Administration > Suggestions
"inequality" in the homepage
enwiabe:
... No, it's only not such a bad thing when it favours a more recent generation. You're using a self-evident result that generational opportunities should improve to advance your own retarded argument.
Inequality is TERRIBLE when it's between different socio-economic areas of the same society at the same point in time.
Collin Li:
--- Quote from: enwiabe on February 19, 2008, 06:05:58 pm ---Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again. :)
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: coblin on February 19, 2008, 06:08:49 pm ---Brendan is not trying to paint a picture where you can only choose one of the two. He is trying to show the absurdity of equality as a principle by showing you that a destructive means of achieving equality is not positive at all, yet equality has increased.
I have said so in my previous posts that I am for what VCE Notes is doing, but I don't believe that it is motivated by equality, instead it is motivated by an improvement of opportunities. This improvement of opportunities, yes, may very well lead to more equality, but that wasn't the reason why we were doing it - we were doing it because we could improve opportunities, regardless of whether it was the poor, middle or rich. I have also pointed out that we probably help the poor more, because these are free notes that private schools probably already have access to, but once again, that is merely a consequence of our motivation to improve opportunities for people.
N.B: All references to equality mean 'equality of opportunities' in this post.
--- End quote ---
The scenario he supplied does not need to be perfect - it is only supposed to illustrate that the idea of creating equality by destructive means cannot be seen as beneficial at all. I'm not talking about the net outcome, I'm talking about the balance between benefits and costs, there are no benefits and only costs. If you truly believe in equality as a principle, then you believe that equality created by diminishing the opportunity of the upper class (even accounting for intergenerational equality) is beneficial to some extent (regardless of the costs involved). I am not saying that you would do this, or that you should do this, but it is showing you that equality as a principle does not make sense.
brendan:
--- Quote from: enwiabe on February 19, 2008, 06:49:14 pm --- same society at the same point in time.
--- End quote ---
And that's exactly what my switch was referring to.
enwiabe:
Right, but then it creates a NEW problem that the inequality between generations favours an older generation which is most undesirable.
brendan:
--- Quote from: enwiabe on February 19, 2008, 06:52:15 pm ---Right, but then it creates a NEW problem that the inequality between generations favours an older generation which is most undesirable.
--- End quote ---
The past is the past and you cannot change it. It's like a sunk cost in Economics. It's already happened regardless of what you now choose to do. You've got to look at now and the future, because that's what you can change, and that's what matters for decision making.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version