"inequality" in the homepage

[brendan]

You're putting words in both neophyte's mouth and my own.

What are you talking about? I quoted him.

individuals should have equal access to educational resources, as much as is possible.

that's what he said

[enwiabe]

Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.

[brendan]

Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.

No I didn't say that.

Of course we wouldn't want that.

If you don't want that then you shouldn't be aiming for reducing inequality in resources. Because if you were aiming for reducing inequality in resources then by definition you would flip that switch. Hence, you yourself find it repugnant to aim for reducing inequality in resources. So instead you should be aiming to lift the resources of those at the bottom.

[neophyte]

Where did he say he wanted to flip the switch to cut resources to private schools? THAT'S putting words in his mouth.

No I didn't say that.

Brendan, you enjoy arguing way too much. I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society:

Those who attend private schools usually have access to study notes such as those offered on this site. I was under the impression that the aim was to give access to these kind of educational resources to all VCE students, thereby serving to bridge this inequality gap, at least to some extent.

By the way, surely the creator of the site knows what the primary goal of the site was and is.

Where "those offered on this site" are of high quality.

Surely, you could have deduced this.

[brendan]

"I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society"

Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.

[enwiabe]

If you don't want that then you shouldn't be aiming for reducing inequality in resources. Because if you were aiming for reducing inequality in resources then by definition you would flip that switch. Hence, you yourself find it repugnant to aim for reducing inequality in resources. So instead you should be aiming to lift the resources of those at the bottom.

That is possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard you say. There are MANY WAYS of achieving that. ONE WAY is your bullshit way that's been designed to attack me for reasons undefined. The OTHER is my way where instead of reducing other students' access, you simply provide what the rich kids have access to for free.

TWO WAYS. Also, your way promotes inequality. The inequality between generations. Why should one generation have access to better notes than another? That's also against VN's mission statement. We're trying here to improve the notes with age, not decrease them. Fail argument has failed.

[enwiabe]

This whole argument is about "means to an end".

You are for reducing global warming. Would you be for reducing global warming if it involved destroying America so that it stopped outputting so much greenhouse gas? That's the easiest way of doing it! Therefore you're for killing Americans!

THAT'S YOU. That's your shitty argument.

[neophyte]

"I was clearly advocating that quality study notes should be available to all. Not that they should be blocked from some members of society"

Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.

Rarely do I come across an argument so logically flawed.

Enwiabe explains.

[Collin Li]

Rarely do I come across an argument so logically flawed.

It's not logically flawed. It is saying that if you support equality as a principle to uphold, then that proposal is attractive to the equality-minded individual. The point is that the fundamental goal is not to achieve equality per se, but it is to help improve the lower ranks.

It's not an attack on you, enwiabe, it's an attack on the perception held by many that equality is a noble value to uphold (well, I can only speak for myself). When politicians do things in the name of equality, you should be careful to think about how equality is being achieved: the destructive way or the constructive way.

[brendan]

You said inequality itself was a problem:

"the problem of inequality"

"The vast gap separating the top and bottom"

I asked: "If there were some government policy that would reduce the resources of those at the top without affecting the resources of anyone else, would you want the government to flip this switch?"

Flipping that switch by definition would "close the gap" and would reduce inequality in resources.

Yet who would say that is desirable? No one. Not even you. You yourself have found it repugnant. Hence, you have contradicted yourself. The two positions are not consistent.

If you find flipping that switch repugnant, then therefore inequality itself is not the problem.

[neophyte]

Brendan: Inequality is the problem, and so is the "destructive way" of reconciling it.

There is no contradiction.

Coblin: I admire your attempt at a kind of impartial sort of stance but brendan clearly stated:

Then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources, because by that very principle you would flip that switch! If you find flipping that switch repugnant then you shouldn't be advocating for equality in resources.

I.e "would"... that my opposition to inequality automatically translates into my decision to follow the "destructive way". This is simply not the case.

[enwiabe]

There's a thing called logic Brendan.

The argument of the correct means to an end applies here. Of COURSE I wouldn't want it to happen if it involved impinging on the educational quality of others.

Just like if you are for global warming reduction, you would only want it to happen if it didn't impinge on the safety/wellbeing of others.

Your argument is logically flawed and simply adds more proof that you argue for the sake of arguing. This is the most bullshit thing I've ever seen. It is the proverbial equivalent to arguing about two flies running up a wall. You've simply got no idea about picking your battles. This was the most stupid semantics game I've ever seen. Congratulations, Brendan, you made me lower myself down to this position where I've actually got to defend MY primary objective with this website. :-/ You're a real winner.

[Eriny]

Wanting more equality is not necessarily expressing any kind of disdain for those in the higher end. The pursuit of equality doesn't necessarily burden anyone, for example, implementing this notes system doesn't hurt anyone at all at the top end, there is no "switch flipping" evident. There will always be some inequality, no doubt, it's just about erradicating unfair reasons for this inequality such as the unavailability of quality resources. Note that equality of resources doesn't mean that everyone is equally as intelligent, because that's something that we can't and possibly shouldn't be able to influence. It gives everyone access to the same, and does not take access from anyone away. It means that those would would be on the lower end have a better chance of being on the higher end, given the same advantages as those who go to "rich" schools.

[Collin Li]

It means that your primary objective is not to reduce inequality, but it is to help those who suffer the burden of low standards. The consequence is that it reduces inequality, but that is not your principle or goal - the latter implies the switch solution is a good idea.

[brendan]

The more you repeat that you find flipping that switch repugnant, the more you prove the point that inequality itself is not the problem.

Inequality is the problem

Let's run with that.

(1) Inequality itself is the problem: "the problem of inequality", "The vast gap separating the top and bottom"
Flipping that switch reduces inequality.
By (1), you should flip that switch.

But you've stated that you don't want to flip that switch even though it reduces inequality.
Hence inequality itself is not the problem.

Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University said it best:

"The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such. Many of the rich have made the mistake of viewing their lives as a game of relative status...
What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated."