"inequality" in the homepage

[neophyte]

While your question is interesting it nevertheless offers a one-dimensional and simplistic analysis of the situation. If the resources (in this case I am referring to opportunities rather than actual standards) of society B are significantly greater than those of society A then it may be preferable. However, this is not to state that society B is ideal as it still exhibits a flaw (inequality) which is nonexistent in society A. Similarly, while society A solves the problem of inequality it doesn't solve the problem of a lack of resources (meaning educational standards) and is also flawed.

Once again, while inequality is a problem it is not the ONLY problem in society as other issues such as educational standards are also important. Therefore, solving the problem of inequality of oppurtunity (which IS a problem in a competitive system) cannot always be justified if it creates problems or worsens problems such as low educational standards.

We can work to BOTH reduce inequality and raise overall standards. However, as enwiabe and neophyte were saying, in the case of vcenotes and the VCE system as a whole, this site will primarily benefit those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and it's primary goal is to increase equality in a constructive manner (which increases fairness in such a competitive system), although it should also hopefully increase overall standards (but this is not it's PRIMARY aim).

Brendan, your options are misleading as they imply that to desire equality is to desire ONLY equality without regard to any other values. Both equality of opportunity and a belief in high educational standards are important values and choosing between them would require knowledge of the difference of the level of standards between society A and B. Perhaps, if this difference is extremely minimal A may be preferable as it offers a fairer arena for competition, however, such a benefit must be weighed against the similarly important principle of high educational standards. 

Seconded. I could have used my own words but it would be pointless.
Few of these points have actually been addressed, rather we face a reiteration of your earlier points. The distinction between ends and means is significant and has gone unregistered. Most importantly, you have sidestepped the issue of creating other problems using certain means. Inequality is a problem, but there are other potential problems to be avoided as absurdity explains, and explains again.

Enwiabes arguments are also credible and are also being largely misunderstood or not being recognised.

Moreover, this site is enwiabe's and telling him his goal is ridiculous. I enjoyed Coblin's attitudinal shift when he started saying this is my opinion and not your goal is this ( Reply #82 on: February 17, 2008, 04:09:29 PM). Perhaps other members should take heed.

[Eriny]

I'm for equality of opportunities, I'm willing to take a certain proportion of the money of rich people make and redistribute it to poor people, but in this instance, no resources actually disappear. It's silly to suggest that making resources disappear helps equality. For instance if rich people become poor all of a sudden and the money goes nowhere, that means that businesses won't be able to run on their current scales in that the amount of money we'd be taking from from would be an unsustainable shock. Smaller businesses means less employment, leading to the people who were originally poor becoming poorer. Likewise, if I suddenly took the notes of rich people without putting these resources anywhere else, I would be actively pursuing a decline in knowledge, meaning that there would be less to draw on in the fist place, and those with money would still be at the top due to the benefits associated with going to a rich school that encourages academic rigour. The best thing in both situations is to achieve equality by maximising the resources available, through redistribution or increased provisions, not by making them redundant. That would be perverse to the goal of equality, because ultimately, that goal would not be achieved.