no relevance. What is comparable is the logical fallacy in your argument and the one in inferring an anti-vanilla position in a person who orders chocolate. They can adore both, but choose chocolate. There is no logical nor psychological connection between having a relatively higher preference for A over B, and thinking that B is wrong.
I disagree. That's true of ice cream but not equality because they're such dissimilar things. If we interview candidates A, B and C for a job, and I discuss only A and B as suitable candidates, it'd be reasonable to assume I don't consider C suitable. That's a much closer analogy to what I was talking about than a casual expression of food preference.
First, I explicitly stated that the relationship is conditional and not guaranteed, so your example that you (wrongly) think doesn't have this relationship has zero relevance to my argument and provides no support for yours. Equal opportunity eliminates one major source of unequal outcomes, thus overall the more opportunities are equal, the more outcomes will be equal. Thus, one is indirectly supporting overall increase in equal outcomes by supporting equal opportunity.
I haven't said otherwise.
Second, your example is invalid because you wrongly presume equal opportunity to own a factory. Opportunity is only partly impacted by law. It is also restrained by logic and the basic properties of reality. The fact is that we absolutely can all own a factory, so long as it is either not simultaneously and/or we each are the sole employee of the factory we own.
i.e if we take the terms of "all of us" and "factory" so out of context that we evade the issue.
It is only true that it implausible for us all to own a factories simultaneously that employ other people.
LOL - yeah.
That is a constraint imposed by the basic fact of existence that a person cannot be in two places at once. Thus, the moment one person owns a multi-employee factory, that reduces the opportunity of everyone else who doesn't own one from owning one.Thus, opportunity is not equal and that is partly why the outcome is not equal.
No, even if we all started without one we couldn't all own one for precisely the reason you've just spelled out. And because it'd mean commercially impossible overcapacity. We're both pointing out that there are logistic impediments to equal outcome regardless of un/equal inputs, i.e. equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes whenever there are equal inputs.
You have provided no evidence that the people you refer to as "they" (those who think equality of outcomes in itself is wrong) even exist, let alone are the same people who push for equal opportunity. You claim that pushing for opportunity means you think equal outcomes is wrong. There is no logic that supports this, and objectively since opportunities increase the likelihood (not guarantee) of equal outcomes, it makes no psychological sense that a person who actually finds equal outcomes wrong would support something that even makes them more likely, such as equal opportunity.
that's right, I haven't provided (and won't) evidence of people who're against policies promoting equality of outcome, but for equality of opportunity. You are, of course, at liberty to assert that they don't exist.
Oh yeah, you don't understand what an analogy is.
No, it implies no such thing. They are eating nuts, and thus the like nuts and find nothing wrong with them. They are just not focusing solely on eating nuts. That in no way implies they think there is something wrong with nuts, just that they don't think that nuts are the only thing in the world that is "right" and worth eating.
You said they explicitly ordered ice cream without nuts, i.e they
aren't eating nuts. Where ice cream generally comes with nuts, that does indeed imply a "problem with" nuts.
Now, if you look at what I actually wrote before you edited it, I explicitly acknowledged the possibility of a preference rather than an aversion. But I certainly disagree that context is irrelevant to which a person is likely expressing. Of course my choosing vanilla ice cream doesn't mean I dislike other flavours, but it's a safe bet that rightwing policians talking about equality of opportunity aren't suddenly keen on policies promoting equality of outcome.
