Kurt wrote:
>
> "Nick Burns" <
[email protected]> wrote in message >
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> > "Kurt" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > It's pretty clear what that means. Equal opprtunity is just lip service and isn't a measure of
> > > change.
> > >
> > > Kurt
> >
> > How would you measure change? Why would you even want to have "total equality" when it is not
> > even clear if most people want that? That is not reasonable.
>
> Economic measures would be a more objective measurement. Other types of data could be used, it's
> not that difficult. I want equality because a huge amount of negative **** comes from inequality.
> It's reasonable to me, is it not to you? Do you think someone would argue being equal? (you
> shouldn't use quotations for something I didn't say, e.g. "total equality")
I want to be equal to you, or have you be equal to me, depending on which of us is more equal to
begin with.
> > Men and women are different and there is nothing anyone can do about it or should do about it.
>
> Actually the only differences that you can't do anything about are at the biological level, but I
> suppose that's what you were referring to.
You have proof for this?
> > Equal opportunity is not just lip service. It is the idea that the individuals can choose what
> > kind of equality they wish to pursue. I can't even imagine what else you think women would want
> > that they don't have.
>
> Your last sentence is kind of sad. You're saying that there aren't inequalities I guess. Try to
> get out some more. Equal opportunity can exist in a legal sense, which is why it's lip service. It
> doesn't create equality, it only ends legalized discrimination. Ever wonder why an individuals
> pursuit of equality may not end up with equality. There's more involved than just the individual.
>
> Kurt
The popular concept of group "equality" measured by outcomes proceeds from two faulty assumptions:
1. That any arbitrary division of humanity into groups results in groups of equal ability and equal
economic viability. This is taken by liberals as an article of faith. It results in enormous
frustration when the groups end up unequal because the conclusion must be that something is wrong
with the system and not with the group on the short end. Furthermore each group is beyond inquiry
concerning its own shortcomings because it is assumed to be equal and any evidence to the
contrary assumed to be part of the problem.
2. That by "correcting" the system that produces inequality it will produce equality. The problem
here is that the conscious changing of the system to favor the "disadvantaged" group produces a
reliance on the system rather than one's own efforts to produce results. This counterbalances the
changes to the system leaving the inequality of outcomes just as unequal as it was to begin with,
leading to more change in the system and a cycle of failure.
What else can you assume to be equal without measuring? And then when you measure and find a
difference you assume something must be wrong with the measurement?
On the other hand, if you lay down the ground rules and assume that groups are unequal, each group
will seek to overcome its shortcomings in order to be all it can be. Rules designed to favor one
group over another without a valid economic reason, such as Jim Crow laws are fairly evident on
their faces. But the focus on groups is self-defeating to begin with because all that does is
produce excuses for individual failure. It is pointless to compare yourself to other groups when you
are not even equal within your own group. As long as individuals are not equal, groups will not be
equal. And maximizing your potential is something done over time and not by fiat.
