A Question about Equality

[AthenaAwakened]

What the hell are you scared of?

Is that a serious question? Do you actually, sincerely, not know what the hell we are scared of?

Anybody who isn't scared of leftist radicals is either severely ignorant or else expects to be one of the ones holding the guns.

you made a leap from equality of outcomes in order to give one person a break, give a person some assuredness that his striving will yeild some reward to a shit ton of skulls?

FAIL.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is that a serious question? Do you actually, sincerely, not know what the hell we are scared of?

Anybody who isn't scared of leftist radicals is either severely ignorant or else expects to be one of the ones holding the guns.

you made a leap from equality of outcomes in order to give one person a break, give a person some assuredness that his striving will yeild some reward to a shit ton of skulls?

FAIL.

You're assuming leftists are always right. He's showing they're sometimes very, very wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is that a serious question? Do you actually, sincerely, not know what the hell we are scared of?

Anybody who isn't scared of leftist radicals is either severely ignorant or else expects to be one of the ones holding the guns.

you made a leap from equality of outcomes in order to give one person a break, give a person some assuredness that his striving will

In the first place, to talk of what someone's striving will accomplish is to be talking of opportunity. Equality of outcomes yields what it yields whether a person strives or not. So your rhetoric is relying on the perceived reasonableness of equal opportunity rubbing off in listeners' minds on your goal of equal outcomes. That is propaganda in its purest form.

yeild some reward to a...

In the second place, yielding "some reward" is a far cry from yielding an equal reward. So now your rhetoric is relying on equating inequality with a person who needs a break getting nothing at all. When we help an underprivileged kid get into and graduate from UCLA, that's not even equal opportunity -- after all, we still didn't put him through Harvard -- let alone equality of outcomes. So you are trying to paint unbelievers in equality of outcomes as people who won't even help that kid have a shot at UCLA. You are using the debating tactics of religious zealots.

... ton of skulls?

FAIL.

In the third place, you asked what we're scared of and I gave you the correct answer, so if you think that's a FAIL then either you believe you're a mind-reader or you asked the wrong question. Either way, that's your failure, not mine.

And in the fourth place, you're still preaching 121 posts in, even though dismal disposed of your challenge in post #2. Equality of outcomes isn't wrong; it's simply impossible. This is obvious to anyone who isn't a religious fanatic. The only way to try to bring about equality of outcomes is to have religious believers in equality of outcomes take political power. And you are not uneducated, which means you know as well as we do what has historically happened when religious zealots take political power: we get a ton of skulls. This apparently doesn't scare you.

 

[SimpleDon]

As in qualified and not qualified? No, I am not. Of course, there are varying degrees of qualified. My statement doesn't depend on a, as you call it, binary state of qualification.

The average CEO is making 300 times the average workers' wages. The average CEO forty years ago made 30 times the average workers' wages.

How can you account for this? Is the average CEO of today ten times more qualified than the average CEO of forty years ago?

Try looking at company sizes. We have far fewer CEOs of far bigger companies. Most of those CEOs of times past are now just managers in bigger companies.

So your contention is that CEOs are worth ten times more today because the number of corporations is dramatically lower today than it was forty years ago. Is this just a feeling that you came up with because it sounds good or can you support it? Where do you get your data?

The census bureau only has data from 1988, but it shows a steady increase in the number of companies in the US from 1988 to 2009, with a gain of over one million in that time in companies with a payroll. See here. So you must have a data source that shows a dramatic downturn in the number of companies from 1970 to 1988 to have made that statement.

The census bureau had to abandon many of their data series. The census bureau's budget was cut dramatically by the Congress in 2011 as part of the Republicans' austerity blackmail to keep the government operating. Conservatives always feel like their arguments and positions are completely undone by data and facts. Facts, truths and reality are not their friends. They want us to be as stupid as they are.

You chopped out my argument that the best and brightest now go into the low productivity for the economy financial sector rather than working and becoming CEOs in the productive part of the economy. Is this because you don't have an answer for it or do you agree with me?

And apparently no one was impressed with my sports analogy that you free market enthusiasts want to run the economy like a professional NBA game with no referees. We had the sports analogy put forward that equality of outcomes is the same as requiring NBA teams to hire midgets as well as taller players. Is this analogy valid and mine isn't? I would appreciate your thoughts. Possibly this could make an interesting thread. I am not much for analogies, but they are put forward frequently.

I am not a believer in equality of outcomes. I just believe that we are over paying our best and brightest, that we are dramatically over paying the financial sector, that they are the source of many of our current problems. That we over reward capital at the cost of wages.

 

[bilby]

you made a leap from equality of outcomes in order to give one person a break, give a person some assuredness that his striving will yeild some reward to a shit ton of skulls?

FAIL.

You're assuming leftists are always right. He's showing they're sometimes very, very wrong.

Well I guess it is a good thing that nobody on the far right ever instigated a genocide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Try looking at company sizes. We have far fewer CEOs of far bigger companies. Most of those CEOs of times past are now just managers in bigger companies.

So your contention is that CEOs are worth ten times more today because the number of corporations is dramatically lower today than it was forty years ago. Is this just a feeling that you came up with because it sounds good or can you support it? Where do you get your data?

No. I'm saying that when you chop off a *BIG* part of the bottom of a curve the result is higher than the original even if nothing moved.

The census bureau only has data from 1988, but it shows a steady increase in the number of companies in the US from 1988 to 2009, with a gain of over one million in that time in companies with a payroll. See here. So you must have a data source that shows a dramatic downturn in the number of companies from 1970 to 1988 to have made that statement.

Lots and lots of little companies without someone you would call a CEO.

I am not a believer in equality of outcomes. I just believe that we are over paying our best and brightest, that we are dramatically over paying the financial sector, that they are the source of many of our current problems. That we over reward capital at the cost of wages.

We pay so much because the difference is worth it. Cutting the error rate from 1% to .5% can make a huge difference when there's a lot on the line.

 

[dismal]

You're assuming leftists are always right. He's showing they're sometimes very, very wrong.

Well I guess it is a good thing that nobody on the far right ever instigated a genocide.

Jeez, someone ought to come up with a special name for this particular fallacy.

You know, when someone acts as if it's relavant that someother group once also did something bad too, as if that excuses some terrible thing.

 

[bigfield]

Equality of outcomes doesn't actually mean total equality of outcomes.

In education, total equality of outcomes would mean that everyone got the same grades, could get the same degrees, etc. It is an exercise in lunacy.

In practice, what people are actually advocating for is merely that all students exceed some minimum standard, but that some can still outperform others. In fact, it is quite reasonable and is a critical factor in maintaining a happy, peaceful society.

It is the difference between 'everyone can be a doctor' and 'everyone can find paying work'.

Loren is arguing that this is 'equality of opportunity' but from the perspective of someone within the education system, one's resulting career prospects is an outcome.

- - - Updated - - -

Well I guess it is a good thing that nobody on the far right ever instigated a genocide.

Jeez, someone ought to come up with a special name for this particular fallacy.

You know, when someone acts as if it's relavant that someother group once also did something bad too, as if that excuses some terrible thing.

Godwin's tu quoque?

 

[bilby]

Well I guess it is a good thing that nobody on the far right ever instigated a genocide.

Jeez, someone ought to come up with a special name for this particular fallacy.

You know, when someone acts as if it's relavant that someother group once also did something bad too, as if that excuses some terrible thing.

We could juxtapose it against the fallacy of assuming that any step away from the status quo will lead to extremism.

Of course, I wasn't suggesting that left wing genocide is OK because of right wing genocide; rather I was making the non-fallacious inference that your fear of left-wing extremism is just as stupid as a response to any leftist position stated here, as would be fear that the rightist positions expressed in this thread will lead to genocide.

I am not making an argument that 'your side is just as bad'; I am saying that 'our side is not demonstrated to be bad by the actions of extremists, any more than yours is'. The opposite of a Tu Quoque - perhaps we could call this a 'We don't do that any more than you do, so don't be such a drama queen' argument.

 

[dismal]

Jeez, someone ought to come up with a special name for this particular fallacy.

You know, when someone acts as if it's relavant that someother group once also did something bad too, as if that excuses some terrible thing.

We could juxtapose it against the fallacy of assuming that any step away from the status quo will lead to extremism.

Of course, I wasn't suggesting that left wing genocide is OK because of right wing genocide; rather I was making the non-fallacious inference that your fear of left-wing extremism is just as stupid as a response to any leftist position stated here, as would be fear that the rightist positions expressed in this thread will lead to genocide.

I am not making an argument that 'your side is just as bad'; I am saying that 'our side is not demonstrated to be bad by the actions of extremists, any more than yours is'. The opposite of a Tu Quoque - perhaps we could call this a 'We don't do that any more than you do, so don't be such a drama queen' argument.

1) right wing fascism is not "my side"
2) the topic of this thread is equal outcomes. This as an extreme position. If you want to discuss small steps away from the status quo then start a thread about small steps.

 

[fromderinside]

... equal outcomes. This as an extreme position.

How can equality of outcomes be an extreme position if it is commonly used as an index for equality of opportunity which I presume, since it's implied in the US Declaration of Independence, is a mainstream democratic position? How does one determine equality of opportunity? One tests outcomes. What is that? Equality of outcomes validation of equality of opportunity.

 

[dismal]

... equal outcomes. This as an extreme position.

How can equality of outcomes be an extreme position if it is commonly used as an index for equality of opportunity which I presume, since it's implied in the US Declaration of Independence, is a mainstream democratic position? How does one determine equality of opportunity? One tests outcomes. What is that? Equality of outcomes validation of equality of opportunity.

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How can equality of outcomes be an extreme position if it is commonly used as an index for equality of opportunity which I presume, since it's implied in the US Declaration of Independence, is a mainstream democratic position? How does one determine equality of opportunity? One tests outcomes. What is that? Equality of outcomes validation of equality of opportunity.

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

so expecting school children, fairly free of any learning disability to graduate from high school able to read, write, and do arithmetic is an extreme? Expecting people to receive equal protection under the law is an extreme position? Expecting that citizen have equal access to the voting booth is an extreme position?

I can do this all day.

What I find disturbing is how some people, instead stating that equality of outcomes is sometimes possible and sometimes not, depending on to what specifically we applying the concept, jumped to arguing extremes because outside of extremes, their arguments fall apart.

 

[dismal]

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

so expecting school children, fairly free of any learning disability to graduate from high school able to read, write, and do arithmetic is an extreme?

This is not equality of outcomes.

Expecting people to receive equal protection under the law is an extreme position? Expecting that citizen have equal access to the voting booth is an extreme position?

These things are fine. But they do not guarantee equality of outcomes.

What I find disturbing is how some people, instead stating that equality of outcomes is sometimes possible and sometimes not, depending on to what specifically we applying the concept, jumped to arguing extremes because outside of extremes, their arguments fall apart.

You asked a very particular all or nothing sort of question. Don't turn around and bitch at the people who answer it.

You are the one who took the extreme black and white view here. The people who responded took moderated and conditional views.

If you had any interest in responding to what people are actually saying you can see the moderation in my view from when I summarized my position earlier:

Striving for equality of outcomes can cause more harm than good, and harm is bad.

I would encourage you to focus on the words "striving" and "can". Notice how these moderate and introduce conditionality to my view, as opposed to your question which is entirely about the extreme, black and white position of equality of outcomes being achieved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well I guess it is a good thing that nobody on the far right ever instigated a genocide.

Jeez, someone ought to come up with a special name for this particular fallacy.

You know, when someone acts as if it's relavant that someother group once also did something bad too, as if that excuses some terrible thing.

I wasn't saying the right was all good. The extremes on both sides are evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... equal outcomes. This as an extreme position.

How can equality of outcomes be an extreme position if it is commonly used as an index for equality of opportunity which I presume, since it's implied in the US Declaration of Independence, is a mainstream democratic position? How does one determine equality of opportunity? One tests outcomes. What is that? Equality of outcomes validation of equality of opportunity.

Huh? "All men are created equal"--equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You cannot make outcomes equal without extreme measures. I Think this is one of those things that is so blindingly obvious I worry about people that cannot accept it. Equality does not occur naturally. Great force is required to attempt to bring it about.

so expecting school children, fairly free of any learning disability to graduate from high school able to read, write, and do arithmetic is an extreme? Expecting people to receive equal protection under the law is an extreme position? Expecting that citizen have equal access to the voting booth is an extreme position?

I can do this all day.

What I find disturbing is how some people, instead stating that equality of outcomes is sometimes possible and sometimes not, depending on to what specifically we applying the concept, jumped to arguing extremes because outside of extremes, their arguments fall apart.

That's not equality of outcome.

And the biggest reasons they don't do it are disability--either of parenting or the parenting of the other students in the school.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

so expecting school children, fairly free of any learning disability to graduate from high school able to read, write, and do arithmetic is an extreme? Expecting people to receive equal protection under the law is an extreme position? Expecting that citizen have equal access to the voting booth is an extreme position?

I can do this all day.

What I find disturbing is how some people, instead stating that equality of outcomes is sometimes possible and sometimes not, depending on to what specifically we applying the concept, jumped to arguing extremes because outside of extremes, their arguments fall apart.

That's not equality of outcome.

actually it is. Once you leave extremes, define your terms, and engage in nuanced and realistic thought.

And the biggest reasons they don't do it are disability--either of parenting or the parenting of the other students in the school.

Loren prove what you say.

Can't?

That's what I thought.

 

[dismal]

Once you leave extremes, define your terms, and engage in nuanced and realistic thought.

Sayeth the monger of extremes, to the people engaging in moderate thought...

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:

Striving for equality of outcomes can cause more harm than good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not equality of outcome.

actually it is. Once you leave extremes, define your terms, and engage in nuanced and realistic thought.

No.

1) It doesn't apply to the disabled.

2) A 2.0 GPA isn't the same as a 4.0 GPA.