3 ms·

You're assuming that economic outcome is the one metric by which all people should be equalized. This seems a bit presumptive doesn't it? > culture, genes, cog

You're assuming that economic outcome is the one metric by which all people should be equalized. This seems a bit presumptive doesn't it? > culture, genes, cognitive abilities, etc. are inferior No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior. Equality of opportunity is apparent through the fact there is no policy (that I'm aware of), explicitly targeting people by, say, race (whatever that means), and that such policies are illegal. This fact alone however provides no guarantee of economic equality, nor was it ever intended to, nor has economic equality ever been a goal of legal equality. The reasons for economic inequality are myriad and complex, and people have devoted their entire careers to their study. Did you watch the video I linked? What do you think of Dr. Sowell's perspective?

tshaddox 4y ago
> You're assuming that economic outcome is the one metric by which all people should be equalized. This seems a bit presumptive doesn't it? I didn’t mention anything specifically about economic outcomes, although obviously money can have a big effect on important outcomes like nutrition and medical care. > No one said they are inferior, only that they seem produce different results. It's you who is characterizing these as inferior. Someone did say this. The comment I’m responding to used the terms “drastically worse outcomes” and “lesser people.” Also, I’m not here to quibble about questions like “is it really worse to be starving than to be well-fed?”