|
7th August 2013, 14:04 | #1 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
"equality of outcomes"
Ripped from Farrar's blog:
Quote:
|
||
7th August 2013, 14:08 | #2 |
|
Lolz, Labour. Don't they know giving a fuck is far less popular than not giving a fuck?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
7th August 2013, 14:17 | #3 |
Stunt Pants
|
^^^ believes in equality of outcomes.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
7th August 2013, 14:34 | #4 |
|
....comrades?
|
7th August 2013, 14:39 | #5 |
|
The reds are under the bed! The reds are under the bed!
Last edited by pxpx : 7th August 2013 at 14:44. |
7th August 2013, 14:42 | #6 | |
|
Quote:
I guess I would support equality of outcomes for children aged up to four. I believe all children under this age should be guaranteed a certain standard of living/quality of life and be exempt certain social obligations should that standard not be met.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
7th August 2013, 15:31 | #7 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I guess the Labour party is about to ban sports if it ever becomes government.
|
7th August 2013, 15:37 | #8 |
|
"Well this man and this woman applied for the same job, and the woman will probably fit in more with the team, but we've already hired a woman this month, so the man it is!"
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
7th August 2013, 15:43 | #9 | |
|
I disagree with Farrar's take on this and think he's being disingenuous as usual (shock horror). Imo it's nothing to do with making doctors paid the same as cleaners; rather it's about about addressing the inherent inequality within society which some want to ignore.
Heres a quote from Ryan Sproull. Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
7th August 2013, 15:51 | #10 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
But that's a statement about equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.
|
7th August 2013, 16:23 | #11 |
|
I read as saying equal opportunity should be measured by outcomes.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
7th August 2013, 16:46 | #12 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
But it can't. Equality of opportunity guarantees that there will be unequal outcomes because some people are better at stuff than others.
|
7th August 2013, 16:54 | #13 |
|
You know who else had equality of outcomes? USSR.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
7th August 2013, 17:31 | #14 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th August 2013, 17:44 | #15 |
|
I guess it really depends on the outcomes. And I suspect this shift in language is a response to the common theme of providing "opportunity" and then judging people for not accessing these apparent opportunities, ignoring or minimising any barriers that might exist.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
7th August 2013, 18:54 | #16 | |
|
Quote:
An unequal outcome is where there's clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things. If these patterns are there, then you're not doing equality of opportunity right. edit: coincidentally I just happen to be re-reading Huxley's brave new world atm. it's blows my mind that it was written over 80 years ago.
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. Last edited by fixed_truth : 7th August 2013 at 18:57. |
|
7th August 2013, 20:43 | #17 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
7th August 2013, 20:47 | #18 |
|
I want to attend a meeting where that's the agenda.
It'll be a bunch of drunk people talking about 'synergy'
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
7th August 2013, 20:49 | #19 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
7th August 2013, 21:06 | #20 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
7th August 2013, 21:22 | #21 |
|
i.e. if there are a disproportionate amount of Samoan females that drop out of uni, it's an unequal outcome, but that only came about because they weren't given an equal opportunity, due to a socioeconomic background that inherently disadvantaged them?
I can see government policy having a hand in fixing equal opportunity - equalize the socioeconomic status across the board. But equal outcomes? We've given you the equal ground already through equal opportunity. You're on your own now bitch.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ Last edited by Cyberbob : 7th August 2013 at 21:24. |
7th August 2013, 21:51 | #22 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Protecting your peace is way more important than proving your point. Some people aren't open to cultivating their views. Just let them be wrong. |
|
7th August 2013, 23:41 | #23 |
Always itchy
|
You know what? Screw it. Clearly, what we've been trying isn't working. The country isn't progressing in any meaningful way.
Why don't we just give up on the 'equal opportunity' 'meritocracy' we're trying to create, and just go full communism (ie: equal outcomes for all). It's got about as much chance of working out in the long run as anything else we seem to think will work (and don't go taking into account historical or global failure or success, because our current politicians don't).
__________________
4 7 2 3 9 8 5...1 4 2 9 7 8...14 16 22...36° |
8th August 2013, 08:16 | #24 |
Love, Actuary
|
Things are working for my family. And I observe that things seem to work for those around me. I primarily associate with people who have jobs and this might explain this?
|
8th August 2013, 10:27 | #25 |
|
As long as you and the unemployed have equal access to top $800/hour legal representatives, I don't see the problem.
"all people should have equal access to social, economic" If they think all people should have equal access to economic spheres, they didn't study economics.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ Last edited by Cyberbob : 8th August 2013 at 10:28. |
8th August 2013, 10:40 | #26 |
Stunt Pants
|
Will equal outcomes apply to national elections?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
8th August 2013, 10:48 | #27 |
|
So are people here talking about the highfalutin "my flash school taught classics" kind of concept here as referred to by pxpx, or are we talking more the real-world differences of equal opportunity vs outcomes?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 11:19 | #28 |
Stunt Pants
|
Equal outcomes is not achievable in the ral world anyway, so let's just talk about it philosophically.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
8th August 2013, 12:16 | #29 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
I see phrases like "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" and my bullshit detector starts tingling.
Break it down. What is "inequality" and what sort of inequality is "clear"? What is a "measurable segment of the population"? Does the word "measurable" serve any purpose in the sentence? |
8th August 2013, 12:25 | #30 | |
|
Quote:
Throw in a "synergy" and a "collaboration", and he'll be on a roll |
|
8th August 2013, 12:35 | #31 |
|
What are relevant things, and what are irrelevant things?
I've never seen so much BS condensed into a single sentence, and I work in middle management! |
8th August 2013, 12:47 | #32 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
|
8th August 2013, 13:04 | #33 |
Stunt Pants
|
Worked for them?
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
8th August 2013, 13:30 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th August 2013, 13:40 | #35 |
|
Here's how to think about this, assuming one has the capacity to think.
So, let us say that a certain common job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height, despite height offering no advantages to the job. "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" So the inequality is short people not being able to access a certain job, the measurable segment of the population are employees of this particular job, the irrelevance is height has no bearing on the job. Easy stuff.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. Last edited by Lightspeed : 8th August 2013 at 13:42. |
8th August 2013, 13:42 | #36 |
|
Does this mean that ugly guys get to tap the hot blonde after all?
|
8th August 2013, 13:43 | #37 |
|
That would be a defense: "it's too hard to think about real inequality, lets make this about something that no one excepts to be equal."
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 13:55 | #38 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Your example also seems to fall into a trap common to nearly all discussions of inequality: that a job is more likely to be populated by people over a certain height does not necessarily mean that people below it are being actively prevented from accessing that job. |
|
8th August 2013, 14:05 | #39 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|