4 ms·
Depending on what you mean by "inequality" and "equality," loads of people. While I doubt you could find many people who want some artificial straw-man world wh
by Rusky 11y ago
Depending on what you mean by "inequality" and "equality," loads of people. While I doubt you could find many people who want some artificial straw-man world where everyone is completely and totally equal in every way, you should have no trouble at all finding people upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity.
- tomp 11y ago> upset about the vast difference in quality of life between the rich and poor of humanity Absolutely; I am, for one. But that's not inequality, it's extreme inequality. Which I agree is a bad thing. But if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good. Which is so unrealistic that we can almost say it's a logical fallacy.
- circlefavshape 11y ago> if you believe inequality is bad, then it must follow that you believe only complete equality (in the economic sense) is good You claim inequality is good. Must it follow that you "believe only complete inequality is good"?
- tomp 11y agoDepends what you mean by "complete" inequality. From the two, "equality" is much more limited than "inequality". For example, of all numbers, only 2 is equal to 2. All other numbers (2.0000001, 1, -100, 10^1412) are not equal to 2. So obviously if you claim "inequality is bad", this means you eliminate all numbers, except for 2 exactly. On the other hand, if you claim "inequality is good", you only eliminate the number 2, and no other numbers (also, I don't see how any of them are more "completely" inequal than others).
- Rusky 11y agoEnglish is not math. As you should be able to tell by now, that is not at all what people mean by "inequality is bad."