CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Equality of Outcome or Equality of Opportunity?
Given that equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are mutually exclusive, which value should society hold? Is it possible to hold different forms of equality for different things? (e.g. equality of opportunity for our financial system but equality of outcome for sex and race quotas).
Given that equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are mutually exclusive
I would like to see you prove this piece of complete nonsense. If everyone has the same opportunities then everyone is going to experience the same (i.e. similar) outcomes.
Your recent destruction in your ridiculous conspiracy theory debate left you with no option but to ban me as it's the cowards way out of actually addressing questions , you had no valid answers to several questions and your failure to comprehend language used simply ( just for you ) demonstrates what a truly dense individual you are .
I'm sure you're probably working on your faked moon landing theory now and maybe that's more suitable for you as basic physics and science are certainly not your forte ......you're dismissed
Your recent destruction in your ridiculous conspiracy theory debate
LOL. Buddy, you read a quote from William Rodruguez which said a bomb went off in the sub-basement, and then aggressively demanded I tell you how he heard explosions on the 90th floor if he was in the basement. You lack the ability to read and/or comprehend basic English, so it is not surprising you do not understand the word "destruction" either.
but to ban me
You were banned for childish personal attacks and for rewriting other people's quotes. Obviously you are a troll and not a serious debater, so you can't really complain about being banned, can you? Especially when you challenged me to ban you in the very post you are now complaining about being banned for.
your faked moon landing theory
I do not believe the Moon landings were faked. You are an idiotic troll who uses every logical fallacy in the book when arguing (in this case guilt by association) and that is why you were banned. Dishonesty has no place in a debate.
LOL buddy you failed to read what I said about your lying janitor friend who keeps changing his story , you also failed to address my two other questions regarding the 'explosion ' claiming you couldn't understand them proves it's you who cannot comprehend basic English ; you're a childish troll pissing on the memory of victims of 9/11 .
Banned for childish personal attacks that coming from you who has nothing else , now thats funny .
I was banned because I exposed your copy and paste arguments and ridiculous you tube conspiracy channel videos .
You don't understand what debating , science or physics are and people like you have no right using the word logical as it's an alien concept to infantile conspiracy ' theorists ' like you
LOL buddy you failed to read what I said about your lying janitor friend
LOL. Buddy, literally nothing you say is ever true. In fact almost all of it is the opposite of the truth. You literally make up your arguments as you go along, which explains why nothing you say is ever supported by anything other than your own big mouth.
LOL buddy everything I say is true you're the faked moon landing fan ...remember ?
The conspiracy channel on you tube is not exactly a great source for argument except to fellow nutters like you , also your Truth org is run by a discredited Architect and accomplished liar just like you .
LOL buddy everything I say is true you're the faked moon landing fan ...remember ?
You need professional help. At the very least you need to be trained to understand that taping together a series of random lies you make up on the spot is not the definition of debate.
I really do get what you're saying about Quantum and the fact he bans about as many people as FromWithin for illegitimate reasons but please take this elsewhere it's nowhere near on topic.
I really do get what you're saying about Quantum and the fact he bans about as many people as FromWithin for illegitimate reasons
And this of course has nothing to do with the fact that you were banned from the same debate for very similar reasons. I'm not interested in your complete lies thanks, because they are merely the product of sour grapes.
So why was I banned from your debate? Especially since I'd said I was going to leave the debate there as we weren't getting anywhere. It's interesting because I saw you ban someone for an ad-hominem, though before you were complaining about being banned for using an ad-hominem.
When I said you were free to moderate your debates as badly as FromWithin I wasn't suggesting for you to actually do it!
Yes indeed , in every debate where you're confronted by a valid argument you resort to insult if you care to look back on my recent encounter with you it was you who threw the first insult and you don't like it when you get it back do you ?
You ban anyone who counters you ill thought out arguments as it's your way out of actually debating isn't it ?
Yes indeed , in every debate where you're confronted by a valid argument you resort to insult
If I insult you it's either because your argument isn't valid or because you haven't attempted to make one in the first place. My posting history is absolutely littered with refutations to valid arguments so what you are saying clearly is not true. The actual truth is of course that you are a dishonest troll who is not here for serious debate, and that is why both my words and your own words identify you as such.
Every single debate you have you cannot resist the urge to insult the person you are talking to. I regularly disagree with Dermot and I have much more respect for his debating ability than yours.
Hi Winston and thank you , we have had a couple of exchanges and I have enjoyed them , even though we disagreed there was never a bad word or insult thrown as it's a pleasure to debate with a skilled debater such as you .
Quantum fires insults the minute one disagrees with him my rule on here has always been if you insist on throwing insults you will be paid in kind as I dislike bullies like quantum who cry when stood up too ; the minute one puts an argument to him out come the insults .
OK, I'll briefly check the last few debates you took part in and see if there's a single one without you hurling insults.
"Are you fucking stupid, lad?"
"you fucking intellectual banana boy"
"you are just opening your fat mouth and letting all the shit fall out"
"You idiots can't even agree with each other"
I can't find any older debates on your profile, it also seems you've deleted your "is FromWithin as bad as Hitler?" debate which was full of insults. I tried to find a debate you took part in and didn't fling insults and failed. Now it might exist, but the fact it's so hard to find demonstrates that there is a lot of truth to what I'm saying.
Yes it's a sad list indeed and that's after him deliberately lying by saying he didn't resort to insults , I cannot find a debate he does not insult someone on
OK, I'll briefly check the last few debates you took part in and see if there's a single one without you hurling insults.
That would be proving the claim that, "In the last few debates you took part in you have not been able to resist insulting people", which is not the claim you made. Have you considered that perhaps it is precisely this overt dishonesty which catalyses your bans?
"Are you fucking stupid, lad?"
Cherry picking four sentences from a collection of over two thousand does not prove your claim either. That just proves selection bias and incredible dishonesty.
"Now it might exist, but the fact it's so hard to find demonstrates that there is a lot of truth to what I'm saying."
Did you miss this sentence? I'm sorry but I'm not able to find every single debate you took part in. It's interesting however, that you didn't simply paste a debate in which you didn't use any insults, possibly because such a debate doesn't exist.
"Have you considered that perhaps it is precisely this overt dishonesty which catalyses your bans?"
Given that I've been on this site for a month and you're the only person who has banned me I can't say I agree. Though you did then delete the whole debate, probably because the bans showed stark hypocrisy.
"Cherry picking four sentences from a collection of over two thousand does not prove your claim either. That just proves selection bias and incredible dishonesty."
I merely stated you insult people in every debate, so it makes sense that to show these instances isn't cherry-picking. I used all the recent debates you took part in that I could find on your profile.
You're only embarrassing yourself now , you've proved you're a compulsive liar maybe it's time you went off to lick your wounds and get ready for your next ...... defeat
I prove everything I say unlike you and yes you're a cheap liar let's have it in your own words so you don't insult the people you debate with , let's give three examples out of hundreds shall we ?
NOW ADMIT you're a liar ...
Now why is it the UK is burning fossil fuels if fossil fuel is so evil ?
Your question is spectacularly stupid and based entirely on the straw man argument that "fossil fuel" is "evil".
None of the predictions have come true.
Lol. Yes brother. Climate science is a hoax because scientists can't see into the future. Their lack of fortune-telling ability completely discredits their research. Ahahahaha!
You people are fucking insane. After the tobacco industry spent billions convincing people that tobacco research was a hoax, you are now going to fall for exactly the same shit from the fossil fuel industry are you? Jolly good.
15hrs ago
I do not believe for one second there were additional bombs or that this was an inside job. EVERYONE was watching those buildings that day, everyone
Which explains why there are HUNDREDS of eye witness reports of bombs going off you fucking nonsensical retard. It was reported on the mainstream news for fuck's sake. You're really going to argue that nobody reported bombs? You disingenuous piece of shit.
You insult me and others because you cannot debate you're a coward , a bully and a liar and a not very bright one either
A paid corporate troll that wants to get money out of politics? Does that make any sense?
As for being an alt-account of Dermot, the fact we just today were debating on the problem of evil seems to contradict this. Further we hold different views on, for example, the logical consistency of an omnipotent God.
Well my arguments were valid and I posted up reputable links and sources plus a report from an engineering periodical regarding collapsing buildings , of course your only out is to claim genuine reports and links are not valid which is hilarious as you take your sources from the conspiracy channel on you tube .
Dishonesty and trolling is all you seem to do and it's hilarious you brand others with the very traits you display in every debate .
plus a report from an engineering periodical regarding collapsing buildings
I saw no such report and have no doubt that you are either lying or perhaps went back and inserted it after the fact. Such a generic report is of no consequence anyway, because no high-rise steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire either before or since, so what exactly is it your journal says about this apparently unique event?
You just literally write lie after lie after lie after lie, and that is why I banned you.
your only out is to claim genuine reports and links are not valid
This is the fallacy known as "stacking the deck". The genuine reports released on the day of 9/11 leave absolutely no room for doubt or speculation that the WTC buildings had explosives inside them. I have linked multiple peer-reviewed genuine reports proving the WTC had explosives inside them, including Professor Harrit's study of the composition of the WTC dust:-
Additionally, I posted extracts from Professor Barnett's FEMA metallurgy report on the WTC steel:-
"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
I posted another extract from an engineering journal which reviewed the metallurgy study:-
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
I even posted the patent number of the device which was probably used in the destruction of the WTC:-
The present invention relates generally to incendiary devices, and more particularly, to incendiary devices for producing controlled-diameter holes in metallic targets.
And I was forced to ban you from the debate because you were responding to evidence like this by ignoring it all and then lying that the "genuine reports" were being posted by you and not I. You are an absolutely massive liar, and that is why you were banned.
Why even pretend that this isn't an alt. account? Since when does someone join a site and immediately accuse other people of being alt. accounts? It's rather amusing that you talk about Freudian projection a lot!
People (and groups) differ in temperament, skills, motivation and on many other variables. As such equality of opportunity unfailingly leads to inequality of outcome, because of natural variability.
People (and groups) differ in temperament, skills, motivation and on many other variables
And?
As such equality of opportunity unfailingly leads to inequality of outcome
You have just told me there is INEQUALITY of opportunity because, "People (and groups) differ in temperament, skills, motivation and on many other variables". Are you fucking stupid, lad? If there is inequality of opportunity then there will be inequality of outcome. All you have done is provide an argument why equality of opportunity is more difficult to achieve than one might assume.
"You have just told me there is INEQUALITY of opportunity because, "People (and groups) differ in temperament, skills, motivation and on many other variables". Are you fucking stupid, lad? If there is inequality of opportunity then there will be inequality of outcome. All you have done is provide an argument why equality of opportunity is more difficult to achieve than one might assume."
Are you arguing that we should make those who are smarter dumber so that we can have equality of opportunity? Otherwise equality of opportunity will always lead to disparity because smarter people, for example, are going to earn more than the average.
Since you've banned people for using ad-hominems do you think it's wise to use them yourself? It comes across as awfully hypocritical.
Are you arguing that we should make those who are smarter dumber so that we can have equality of opportunity?
Your straw man argumentation is typically dishonest, backward and unfair. I am arguing that it is not "equal opportunity" to hand both a child prodigy and a village idiot a Rubik's Cube. That's inequality of opportunity.
Since you've banned people for using ad-hominems do you think it's wise to use them yourself?
That is not what they were banned for. They were banned for intellectually dishonest replies peppered with personal insults and false rhetoric. You can insult me all day if your argument is solid.
"Your straw man argumentation is typically dishonest, backward and unfair. I am arguing that it is not "equal opportunity" to hand both a child prodigy and a village idiot a Rubik's Cube. That's inequality of opportunity. "
In that particular domain the prodigy would indeed hold the advantage. However both the prodigy and the village idiot had equal opportunity to show their merit in this regard. All individuals are given the opportunity by society to show their merits and lack thereof, this is what is meant by equality of opportunity. Besides, the village idiot will invariably have domains in which he is superior to the prodigy.
"That is not what they were banned for. They were banned for intellectually dishonest replies peppered with personal insults and false rhetoric. You can insult me all day if your argument is solid."
Let's fact check that
"What we have here is some Leftist Wacko that believes in his Leftist mind that Republicans killed their own people on 9-11 !" - Banned by Quantumhead
"I can imagine Liberals being in charge when the modern equivalent of Hitler -- the American far right -- was spreading its evil. We have just had eight years of it. Your argument seems to be that only Satan can save us from The Devil. And for that reason it's stupid."-Banned by FromWithin: Quantumhead finds this unacceptable
Seems neither of you were making an actual argument.
In that particular domain the prodigy would indeed hold the advantage.
So then I am right and you need not type anything more. You were trying to disguise inequality of opportunity as equality of opportunity, were you not?
However both the prodigy and the village idiot had equal opportunity to show their merit in this regard.
Pathetic. You can't arbitrarily change the concept of "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity to show merit" simply because you got caught lying. "Equality of opportunity" means the opportunity you get is equal, and "equality of opportunity to show merit" means the opportunity you get is not equal, because it is merit-dependent on something you might conceivably have no merit in.
I find your dishonesty appalling. You've basically just paraphrased the same fallacy and repeated it.
"So then I am right and you need not type anything more. You were trying to disguise inequality of opportunity as equality of opportunity, were you not?"
In one particular activity the prodigy would have an advantage, not in society as a whole. Further, the village idiot can work on his skills and potentially become better at the Rubik's cube than the prodigy.
"Pathetic. You can't arbitrarily change the concept of "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity to show merit" simply because you got caught lying. "Equality of opportunity" means the opportunity you get is equal, and "equality of opportunity to show merit" means the opportunity you get is not equal, because it is merit-dependent on something you might conceivably have no merit in.
I find your dishonesty appalling. You've basically just paraphrased the same fallacy and repeated it."
The meaning of equality of opportunity is that everyone is given the same opportunity to utilize their merits to further themselves in society. You may find some basic reading on this subject useful, at the very least read the Wikipedia entry. Equality of opportunity is one of the cornerstones of a meritocracy.
In one particular activity the prodigy would have an advantage, not in society as a whole.
Your continuous use of fallacy and deflection in language is hilarious. We are talking about one particular opportunity, not all the opportunities society has to offer. In this instance the opportunity is not equal because it is not as beneficial to one person as it is to the other. Your interpretation of "equal" is akin to throwing the Christians in with the lions with the soothing farewell of: "Don't worry, you and the lions both have an equal opportunity to survive."
The meaning of equality of opportunity is that everyone is given the same opportunity to utilize their merits to further themselves in society.
The meaning of equality of opportunity is that everyone is given opportunities which are equal. The other nine words you've just made up yourself and added onto the end. But let's for arguments sake say we agreed on your false extension of three words into twelve. People can't have equality of opportunity "to utilize their merits to further themselves in society" unless you accept that their merits differ and hence offering the same Rubik's Cube to two different people does not necessarily represent the same opportunity.
"Your continuous use of fallacy and deflection in language is hilarious. We are talking about one particular opportunity, not all the opportunities society has to offer. In this instance the opportunity is not equal because it is not as beneficial to one person as it is to the other. Your interpretation of "equal" is akin to throwing the Christians in with the lions with the soothing farewell of: "Don't worry, you and the lions both have an equal opportunity to survive." "
Once again, you don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity. Please do some basic reading on the subject. The concept of equality of opportunity is a societal one. You are the one attempting to redefine terms, and I find this a common thread in your debates.
"Wrong again I'm afraid. The meaning of equality of opportunity is that everyone is given opportunities which are equal. The other nine words you've made up yourself and added onto the end. But let's for arguments sake say we agreed on your false extension of three words into twelve. People can't have equality of opportunity "to utilize their merits to further themselves in society" unless you accept that their merits differ and hence offering the same Rubik's Cube to two different people does not necessarily represent the same opportunity."
Of course people have different merits, I've stated this already. In addition, people will be better or worse at any given task. However the fact that both people are competing on a level playing field so that their merits are what cause any difference in outcome is the manner in which they are offered equal opportunity. We are speaking of a meritocratic concept here. Are you a postmodernist or do you just refuse to look up the meaning of the term?
Once again, you don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity. Please do some basic reading on the subject.
Your baseless, generic, in-a-can, one-size-fits-all right wing deflective attacks against my understanding as a viable alternative to conceding that you just had your narcissistic ass handed to you are as interesting as watching paint dry.
The concept of equality of opportunity is a societal one.
Your chronic narcissism ensures that you simply don't know when to quit. You do not possess the selective right to redefine the phrase "equality of opportunity" to something which is more to your liking without consulting the rest of the world. Equality of opportunity simply means equality of opportunity. It means nothing less than equality of opportunity and it means nothing more than equality of opportunity. Stop inventing your own definition of words please.
Of course people have different merits, I've stated this already.
In which case you are contradicting your own argument.
In addition, people will be better or worse at any given task.
No, not "in addition". That is resultant from the same merits you just mentioned.
However the fact that both people are competing on a level playing field
They are not competing on a field and they are not playing. They are both being challenged to complete a Rubik's Cube or forfeit their lives. You can twist, turn, deceive, reject, distort and deflect as much as you like, pal. The fact will still remain that a Rubik's Cube will not offer them both an equal opportunity. This remains true whether they are standing on a field, riding in a car, or driving a bus.
We are speaking of a meritocratic concept here. Are you a postmodernist or do you just refuse to look up the meaning of the term?
I am fully aware of what both meritocratic and postmodernist mean, thank you. It is you who has difficulty accepting the definition of words, remember?
"Your baseless, generic, in-a-can, one-size-fits-all right wing deflective attacks against my understanding as a viable alternative to conceding that you just had your narcissistic ass handed to you are as interesting as watching paint dry."
You don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity. As such it is apt that I bring this up when you state it is something it isn't.
"Your chronic narcissism ensures that you simply don't know when to quit."
I wasn't aware that your alleged journalism degree made you an expert in mental disorders. Once again, more ad-hominems and what seems to be more Freudian projection. As you cannot even check to see the definition of a term, it is clearly you who doesn't know when to quit.
"You do not possess the selective right to redefine the phrase "equality of opportunity" to something which is more to your liking without consulting the rest of the world. Equality of opportunity simply means equality of opportunity. It means nothing less than equality of opportunity and it means nothing more than equality of opportunity. Stop inventing your own definition of words please."
That's exactly what I've been telling you since the beginning, yet you still refuse to even glance at the Wikipedia entry; the most basic of study (source 1).
"They are not competing on a field and they are not playing."
You don't understand the concept of a "level playing field" either? Honestly, do some reading before you enter a debate next time. Or at least do some during the debate to make sure you know what you're talking about.
"Your straw man argumentation is typically dishonest, backward and unfair. I am arguing that it is not "equal opportunity" to hand both a child prodigy and a village idiot a Rubik's Cube. That's inequality of opportunity. "
"They are both being challenged to complete a Rubik's Cube or forfeit their lives."
It went from a for-fun competition to a life or death gamble rather quickly!
"The fact will still remain that a Rubik's Cube will not offer them both the same opportunity."
Only when you don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity.
"I am fully aware of what both meritocratic and postmodernist mean, thank you. It is you who has difficulty accepting the definition of words, remember?"
I never said you didn't! I'm asking if you're a postmodernist because you seem to like to invent your own meanings. Interesting that given your understanding of the term you declined to answer. We had this problem, for just one example, when discussing capitalism previously. Do you remember that you thought corporatocracy was the "same difference" as capitalism? Back to your understanding though, when I stated that equality of opportunity is a meritocratic concept you say you knew what I meant? Interesting then that you should neither rebut this nor change your stance.
You don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity.
This conversation began with you trying to disguise inequality of opportunity as equality of opportunity, so accusing me of precisely what you are guilty of is delusional, dishonest and stupid. I disproved your argument as false, which implies my understanding of the concept is significantly more advanced than yours is.
I wasn't aware that your alleged journalism degree made you an expert in mental disorders.
I am not an expert in mental disorders and have never claimed to be. This is exactly why I banned you. You are a brazen liar who has absolutely no problem rewriting someone's words before responding to them.
Only when you don't understand the concept of equality of opportunity.
Lol. Either the Rubik's cube provides them with an equal opportunity or it does not provide them with an equal opportunity. There is not a magical third option where the opportunity is demonstrably not equal but we nevertheless mock the "understanding" of anybody who refuses to call it an equal opportunity. That's called being a fucking retard.
"This conversation began with you trying to disguise inequality of opportunity as equality of opportunity, so accusing me of precisely what you are guilty of is delusional, dishonest and stupid. I disproved your argument as false, which implies my understanding of the concept is significantly more advanced than yours."
So you're unable to read the Wikipedia page? I linked Wikipedia instead of another source because I thought you would at least be capable of reading that.
"I am not an expert in mental disorders and have never claimed to be. This is exactly why I banned you. You are a brazen liar who has absolutely no problem rewriting someone's words before responding to them."
Oh OK, so your over the internet diagnosis that I'm a narcissist was just another ad-hominem.
"You are on the sex offender's register."
The difference between my assertion and yours is that I can see that you haven't even looked up the meaning of the phrase "equality of opportunity". How are you going to understand a concept when you don't know what it means?
A random link to a Wikipedia page is not going to save you when you are attempting to reverse the meaning of the words you are using. You are redefining equality of opportunity to mean inequality of opportunity, and mocking my "understanding" when I point out that this is stupid. You do get that, right?
so your over the internet diagnosis that I'm a narcissist
Is the product of ten years debating narcissists on the internet who refuse to acknowledge demonstrable proof they are wrong.
The difference between my assertion and yours
Is that you have repeated yours four or five times, to try to really get it into the audience's mind, in the true spirit of Hitler.
How are you going to understand a concept
As I have demonstrated three times now, you are the one misunderstanding the concept. Either an opportunity is equal or it is not equal. If it is not equal and I demonstrate that it is not equal, then simply repeating "You don't understand" like a demented parrot will not make the opportunity equal. Hence, you will still be wrong.
"A random link to a Wikipedia page is not going to save you when you are attempting to reverse the meaning of the words you are using. You are redefining equality of opportunity to mean inequality of opportunity, and mocking my "understanding" when I point out that this is stupid. You do get that, right?"
So the fact that everyone else accepts this definition has no bearing on the meaning of the concept? Instead you arbitrarily decide it? If you google search the phrase "equality of opportunity" you will get the same result no matter where you click.
"Is the product of ten years debating narcissists on the internet who refuse to acknowledge demonstrable proof they are wrong."
I really am concerned about someone with no psychology background who believes they can diagnose psychiatric disorders over the internet. Also you should really find another hobby because you aren't any good at this one.
"Is that you have repeated yours four or five times, to try to really get it into the audience's mind, in the true spirit of Hitler."
Nope, the difference is that you have demonstrated that lack of understanding. Just like you've shown that you don't understand what a "level playing field" is.
"As I have demonstrated three times now, you are the one misunderstanding the concept. Either an opportunity is equal or it is not equal. If it is not equal and I demonstrate that it is not equal, then simply repeating "You don't understand" like a demented parrot will not make the opportunity equal. Hence, you will still be wrong."
If I'm misunderstanding the concept, so is the author of every link you will find in a google search related to "equality of opportunity".
So the fact that everyone else accepts this definition
Oh do they? Have you done a global census of the matter? Or are you perhaps just a thick-witted, ego-driven liar?
This ceased to be a debate the moment I proved my point. That was when you resorted to logical fallacy and/or outright making things up.
Instead you arbitrarily decide it?
You really are mad as a fucking hatter, aren't you? It was YOU who extended the definition of "equality of opportunity" from three words into twelve, not I. Your Freudian projection tactics are irritating, delusional and stupid.
If you google search the phrase "equality of opportunity" you will get the same result no matter where you click.
If I Google equality this is what I get:-
"the state of being equal"
And if I Google opportunity this is what I get:-
"a set of circumstances"
So, for probably the sixth or seventh time, I refer you to the unequal set of circumstances created by giving a Rubik's Cube to both a village idiot and a child prodigy, and telling them their lives depend on solving it.
I really am concerned about someone with no psychology background
Will you please stop telling me who I am, what I do, what I am qualified in and what I understand? It's extremely annoying having to debate someone who thinks pretending he is telepathic is an acceptable retort. Thanks.
Also you should really find another hobby because you aren't any good at this one.
The amount of time you have spent arguing with me implies not only that your statement is false, but that you are likely banging the back of your head against the wall as you type.
you don't understand what a "level playing field" is.
Oh dear, not again with this bizarre God complex where you pretend you have intimate knowledge of what other people understand.
If I'm misunderstanding the concept, so is the author of every link you will find in a google search related to "equality of opportunity".
Really? Has every other "author of every link I will find in a Google search" arbitrarily extended the definition of "equality of opportunity" from three words into twelve without consulting anybody else? No? Then please stop talking complete fucking nonsense. Thanks.
No equal opportunity does not land everyone in a same or similar place in life. Equal opportunity suggests that everyone gets the same chance and most people end up successful. Those that are not successful made a bad decision but because of equal opportunity they get as many attempts at being successful as they want. People that are permanently poor in the U.S are poor because they're drug addicts or awful with money therefore stay poor. Equal outcome takes money from hard working people and gives it to drug addicts and people that will blow their money on stupid stuff.
No equal opportunity does not land everyone in a same or similar place in life.
Nobody said it did, so your straw man argument is pointless and shit.
Equal opportunity suggests that everyone gets the same chance and most people end up successful.
Most people do not "end up successful" you completely fucking shameless liar. There are 43 million people in America who live below the national poverty line. Seventy six percent of America's national wealth is owned by ten percent of its population. All of the facts demonstrate what you are saying is false, and you are saying it to encourage idiots to play a stacked game which they can only lose and you can only win.
Those that are not successful made a bad decision but because of equal opportunity
You do not have equal opportunities in America, so you are being stupid and ridiculous. A black teenage gang banger from Baltimore does not have opportunities equal to a public school educated, overprivileged son of a banker from Beverly Hills. Stop being a delusional fucking moron. A man who sells burgers on the street does not have opportunities equal to the people who own MacDonalds, because the people who own MacDonalds can outspend and undercut him until he goes bankrupt.
This is a classical argument of Socialism Vs Capitalism.
Equality of outcome means that the products of the society are distributed in the society based on needs. There is open access to these products , and thus alienation will reduce.
The need of this society is to first bring the people not equal at the same footing. This cannot be done by just access to equal opportunity , since the people receiving these opportunities would not even possess the skills to exploit it like the required education.
Reservation In India is a good case in point. India is a mixed economy , though bent towards capitalism, application of reservation for bringing people on an equal footing so that they can access and make use of equal opportunity.
Equality of Opportunity says giving jobs to the most abled people, but isnt that creating even more inequality in terms of economic and social benefits. I do not argue the point that able people should get jobs. But i argue the point that the upbringing that such people receive , that their children will receive will be a lot more different than a person who does not earn as much and cannot invest a lot in the education of his children thereby he inequality barrier increases.
Just saying that there will be no discrimination based on gender, religion, caste and making that particular exam available to all is not enough. For the rich keep getting richer and better educated and the poor folk remain poor. A maid's daughter becomes a maid but a businessman's daughter can become an engineer, an artist, a musician, the possibilities are limitless.
Thus, my point stands that equality of outcome precedes equality of opportunity.
"Equality of outcome means that the products of the society are distributed in the society based on needs."
In terms of equality of outcome as related to income, this is indeed true. My question to you then, is why would anyone bother to work if they were simply given what they needed?
"The need of this society is to first bring the people not equal at the same footing. This cannot be done by just access to equal opportunity , since the people receiving these opportunities would not even possess the skills to exploit it like the required education."
While people hold different opinions of what constitutes equality of opportunity, I and many others feel that access to a basic education is a requirement of equal opportunity.
"But i argue the point that the upbringing that such people receive , that their children will receive will be a lot more different than a person who does not earn as much and cannot invest a lot in the education of his children thereby he inequality barrier increases."
I can agree that certain educations are better than others. In western democracies, however, everyone has access to a reasonably good standard of education.
"For the rich keep getting richer and better educated and the poor folk remain poor. A maid's daughter becomes a maid but a businessman's daughter can become an engineer, an artist, a musician, the possibilities are limitless."
I assume this is describing how things are in India. It's horrible things are like that but if there was greater equality of opportunity, as there is here in England, that wouldn't be the case. Due to universal access to a good basic education and higher education, we don't have that problem here.
"Thus, my point stands that equality of outcome precedes equality of opportunity."
Under equality of outcome in the aspect of income there isn't equality of opportunity. One cannot earn more than anyone else by utilizing their merits under such a system. Also, as with communist Russia such systems inevitably collapse. To quote an old soviet joke about communism: "So long as the bosses pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work".
"In terms of equality of outcome as related to income, this is indeed true. My question to you then, is why would anyone bother to work if they were simply given what they needed?"
I understand your point, this is where a concept of economics comes in handy. An equality of outcome supported by Punishments as in incentive for making people work is just an alternative. Though my point till now has been of equality of opportunity being strengthened by equality of income applied in measurable quantities to the suppressed classes.
The concerns I have raised are not fulfilled just by the existence of equality of opportunity.
Just an existence of opportunity does not mean that it is reaching out to everybody.
But a case in point would be the National Health Services or the G.I Bill for that matter.
The G.I Bill saw many students in England joining colleges, people who otherwise would not have were opening the doors of education. In a way this opportunity was made available to them by waiving away the need for money, or rather by bringing them on an equal footing. Rather than “ Careers opening to talents” , “Talents were being created for Careers”.
"While people hold different opinions of what constitutes equality of opportunity, I and many others feel that access to a basic education is a requirement of equal opportunity."
Granted, but the feasibility in less developed countries is big lacuna in this argument.
"I can agree that certain educations are better than others.In western democracies, however, everyone has access to a reasonably good standard of education.I assume this is describing how things are in India. It's horrible things are like that but if there was greater equality of opportunity, as there is here in England, that wouldn't be the case. Due to universal access to a good basic education and higher education, we don't have that problem here.”
I appreciate your concern for India,yet there is a lot more to be said.
The equality of opportunity that the western democracies peg to a capitalistic society was itself funded by the colonies and the slave trade, essentially the equality of opportunity was borne out of inequality of income between England and its colonies. India contributed a 100 million pounds of money as tax to the British govt. for funding its wars and industries.
"I understand your point, this is where a concept of economics comes in handy. An equality of outcome supported by Punishments as in incentive for making people work is just an alternative."
Assuming that negative incentives have as strong an influence on motivation as a combination of both positive and negative incentives (it doesn't). Why would people work to the best of their ability when they could merely attain the average? Why would people work overtime? In addition, why would people choose a job that required years of study if they ended up with the same outcome? This also leads onto the 80/20 rule as applied to employees: 80% of the valuable work is done by 20% of the employees.
"Though my point till now has been of equality of opportunity being strengthened by equality of income applied in measurable quantities to the suppressed classes."
It isn't possible to have both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome on any given domain. They are mutually exclusive. If everybody earns $100 a day, nobody has an opportunity to utilize their merits to earn more.
"The G.I Bill saw many students in England joining colleges, people who otherwise would not have were opening the doors of education. In a way this opportunity was made available to them by waiving away the need for money, or rather by bringing them on an equal footing. Rather than “ Careers opening to talents” , “Talents were being created for Careers”."
I'm sorry, what is this G.I. bill you refer to? All I've found in relation to this is a U.S. bill that's intended to help army veterans and their families. Are you talking about the "Educational Maintenance Allowance" that U.K. citizens used to get in order to help poorer individuals stay on in education? If so I think it was a good idea and is in line with provision of an equal opportunity to education. This has since been replaced in England with the (worse) 16-19 bursary program.
"Granted, but the feasibility in less developed countries is big lacuna in this argument."
Individuals in such countries don't have access to equal opportunity, though measures are being implemented worldwide to change this. We've recently reached over 80% literacy globally (Source 1) which is an amazing achievement when one considers historical literacy rates: in 1820 only 12% of people worldwide were literate (Source 2).
"The equality of opportunity that the western democracies peg to a capitalistic society was itself funded by the colonies and the slave trade, essentially the equality of opportunity was borne out of inequality of income between England and its colonies. India contributed a 100 million pounds of money as tax to the British govt. for funding its wars and industries."
Let's for a moment put aside the fact that every nation has exploited others, and every nation has kept slaves. Further, lets ignore the fact that every nation was established by a warlord conquering the surrounding lands. What does historical injustice have to do with equality of opportunity as an ideal? Last I checked, the U.S., for example, held this ideal since it's inception. Switzerland, for another example, also holds this value of equality of opportunity. Switzerland has no such imperial past.
Equal opportunity, of course. Yet when one group consistently gets a better outcome it is valid to raise the question in open discussion of whether they truly started from a standpoint of equal opportunity or not.
I would pick equality of opportunity in this case, what you do with the given opportunity is upto you, I also do believe equality of outcome is also essential in some cases, such as those in which people die due to their inability to make the most out of opportunities..
When your giving equality of outcome there will be people on that side of the party who will take it as advantage and abuse it to the point where it becomes meaningless.So equality of Opportunity is better.
In all aspects of life there has to be 'winners and losers' and those who will form the hierarchy in the society or environment in which they're competing.
Provided that everyone is extended genuine equality of opportunity at every stage of ''the competition' then it must be assumed that those who surpass their competitors do so as a result of their superior ability.
To me the term 'equality of outcome' is meaningless and contrary to nature's law of 'survival of the fittest'.
I think both could be important in certain instances but equality of opportunity, for me, far supersedes outcome between the two. I do believe Equality of outcome can stifle creation and individual expression as well as deny the opportunity for those who are exceptional in something to further better themselves by giving their "place" to others under Outcome. If that makes sense, sorry I'm needing more coffee, I hope that made sense.
I'd say most people would agree that equality of opportunity is fair.
Imagine if there was a class that had to take a test, and if they passed they would be given a reward. Each student has different levels of intelligence, ability to absorb information, etc.
However, the material they are given differed from person to person. Some students are given several textbooks, and some have private tutors. Others have very little information, and others have to teach themselves.
It would be near impossible to have everyone get the same score, and if you did it would be through a lot of unfair means. It wouldn't seem right to have people with varying degrees of worth ethic end up with the same result.
If the students were given access to the same resources, they may not get the same scores but at least now we know it was not due to factors out of their control. Even the student that was bad at memorizing could pass, so now the only problem is figuring out how to get the rest of them to pass as well.
Life, of course, is not so simple. Even so, we make sure that people earn their place in society. In order to do that in real life we need to weed out the corruption so that people can truly have equal opportunity.