🇳🇱
This is pretty much what most Republicans sound like to me at this point.
Well if you know anything about my opinions you'd know I have no love for the left either. But in this case they just dont happen to be whom I am addressing.
That said, equality in the sense of every race and sex must be in equal proportion in everything, is a flawed idea for sure. There are plenty of other flawed ideas of the left.
That said in their defense the general intent of creating a world that is a more fair place for people of all sexes and races is a good goal to want to achieve.
I agree wholly.
I want a better world for all sexes and races.
I am skeptical of "fair" because this does not necessarily lead to "better."
I am skeptical of "equality" because this always leads to parasitism.
And course, diversity is tyranny:
https://www.amerika.org/politics/aristotle-and-plato-on-why-diversity-is-tyranny/
IMHO what makes conservatives weird is that they know Leftism is decay, but also believe it is gonna win, therefore are people without hope who turn to religion for comfort.
> I am skeptical of "fair" because this does not necessarily lead to "better."
Can you give an example where somethign which is fair is worse than something that is unfair? I suppose it would depend on who is defining fair. By what i would define as fair I cant find anything that would agree with this assertion.
> I am skeptical of "equality" because this always leads to parasitism.
Certainly our current notions in polticis of equality has some aspects that lead to that, no doubt.. but to say "always" seems like a huge leap. Though again depends what we mean by equality,if we are going by the idea that "everything must have an equal proportion of all sex and races" in that case I do agree. If equality however refers to equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome then I'd disagree.
"If equality however refers to equality of opportunity and NOT equality of outcome then I'd disagree."
Equality is only proven by equity.
This is the problem there...
As far as "fairness," it is usually conflated with equity since otherwise, you have reason to assume "unfairness."
Well equity and fairness are literally synonyms except that equity specifically includes impartiality whereas fairness is more general.
So while i can understand an issue with equality of outcome, I'm not sure why that is the same as saying you have an issue with equability, or the act of being fair and impartial.
Thus I think impartial is not fair or good.
People need someone who understands their situation and why it is not an average or generic.
But, there are also people who are dysfunctional and need to be removed so the others do not have to subsidize them.
Impartiality would be treating someone the same if they are black or white. IF you think this is not good then we clearly disagree.
Impartial doesnt mean everyone is treated the same, it means the characteristics you use to determine what help you should give someone is not due to subjective bias but rather objective reasoning.. facts and realities rather than feelings.
This seems like a pretty horrific thing to be against.
Well depends, for many things it can be... lets play with an example.
"You are poor, poor people have a harder time getting out of it because they dont have the resources to fix their situation. If you cant even take a shower or buy cloths how can you expect them to get a job even if they want to and are willing"
This is all objective facts and reasoning used to reason about why someone needs help.
Subjective reasoning equivelant:
"You are black, Ive seen a lot of poor black people so I just assume most black people are more poor than is fair, so you should get help just because you are black regardless of any other details"
"poor people have a harder time getting out of it"
This is not objective per se, since it does not consider IQ and mental health issues.
Most people who are poor are poor for a reason.
It seems unlikely to me that subjective/objective can be decoupled.
The racial subsidies are always annoying, but I think they are a byproduct of the class war of Have-Nots-versus-Haves.
> This is not objective per se, since it does not consider IQ and mental health issues.
Sure it is... people with high IQ and are poor have a harder time getting out of it than people with a high IQ and not poor.. same as people with health issues. So the statement that a person being poor will have a harder time getting out of it than if that person were not poor is objectively true. There is no situation where being poorer would not be harder to get out of then if you werent poorer.
> And what if the answer is simply mental health problems and low IQ stemming from biological unfitness?
If someone is poor due to being mentally incapable of working, or some other health issue then that person would still have a much harder time getting out of their shitty situation than a person who has low IQ but happened to inhereit a trust fund worth a billion, no matter how stupid they may be the person with the money will still have as good a life as possible while the poor low IQ person will almost certainly die.
> Most people who are poor are poor for a reason.
As someone who has taken in about a dozen poor people from the streets and invested in them to get them back on their feet I can say this logic is not entierly true. Yes ther eare many people who are poor for a reason, for most those reasons are a lack of oppertunity, lack of access to schooling or good parenting, or traumas experienced from war. There are some people who are poor out of sheer luck.
Not sure how it changes anything i said just because there is an explainable reason for many people to be poor, reasons that often are out of their control, or if it is in their control they havent had access to the resources to know how to control it (like financial education).
> Equity tends to mean equality of outcome, to use your phrase, because that way the individual is subsidized.
Not at all, the people who started using the term Equity in the context of social unfairness specifically coined it as a contrast to equality of outcome. See the meme i posted, which is the meme that started the whole "equity vs equality' conversation. As you can see they very distinctly show that equality and equity are different concepts (though i dont think the meme clearly explains what they are)
> I think the subsidies accelerate the self-destruction of a society.
As discussed it would depend ont he subsidies. If you are giving money to someone solely based on their age or race I'd agree. If you are doing it based on poverty then it would depend on how that money is used. If all you do is hand a poor person a sack of cash it wont fix the underlying problem, so i agree that is not a good approach.
"There is no situation where being poorer would not be harder to get out of then if you werent poorer."
Maybe, but not considering the reasons why means this is far from objective.
Most will never get out of poverty.
"As you can see they very distinctly show that equality and equity are different concepts (though i dont think the meme clearly explains what they are)"
Yes, with equality of opportunity (identical subsidies) on the left and equality of outcome (subsidies until equal status) on the right.
The policy on the left will always be attacked for being unequal until it resembles the policy on the right (our status quo).
When did we say we didnt consider the reason why? All I said is we determined the person was at a disadvantage, that is an objective fact in andof itself. I said nothing about this being the **only** thing one should consider.
Of the 12 people I helped get out of poverty 58% of them successfully got out of poverty with my help and stayed out of poverty for the rest of their lives. The others had mental health issues that were too extreme and ultimately were not able to be helped.
To put objective numbers to it.. Of all the people who enter poverty over 70% of them eventually get out of poverty. The average amount of time for most people in poverty is a little under 3 years.
Both my personal expiernce and the objective facts suggest your statement of "most will never get out of poverty" is patently false and in fact the opposite is true.
Keep in mind I myself Grew up in and started my life in poverty. Now as a 40 year man I'm a multi-millionaire. Even I am the exception here.
"The average amount of time for most people in poverty is a little under 3 years."
We're using different definitions of poverty here.
A temporary setback is different than a lifetime earnings potential.
So your definition of poverty is one where a person remains in poverty for their whole life, so my example of over 70% of people getting out of poverty isnt poverty by your definition by virtue of the fact that they got out of it?
We call that a "No true scotsman" fallacy. By simply stating anyone who ever gets out of poverty was never in it, no matter how poor they were, effectively is just denying the counter evidence and creating a circular definition that says nothing useful.
No, no true Scotsman is saying "that's not real poverty" where I am simply saying that I am using a different definition.
By your definition, I pulled myself out of poverty a few times too. It's not relevant to a policy discussion.
By using a personal definition that is in contrast with the actual definition, and engineering that definition so it excludes most counter examples of poverty as "not real poverty according to my definition" is effectively the same thing... you are just defining what is real by manipulating the definition and letting it have an effect.
It is indistinguishable from no real scotsman fallacy IMO.
> By your definition, I pulled myself out of poverty a few times too. It's not relevant to a policy discussion.
It isnt **my** definition. It is the universal definition people who speak english use. And yes you pulled yourself out of poverty a few times then, how is that not relevant?
No, I am using the standard definition people use in articles about poverty. I recognized your different use, and am clarifying my past statements since now it is clear that the usage of this word needs to be explained. I am not trying to enforce an argument by doing so...
@amerika Where in the standard definition of poverty does it state that poverty is only poverty if someone never gets out of it?
Oddly enough my numbers come from scientific articles that clearly use the accepted and technical definition of the term.
"the characteristics you use to determine what help you should give someone is not due to subjective bias but rather objective reasoning"
The big assumption here is that the two can be separated in most people.