|
8th August 2013, 14:26 | #41 | |
|
Quote:
I have not fallen into this trap, issues of inequality are not simple, yet this forum only allows simple concepts to be discussed. Also I'm trying to avoid being accused of buzz words and the various traps that are laid to prevent this discussion from being discussed seriously.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th August 2013, 14:34 | #42 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
What is clear inequality?
What is a measurable segment of the population? |
8th August 2013, 14:41 | #43 |
|
Restating the question does not help me understand it better...
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 14:54 | #44 |
|
Are you suggesting that inequality can never be clear and segments of the population cannot be measured? Or that human populations cannot be segmented in any meaningful way? Perhaps you mean inequality is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure, so I don't really know how to answer.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 14:56 | #45 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Equality is a difficult thing to discuss because most people don't understand what it is. They try and cover up their lack of understanding by padding out their sentences with other words as if those words make it obvious what equality is. Because equality is a difficult thing to discuss it's even more important that words not be used unless they add something meaningful. If a word is being used for no good reason that means it's being used for a bad reason.
For example: "clear inequality". What does the word "clear" add to the discussion? In what sense is the word "clear" being used? Is "clear inequality" something distinct from normal common or garden inequality? Is inequality qua inequality OK so long as it's not "clear"? Every time I see a sentence that looks like it came from a management consultant I instinctively ask "what the fuck does that mean" because in my experience people rarely have the balls to point out that the emperor has no clothes. |
8th August 2013, 14:58 | #46 |
I have detailed files
|
Going forward.
|
8th August 2013, 16:02 | #47 | |
|
Quote:
A measurable segment of society is pretty standard. It's the categorization of people based on things like gender, age and ethnicity. Again, my position is that aiming for equality of opportunity is great but outcomes are necessary to gauge how we're going in achieving equal opportunity. Which both Labour & National do, particularly with education and health 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. |
|
8th August 2013, 16:49 | #48 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Define "equal opportunity". Just so we're speaking the same language.
|
8th August 2013, 16:55 | #49 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Again, back to the words: what does "measurable" mean in the context of "measurable segment of society". Does it serve a purpose? If you leave that word out does the meaning change at all? |
|
8th August 2013, 17:42 | #50 |
|
It seems like this is a broad statement you would try and apply to specific scenarios, i.e. when faced with people who are complaining about or someone believes they have identified inequality.
At this point you would do things like define what is "clear inequality" for that case, ask questions like can we identify a particular segment of society that benefit or lose from this inequality, is this inequality due to something that would otherwise not be expected to be a barrier. And then you would try and seek agreement on these definitions by stakeholders. At any point we try to nail down definitions we then have to ask who are making these definitions because we need to consider are these definers the ones who would lose out if there was equality and do these definitions perpetuate the status quo? There is only one thing we have identified that everyone agrees on all the time and that is the speed of light. Every other definition is dependent on the specific bit of space-time you're in.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 17:45 | #51 | |||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
8th August 2013, 18:33 | #52 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Equal opportunity is.... what? Quote:
|
||
8th August 2013, 18:50 | #53 |
|
ab,all that obfuscation bullshit youre spouting kinda reads funny-but its pretty sad that you feel the need to continue.its sounding more and more ccs-esque.
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
8th August 2013, 19:01 | #54 | |
|
Quote:
These expensive changes have been made because there is good science showing that these are things that are good for us. How do you think this science is done?
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th August 2013, 19:01 | #55 |
|
This is bs, no way am i going to be made, to hire an ugly receptionist.
|
8th August 2013, 19:03 | #56 |
|
lolz
I haven't read much of whatever it is Labour is cooking up, but it sounds like the kind of thing they could only get away with when they know they're not going to win the next election.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 19:33 | #57 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
When I see or hear someone talking managment speak, and when that person refuses to actually explain the meaning of the words they're using, I instinctively suspect bullshit. |
|
8th August 2013, 19:41 | #58 |
|
what we;re looking for here, is a step change.
|
8th August 2013, 19:57 | #59 | ||
|
Quote:
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. |
||
8th August 2013, 20:06 | #60 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
|
|
8th August 2013, 20:14 | #61 |
|
A good example of "clear inequality in measurable segments of the population as defined by irrelevant things" are Maori men in prison.
The inequality is clear, it's measurable in number of ways, there's a defined population and there's no evidence that being Maori is relevant to imprisonment. Of course, there are stakeholders, such as those who would have to do something about this inequality, who would argue the inequality is unclear, or try to somehow obfuscate what Maoridom is, or somehow make it out that it's right that a greater proportion of Maori drug users face punishment for their drug use than non-Maori. Does this mean those who perceive this inequality should ignore their perception? No doubt though this is all vague and meaningless.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
8th August 2013, 20:46 | #62 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Hint: to have "equality" or "inequality" you have to be talking about at least TWO THINGS.
That there is a number of Maori men in prison is neither equal nor unequal. |
8th August 2013, 20:57 | #63 | |
|
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. |
|
8th August 2013, 21:55 | #64 | |
|
Quote:
That is if I was to say that there is a disproportionate number of Maori men prosecuted for drug offenses compared to total number of actual drug offenses in the population (i.e. Maori smoke 10% of drugs but account for 15% of drug prosecutions), that wouldn't indicate inequality? To be clear this is an example that has some resemblance to reality, but I'm not an expert on this particular issue or its underlying factors.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
8th August 2013, 22:29 | #65 |
|
fixed_truth used CONFUSE, it was super effective!
|
9th August 2013, 06:48 | #66 | |
|
Quote:
par for the nzg course
__________________
"Take four red capsules, in ten minutes-take two more. Help is on the way." |
|
9th August 2013, 15:24 | #67 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
It's like when some politician calls for "tougher sentences for crimes of whatever" without seeming to know what whatever actually is and without seeming to know how the tougher sentences would relate to the punishment for crimes that aren't whatever. When the people who make laws about things look ignorant of the things they're making laws about it means Parliament is just a fucking soap opera of politicians trying to be popular.
Similarly, when talking about concepts like equal opportunity it's kinda important to show that you understand what equality is and what it means to be equal and what an opportunity is and how a person could be deprived of it. Otherwise you're just parroting buzzwords because all the other cool kids are saying those words too. I described fixed_truth's definition of equal opportunity as "when at birth someone has the same prospects of success as anyone else" as "vague meaningless twaddle" because it is vague meaningless twaddle. It says nothing meaningful. Or, put another way, it means absolutely anything you want. |
9th August 2013, 15:58 | #68 |
|
I disagree. It only means 'absolutely anything you want' if you ignore that outcomes are the measure of whether there is equal opportunity.
__________________
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. |
9th August 2013, 16:03 | #69 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Outcomes? I though equality of opportunity is something calculated at birth?
|
9th August 2013, 16:29 | #70 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
9th August 2013, 17:19 | #71 | ||
|
Quote:
Quote:
For example you can give a child the same access to education as another child but if one of them is going to school hungry or is worried about getting the bash from his dad; then it's hardly an equal opportunity.
__________________
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 : 9th August 2013 at 17:20. |
||
9th August 2013, 18:51 | #72 |
|
So, to keep the playing field level, we should just starve and beat all children. Easy.
|
9th August 2013, 20:14 | #73 |
Love, Actuary
|
Or give these folk Stewart Island and let them set themselves up like Cuba.
|
9th August 2013, 21:38 | #74 | |
|
Quote:
MOKO Programme (gets into it after a minute)
__________________
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. |
|
12th August 2013, 14:44 | #75 |
|
This seems to fit here...
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
12th August 2013, 15:09 | #76 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Simple solution: fail all the white kids. Boom, equal outcome.
|
12th August 2013, 16:15 | #77 |
|
Government imposed higher education with lower standards. Boom, black kids can't leave and can't fail.
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
12th August 2013, 17:07 | #78 |
Stunt Pants
|
Nah, you let them drop out but then you just give them grades to match the white kids and a nice certificate. They've had an equal opportunity as well as an equal outcome! Thanks government equality legislation!
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
12th August 2013, 17:25 | #79 |
HENCE WHY FOREVER ALONE
|
Open the window or something, it reeks of white male privilege.
If you sincerely believe that everything you have achieved was purely a result of your own hard work, you probably vote National.
__________________
Finger rolling rhythm, ride the horse one hand... |
12th August 2013, 17:57 | #80 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
ɹǝʌo sᴉ ǝɯɐƃ ʎɥʇ |
|