Total Posts:101|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Equality

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:49:14 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote

Political equality is more than just the ability to vote. It regards the ability to hold office (in six states its illegal for an atheist to hold office https://www.google.com...). It also regards the equality in the justice system (blacks are like seven times more likely to be stopped at a red light or something crazy like that). Political equality extends beyond just voting

, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual.

What? This isn't true, each citizen has 1 vote. A poor person casts the same amount of votes as a rich person, being that its 1 vote. The only way that a rich person has more influence is if they endorse a candidate and say they are voting for someone, but what they actually vote for is still private. By endorsing a candidate they could influence others to also vote for them, but that isn't really an issue of equality as votes are still equal.

Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

I think that it is the duty of the government to provide equal opportunity. Not having equal opportunity in a society is an unjust society and the government is failing its citizens. The government does not have to ensure equality of outcome, but as long as opportunity is equal then they can work on outcome if they want. BUt thats not a duty, its an extra
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:34:20 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.

Why would I be an authoritarian? There is no legitimate government when the people aren't the ones who make it legitimate.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:35:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:34:20 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.

Why would I be an authoritarian? There is no legitimate government when the people aren't the ones who make it legitimate.

Now I don't know what you are.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:35:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:34:20 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.

Why would I be an authoritarian? There is no legitimate government when the people aren't the ones who make it legitimate.

Now I don't know what you are.

I Am that I Am.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:36:59 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:35:50 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:35:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:34:20 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.

Why would I be an authoritarian? There is no legitimate government when the people aren't the ones who make it legitimate.

Now I don't know what you are.

I Am that I Am.

PetersSmithism?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:39:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:36:59 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:35:50 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:35:07 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:34:20 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:31:26 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:30:06 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:25:38 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

I thought you were a leftist.

People accuse me of being a lot of things.

So what is your leaning on the right/left scale? I know you're authoritarian for one, but you always seemed center-left unless I am mistaking.

Why would I be an authoritarian? There is no legitimate government when the people aren't the ones who make it legitimate.

Now I don't know what you are.

I Am that I Am.

PetersSmithism?

My nature cannot be declared in words.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
SolonKR
Posts: 4,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:50:02 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Equality of opportunity; equality of outcome is irresponsible and DOES lead to the cycle of dependency that conservatives always tell themselves the left wants to make themselves feel better about their decision to give people one of the most sacred liberties, the freedom to starve.

Welfare in practice could be better implemented, but that does not mean that welfare in principle is wrong; it is in fact the moral imperative of the state to protect its most vulnerable members, as a state that does not protect its people has no moral legitimacy.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:50:29 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

I'm in favor of equality of opportunity on an economic, not racial, basis - and a minimum of sorts for outcome (food, shelter, healthcare, education).
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 5:59:13 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

Equality of opportunity, which for me includes the constant dispersion of the means of production as widely as is feasible.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 6:41:53 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome?

I think its nuanced. Some equality of outcome is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity. For instance, I think everyone is entitled to the equal outcome of healthcare (medically necessary healthcare, that is) so that everyone has equal opportunities. Health is a major factor in your ability to succeed; an ill person cannot possibly have the same opportunities as a healthy one. These kinds of things are baseline "capabilities" that are necessary for human flourishing, and for everyone to be able to have equal opportunity.

That being said, if you have too much equality of results/outcomes, then you limit equality of opportunity. In a communist society for instance, where a set number of goods need to be produced, we may need 10 farmers but only 2 cooks. 8 people are never going to be offered a shot at becoming a cook, even if that's what they'd liked to do. Everything is proscribed for them.

It's a balance, and you need to find a way of striking it. But you absolutely cannot *only* have equality of opportunity or *only* equality of results, because neither system is truly equitable/fair or morally coherent. At least, that's how I approach it.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

Even if the welfare state has put many blacks in a cycle of dependency, why is this to blame for liberals? Isn't that to blame of the blacks for not taking advantage of their opportunity? The welfare gives them a chance to get a job, it gives them an opportunity, which most people have taken and become successful because of it but thats irrelevent. So why would you fault the opportunity? Why would you not fault the individual?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:32:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:50:02 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Equality of opportunity; equality of outcome is irresponsible and DOES lead to the cycle of dependency that conservatives always tell themselves the left wants to make themselves feel better about their decision to give people one of the most sacred liberties, the freedom to starve.

Welfare in practice could be better implemented, but that does not mean that welfare in principle is wrong; it is in fact the moral imperative of the state to protect its most vulnerable members, as a state that does not protect its people has no moral legitimacy.

beautiful
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 1:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:50:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

I'm in favor of equality of opportunity on an economic, not racial, basis - and a minimum of sorts for outcome (food, shelter, healthcare, education).

Why not a racial basis? Are those who are black have less of an opportunity to be successful than a white person?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:02:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

If everyone is equally destitute, then it's fine for the left.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:03:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 1:31:11 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

Even if the welfare state has put many blacks in a cycle of dependency, why is this to blame for liberals? Isn't that to blame of the blacks for not taking advantage of their opportunity? The welfare gives them a chance to get a job, it gives them an opportunity, which most people have taken and become successful because of it but thats irrelevent. So why would you fault the opportunity? Why would you not fault the individual?

The liberals are the ones that are pro-welfare, so it's entirely their fault that people are in a cycle of dependency because of their badly implemented and useless welfare programs.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:18:46 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

"Equality" is for people who don't have the stones to rise above below average. Equality to a lazy slob is a step up. Equality to someone busting their butt is bs. It means they should tone down their work ethic and equally share below mediocrity with progressives. In the end no one would have any encentive to work hard, get anything done, or try to become something. What for? They'll take my earnings and divide it to slobs, which would cause a nation that never gets anything done and collapses on itself. They would then ask, "what is the answer?" We're living in the answer. This is the answer. A system that rewards hard work. Take it away and this nation will cease to exist as anything other than one giant slum.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:20:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 4:49:14 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote

Political equality is more than just the ability to vote. It regards the ability to hold office (in six states its illegal for an atheist to hold office https://www.google.com...). It also regards the equality in the justice system (blacks are like seven times more likely to be stopped at a red light or something crazy like that). Political equality extends beyond just voting

That's fair. There's far too many things like that to cover in one post, though.

, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual.

What? This isn't true, each citizen has 1 vote. A poor person casts the same amount of votes as a rich person, being that its 1 vote. The only way that a rich person has more influence is if they endorse a candidate and say they are voting for someone, but what they actually vote for is still private. By endorsing a candidate they could influence others to also vote for them, but that isn't really an issue of equality as votes are still equal.

I would agree. I was only reproducing the argument for consideration.

Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

I think that it is the duty of the government to provide equal opportunity. Not having equal opportunity in a society is an unjust society and the government is failing its citizens. The government does not have to ensure equality of outcome, but as long as opportunity is equal then they can work on outcome if they want. BUt thats not a duty, its an extra

So, do you support affirmative action in college admissions? Or, do you support that businesses should be required to pay men and women equal pay?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:21:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:50:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

I'm in favor of equality of opportunity on an economic, not racial, basis - and a minimum of sorts for outcome (food, shelter, healthcare, education).

Alright. That's sensible.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:22:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:59:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
Equality is a word tossed around quite a bit in the political spectrum, particularly by progressives desiring change from apparent preferential treatment to certain groups or races. Yet, equality isn't cement in interpretation. For example, political equality is available in that each individual (1) person gets a single (1) vote, yet some argue the single vote of a poor, common person is of less value or influence than the vote of a wealthy, socially esteemed individual. Political equality then appears less "equal." Of course, the obvious response to this would be pursuing social equality to ensure actual political equality (votes having the same influence).

My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome? For example, equal opportunity is each person have the same chance to succeed in life. But, just because the same chance is given doesn't always assure the outcome will also be equal. Former US president Lyndon B. Johnson said: "It is not enough to just open the gates of opportunity... we seek... not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and equality as a result." This leads to ideals supporting redistribution of wealth and such to ensure economic and social equality are a reality. The US has already taken some measures towards equality of outcome, successful or otherwise. For example, in 2003, the SCOTUS approved affirmative action of preferential treatment in college admissions towards minorities.

So, is it the duty of government to provide equality of opportunity, or must they also exert their power to ensure equality of outcome? All comments welcome.

Equality of opportunity, which for me includes the constant dispersion of the means of production as widely as is feasible.

That's fair.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:25:34 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 6:41:53 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
My central thought for my thread is this: is it enough for government to provide equal opportunity, or must it ensure equality of outcome?

I think its nuanced. Some equality of outcome is necessary to ensure equality of opportunity. For instance, I think everyone is entitled to the equal outcome of healthcare (medically necessary healthcare, that is) so that everyone has equal opportunities. Health is a major factor in your ability to succeed; an ill person cannot possibly have the same opportunities as a healthy one. These kinds of things are baseline "capabilities" that are necessary for human flourishing, and for everyone to be able to have equal opportunity.

1harder said something similar.

That being said, if you have too much equality of results/outcomes, then you limit equality of opportunity. In a communist society for instance, where a set number of goods need to be produced, we may need 10 farmers but only 2 cooks. 8 people are never going to be offered a shot at becoming a cook, even if that's what they'd liked to do. Everything is proscribed for them.

It's a balance, and you need to find a way of striking it. But you absolutely cannot *only* have equality of opportunity or *only* equality of results, because neither system is truly equitable/fair or morally coherent. At least, that's how I approach it.

I agree. It can't be strictly one or the other, it simply won't work that way.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:27:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

Lol, yes. xD
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:33:00 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 4:02:28 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:18:41 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:02:50 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
Remember that Democrats are the one whom have helped to lower racial equality. The Liberal welfare state has put several Blacks into a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty. It can also be attributed to the breaking of Black families, hence the reason why many black children are without a father.

I find it funny how the far-left champion themselves as "defenders of social justice and equality."

The far-left want a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty for all. That is true equality.

If everyone is equally destitute, then it's fine for the left.

If everyone is poor, no one will be.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/25/2016 4:21:16 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 8/25/2016 5:50:29 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:47:38 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
I'm in favor of equality of opportunity on an economic, not racial, basis - and a minimum of sorts for outcome (food, shelter, healthcare, education).

Alright. That's sensible.

What Bsh said is a good marker for my take on this. Also, giving a base equality of outcome is good for people's children's opportunity, reducing the work needed to be done there.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King