3 ms·

The experiences or feelings of individuals are not what define equal opportunity. Are the entrance examinations (if any) the same for everyone? Are the tuition

The experiences or feelings of individuals are not what define equal opportunity. Are the entrance examinations (if any) the same for everyone? Are the tuition fees (if any) the same for both genders? Are the curriculum and facility access the same for everyone? If yes to all theses questions, equal opportunity is already implemented.

rayiner 9y ago
The fact that feelings are subjective doesn’t mean that you can’t draw objective conclusions about things that affect peoples’ feelings. For example, kids who feel ostracized won’t do well in school. By your definition, we could have schools where, say, left handed people are systematically ostracized, but those kids would still have equality of opportunity. You’re just arbitrarily defining “equality” based on the degree of equal treatment that you think society should have to provide to people. But your definition defies “equality” as a mathematical concept.
- roenxi 9y ago
  Equality as a mathematical construct doesn't have a place in this debate; there are too many variables affecting lifestyle that are geographic, temporal, genetic and random. You'd need more than a personsworth of resources to achieve that sort of equality for every person. Feelings and experiences are very real and can be evidence of a problem. However to act on them we need some sort of evidence that is present in the observable world, otherwise we are setting people up to give up quickly and report they feel bad rather than trying to solve their own problems. It is a tightrope to walk, but feelings need to be treated simultaneously with respect and cynicism. Biasing the world in favour of strongly emotioned people at the expense of stoics is not an improvement.
- titanix2 9y ago
  It's funny that you chose the ostracized example as I was bullied myself in high school. This did not prevent me for succeeding way more than any of them at university, nor make me hate a very general and large group of people. The dice were piped way before by the both the cultural capital of my parents and by the genetics lottery. If you want a total outcome of equality and behavior of people, you need bio-engineering to lower differences from the start. Maybe even clones, so you are sure people are 100% equal at the starting line. This is of course not the society I want. And if you put the reasoning even further, you need to actually suppress sexes as well. They are at the source of the problem after all. And this is technically feasible with assisted reproductive technics. Of course, the unneeded sex is the male one, you just keep one or two at hand. Then it will be 100% female everywhere at every jobs, isn't that wonderful? But again, not the future I want. But then, not every job is equal, right? Why a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why does some work 70+ hours and other 35? It's inequal and injust. But as all these jobs are needed but different to keep the system running, the only solution is to suppress jobs altogether. Then we back at a pre-pre-historic stage. And then maybe we will live in the bliss of the True Equality Attained (albeit without Internet to congratulate ourselves). Back to reality. Your comment also shows how you put the blame on "society". You can pass laws and regulations to influence the society, but reengineering it totally from the micro-level of individuals is not realistic at all. However, it was tested for 4 decades in USSR and China and the results are telling.
  - bobthechef 9y ago
    The obsession with equality is disturbing and, ironically, shows a hatred for diversity. The fact that we're not all the same is what makes the market possible. The obsession with income equality across occupations is also grotesquely rooted in a worship of money. Differences in income are not a problem per se. If there is a problem, the biggest one is poverty, another is the way in which the ultra-rich use their money to gain power over lots of people. The former is not unrelated to the latter. The discussion should shift away from the self-indulgent paranoia and petty jealousies of upper middle class navel-gazers and focus on these more pressing issues.

rayiner 9y ago

The fact that feelings are subjective doesn’t mean that you can’t draw objective conclusions about things that affect peoples’ feelings. For example, kids who feel ostracized won’t do well in school. By your definition, we could have schools where, say, left handed people are systematically ostracized, but those kids would still have equality of opportunity. You’re just arbitrarily defining “equality” based on the degree of equal treatment that you think society should have to provide to people. But your definition defies “equality” as a mathematical concept.

roenxi 9y ago
Equality as a mathematical construct doesn't have a place in this debate; there are too many variables affecting lifestyle that are geographic, temporal, genetic and random. You'd need more than a personsworth of resources to achieve that sort of equality for every person. Feelings and experiences are very real and can be evidence of a problem. However to act on them we need some sort of evidence that is present in the observable world, otherwise we are setting people up to give up quickly and report they feel bad rather than trying to solve their own problems. It is a tightrope to walk, but feelings need to be treated simultaneously with respect and cynicism. Biasing the world in favour of strongly emotioned people at the expense of stoics is not an improvement.
titanix2 9y ago
It's funny that you chose the ostracized example as I was bullied myself in high school. This did not prevent me for succeeding way more than any of them at university, nor make me hate a very general and large group of people. The dice were piped way before by the both the cultural capital of my parents and by the genetics lottery. If you want a total outcome of equality and behavior of people, you need bio-engineering to lower differences from the start. Maybe even clones, so you are sure people are 100% equal at the starting line. This is of course not the society I want. And if you put the reasoning even further, you need to actually suppress sexes as well. They are at the source of the problem after all. And this is technically feasible with assisted reproductive technics. Of course, the unneeded sex is the male one, you just keep one or two at hand. Then it will be 100% female everywhere at every jobs, isn't that wonderful? But again, not the future I want. But then, not every job is equal, right? Why a doctor earn more than a nurse? Why does some work 70+ hours and other 35? It's inequal and injust. But as all these jobs are needed but different to keep the system running, the only solution is to suppress jobs altogether. Then we back at a pre-pre-historic stage. And then maybe we will live in the bliss of the True Equality Attained (albeit without Internet to congratulate ourselves). Back to reality. Your comment also shows how you put the blame on "society". You can pass laws and regulations to influence the society, but reengineering it totally from the micro-level of individuals is not realistic at all. However, it was tested for 4 decades in USSR and China and the results are telling.
- bobthechef 9y ago
  The obsession with equality is disturbing and, ironically, shows a hatred for diversity. The fact that we're not all the same is what makes the market possible. The obsession with income equality across occupations is also grotesquely rooted in a worship of money. Differences in income are not a problem per se. If there is a problem, the biggest one is poverty, another is the way in which the ultra-rich use their money to gain power over lots of people. The former is not unrelated to the latter. The discussion should shift away from the self-indulgent paranoia and petty jealousies of upper middle class navel-gazers and focus on these more pressing issues.