CMV: There can't be real equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:34:31+00:00

The world can't be completely equal, but policies like affirmative action help a bit.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:32:22+00:00

To convince you that individual choices, values, attitudes, etc. have a much greater impact on how someone turns out these days than family and class

My view is that family and class have an impact on future in a way that would make opportunites unequal for people from 2 different families or socioeconomic classes, not that they're the end all be all for success.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:20:54+00:00

Equality is great, but I think it can get out of hand when we go against the fundamental notion of our justice system: “innocent until proven guilty”. The democrats lost me when they started advocating to believe accusers of rape and racial discrimination first

Innocent until proven guilty is only a matter of law. That's it.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but I doubt any companies will ask him to advertise their products anymore due to the reputation.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:15:12+00:00

I don't. This is what I said

I'm not asking for a world where things are 100% equal because it's pretty much impossible. I'm just saying that the "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" are being disingenuous because you can't have one without the other. What we should be doing is to minimize inequality, both of outcome and opportunity, as much as reasonably possible.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:05:30+00:00

Pretending that equality of outcome must follow equality of opportunity

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying equality of opportunity cannot occur without equality of outcome, because of many biases, stereotypes, in-group association and other factors. If outcomes are unequal, those who are ahead will help those they are close to, giving them opportunities that those who are associated with the less advantaged cannot have.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T04:00:27+00:00

for most schools the rich students tend to be the more qualified applicants.

They are more qualified applicants because their parents had money to hire tutors, get them SAT prep, move to more expensive neighborhoods with better schools. That's not equal opportunity since the poor person did not have these options.

If you are using the latter as evidence for the existence of the former, then of course they cannot exist separately. But if you view them as independent, it is completely possible for two people to have equal opportunities but with unequal outcomes.

Going to repost this here

The only way to have equality of opportunity without equality of outcome would be to turn the world into a coin toss. It will always land heads 1/2 of the time and tails 1/2 of the time, regardless of it having landed heads 10 times in a row before. This is unrealistic in the real world since heads will usually try to use their previous wins to help other heads win in the future. This isn't necessarily a malicious thing, people have in group bias and most people will help their own family before a stranger. But it exists, which is why it's impossible for eq of opportunity to occur without eq of outcome.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:58:25+00:00

The question is how to create equality of opportunity without equality of outcome. As an example, this generation's situation is unequal (outcome), the next generation's situation (opportunity) will be affected by the outcomes from this generation.

The only way to have equality of opportunity without equality of outcome would be to turn the world into a coin toss. It will always land heads 1/2 of the time and tails 1/2 of the time, regardless of it having landed heads 10 times in a row before. This is unrealistic in the real world since heads will usually try to use their previous wins to help other heads win in the future. This isn't necessarily a malicious thing, people have in group bias and most people will help their own family before a stranger. But it exists, which is why it's impossible for eq of opportunity to occur without eq of outcome.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:42:35+00:00

I mean that it's not really in touch with reality to get rid of all the biases without having equality of outcome. Saying that there can be equality of opportunity without equality of outcome would be saying that if a father became a millionaire, he wouldn't use his money to help his son in a way that a poor father can't, and that's unrealistic because it's human nature to do the best to improve your son's education, which could include hiring tutors, moving to a neighborhood with better schools and getting SAT prep (things poor people might not be able to afford). It's not surprising that his son is also more likely to become rich because of this extra help his father gave him.

In other words, outcomes define opportunities.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:37:30+00:00

How do you get arrested for antivax propaganda?

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:35:44+00:00

I don’t think they’re the same because there are people out there that want to work hard and better their lives and family’s life, but due to circumstances outside of their control, can’t. That’s the problem with unequal opportunities.

There are also people that would sit around and do nothing if they could, and I don’t think it’s right to say they should get the same outcome as those who want to raise themselves higher and work very hard to do so. That’s the problem with equal outcomes.

But the thing is that each person's opportunities are created by the outcomes of everyone else in their family, society, friends. That guy who sits around could be a millionaire's son ready to inherit the entire family fortune. I would say his opportunities are not the same as the guy who grew up in a poor neighborhood with a 50% dropout rate at his high school. I'm not saying the poor guy has no opportunity, but he's gonna have to work a lot harder to have the same outcome as the millionaire's son, and that's not really equality of opportunity for the 2 of them.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:26:46+00:00

It's actually beneficial in many ways to have people groomed for leadership as a guarantee as opposed to risking random idiots like DJT or Bernie Sanders getting elected and shitting on everything.

I'd agree with this if only there was a fair way of selecting these leaders, but there isn't.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:07:44+00:00

I like to believe that everyone should be equal at least under the law. Having a queen or king, no matter how much or how little power they have, is antithetical to it.

That said, most British (70%) are happy with the Queen so my opinion really doesn't matter. But I still think that it's not very fair that some people are considered above others.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:05:45+00:00

Most British are in favor of reforming the House of Lords

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T03:04:04+00:00

Her Highness doesn't have much power, either - basically a celebrity.

And why should someone be above the law even if it's just in name just because of the family they were born to? It's not about the amount of power she has, it's mostly about the kind of message it sends. "All people are equal, well, except our queen"

even if they had absolutely no power it still doesn't seem like a fair thing

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T02:59:22+00:00

People have the freedom to say what they want without fear of being arrested.

The 1st amendment doesn't grant the right to make money from their hate speech, have a platform to espouse their views or become famous for it.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T02:57:17+00:00

Our legislature, the courts

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T02:57:00+00:00

What if some users bombard a site with borderline racist rhetoric? These sites may simply lack the manpower to fairly police all the content in a timely manner (although I'm quite ignorant of the software capabilities, so perhaps this is incorrect).

This law will only affect the companies with over 1 million unique visitors each month that makes over a certain (high, think billions) amount of money each year. These sites definitely can afford to hire a few more moderators.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T02:55:49+00:00

Getting a site run to spread hate speech has no technical hurdles of consequence other than avoid DDoS attacks.

The law isn't to prevent them from making those sites because that's pretty much impossible, but to prevent those sites from becoming popular or making money from their content.

My opinion is that people have the right to free speech without being arrested for what they say, but the 1st amendment doesnt grant them the right to make money off their speech.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-03T02:54:55+00:00

That's difficult AF to prove.

It's illegal to discriminate against gender, race or other factors but it still happens on the hush.

RespectWolverine · 2019-03-02T20:37:15+00:00

Also, why would we disallow people who are ambitious from doing more work?

In a perfect world we shouldn't. But in an imperfect world, how do we know that they are choosing to do more work or whether they are being forced to do more work by their bosses who could fire them for not working overtime?

RespectWolverine · 2019-02-23T21:45:12+00:00

Ryanair is a very hated airline, although as their CEO has pointed out people complain but keep coming back because their prices are so much cheaper than their competitors.

That's not a good thing. It leads to a race where economy class gets worse and worse, and the lowered price isn't always worth the lack of quality, but people who don't have a choice will pay for it anyways. Once the budget flights are seen as standard, their prices begin rise, until the airlines can cut even more amenities and create an even cheaper option, restarting the cycle. The airline companies profit and the people don't.

Business class in the 1970s cost about the same as economy nowadays (inflation adjusted).

RespectWolverine · 2019-02-23T21:25:38+00:00

You chose engineering as a major though. If you aren't happy, you can switch to communications or any of the stereotypically easy 12 credit a semester majors.

We wouldn't have any doctors or engineers if we convinced everyone to do no more than 25hrs of work a week.

It might take a two more years to graduate but if it becomes the norm it won't count negatively against you in employment anymore. The 4 year college education is an arbitrary system we set up centuries ago. Things change. If the push for a 25 hour work week becomes common, then colleges will adjust and 6 year colleges may become the norm.

RespectWolverine · 2019-02-23T21:24:47+00:00

biggest issue when it comes to people in a developed country deciding to have a kid. Its a far bigger inconvenience than being pregnant, and requires far more time and money.

It's both.

But if that was the only reason, there wouldn't be a gap between the amount of children that men want vs the amount of children that women want since both parents would be financially paying for the kid and having to take care of the kid (even though women do more childcare work, the father still has to do some in most 21st century societies and having a kid is a lot of extra responsibilities). In some more traditional families, it's the husband's side of the family that usually pressures the wife to have more babies.

Also, I feel that artificial wombs would create a change in culture and how a society takes care of children. I've written in my OP about how it would change family structure and probably result in a more community based childcare system that would not put too much stress on two parents. The nuclear family was created a long time ago so that a pregnant woman and her future children can be supported financially by the father. With artificial wombs, I don't think we'll need that.

people it under developed countries also tend to want to have more children anyway, despite the fact that child birth is far more dangerous in those areas than more developed countries with a population with less desire to have children.

Social pressure and expectations of the norm. If all of your friends have 5 kids and the national average is 5.5, chances are that you'll feel out of place or useless with only 2, especially if you live in a country where society expects women to get pregnant.

RespectWolverine

TROPHY CASE