"inequality" in the homepage

[brendan]

No it's not misleading. It is a question. I was making the point that a less equal distribution of resources is not necessarily superior to a more equal distribution of resources.

Secondly, there is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and actually trying to make them equal. A level playing field means that the playing field is level, not that the players are level. Likewise fair competition means that people are treated equally, not that the people are equal.

[enwiabe]

Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again.

[brendan]

Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again.

Oh hi, thanks, I would have thought that by now you would have realized that I am not in favour of flipping the switch. Secondly, it doesn't apply to the question about society A and B.

[Collin Li]

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.

[enwiabe]

Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again.

Oh hi, thanks, I would have thought that by now you would have realized that I am not in favour of flipping the switch. Secondly, it doesn't apply to the question about society A and B.

It's not about society A and B. And it sure as hell isn't about your personal preferences. You attacked me saying that if I was for improving equality, then I'd be for flipping the switch. That argument is the direct counter to your argument about my wanting to flip the switch in order to improve equality. Flipping the switch would markedly improve equality between schools of one generation, but schools of different generations would be unequal. Hence, by providing A+ notes for everyone, equality improves everywhere and at all times.

But really, thanks for conceding the argument.

[brendan]

If we take your logic then therefore those who did VCE before 2008 would have had a disadvantage because they couldn't access VCENotes. So it I don't see how it's fair, or even semblant of equality to deny one generation resources that another had. That is NOT equality.

saying that if I was for improving equality, then I'd be for flipping the switch.

your argument about my wanting to flip the switch in order to improve equality.

The two statements you described there are essentially the same. I don't see how they are a "direct counter" to each other.

Flipping the switch would markedly improve equality between schools of one generation,

I know that was my point. That's how the switch was designed.

but schools of different generations would be unequal.

Oh so this statement:

"the problem of inequality between students from differing socio-economic areas of society. The vast gap separating the top and bottom schools ensures that there are able, willing and motivated students who are being left behind, struggling at the bottom."

was referring to inequality in school resources between different generations? i c.

[enwiabe]

Of course my scenario doesn't talk about different generations. It's YOUR retarded scenario that presents such a problem.

[brendan]

Of course my scenario doesn't talk about different generations. It's YOUR retarded scenario that presents such a problem.

If we take your logic then therefore those who did VCE before 2008 would have had a disadvantage because they couldn't access VCENotes. So it I don't see how it's fair, or even semblant of equality to deny one generation resources that another had. That is NOT equality.

[enwiabe]

That's EXACTLY THE POINT. We are trying to ADvantage those of the new generation. The past generation is past. It would be ludicrous to deny resources to a new generation that the previous generation had.

I should have been more clear because you are very clearly a semantic dickhead who loves to argue for the sake of arguing.

Improving educational standards for one generation and thus creating an inequality between a more recent generation to an earlier generation, where the inequality favours the recent generation is desired. This is because the older generation could not be helped.

However, the reversed scenario is most undesirable. And that is because it COULD be helped.

Your absolutely stupid scenario presents this. It's riddled with bullet holes. VCE Notes is about improving equality, but not at the cost of the reduction of educational standards. However, that should be self-evident. And to argue that it isn't is to miss the patently obvious.

This is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen on this forum. And that's saying a lot.

[brendan]

Improving educational standards for one generation and thus creating an inequality between a more recent generation to an earlier generation, where the inequality favours the recent generation is desired.

Ah there we have it, so inequality after all isn't such a bad thing.

[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]

Oh hi, thanks for dodging my argument again.

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.

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]

same society at the same point in time.

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]

Right, but then it creates a NEW problem that the inequality between generations favours an older generation which is most undesirable.

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.