- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Equality and Fairness do not mean the same thing
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:08 pm
It has always bothered me that we see those fighting for justice, equality and fairness, yet they refuse to accept that those three aspects will not always work in the favor of their goals.
In true equality, their are no advantages given to any one side. Thus, you can clamor for equality, but I doubt you'll be happy with the results.
You can clamor for justice, but the results of justice will not free a bunch of minorities. Justice is exacted when the punishment fits the crime. This doesn't work when you are trying to give excuses for a defendant. Theft is theft. Murder is Murder. The levels of those crimes may change, but the results do not, and thus the punishments should not.
Finally, fairness. What is fairness to most people? Is it for all people to be exactly the same? Have exactly the same? If that is the case, then it cannot survive with justice and fairness.
The point I am making is we live in a world where these three things are not striven after for what they actually mean, but for some convoluted version that best fits that person's agenda.
Fact is the world isn't fair, and equality and justice don't guarantee fairness.
In true equality, their are no advantages given to any one side. Thus, you can clamor for equality, but I doubt you'll be happy with the results.
You can clamor for justice, but the results of justice will not free a bunch of minorities. Justice is exacted when the punishment fits the crime. This doesn't work when you are trying to give excuses for a defendant. Theft is theft. Murder is Murder. The levels of those crimes may change, but the results do not, and thus the punishments should not.
Finally, fairness. What is fairness to most people? Is it for all people to be exactly the same? Have exactly the same? If that is the case, then it cannot survive with justice and fairness.
The point I am making is we live in a world where these three things are not striven after for what they actually mean, but for some convoluted version that best fits that person's agenda.
Fact is the world isn't fair, and equality and justice don't guarantee fairness.
4
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:15 pm to Geauxgurt
Neither do Rep & conservative
People don't want equality & fairness; they want free shite.
People don't want equality & fairness; they want free shite.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:19 pm to Geauxgurt
The problem with the current "equality" philosophy is that it tries to equate equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. By similar measure it tries to replace "fairness" with "equity".
For example:
In the early 90's I worked at a light rock station, we had no black employees. We didn't have black employees not because of some racist hiring policy but because none applied to positions (not just none that were not qualified, but none PERIOD). The owners were trying to win a new CP (Construction Permit) for a new station so the FCC was looking them over and made note of this situation.
To satisfy the fairness (which is what government goes after because on its surface it's easier to determine) we had to go out to Southern and actively recruit for a position we had to create just to appease the FCC so the owners would have a smoother path in getting the CP.
For example:
In the early 90's I worked at a light rock station, we had no black employees. We didn't have black employees not because of some racist hiring policy but because none applied to positions (not just none that were not qualified, but none PERIOD). The owners were trying to win a new CP (Construction Permit) for a new station so the FCC was looking them over and made note of this situation.
To satisfy the fairness (which is what government goes after because on its surface it's easier to determine) we had to go out to Southern and actively recruit for a position we had to create just to appease the FCC so the owners would have a smoother path in getting the CP.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:21 pm to Geauxgurt
In a free society, people are equal in opportunity, not outcome.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:41 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
In a free society, people are equal in opportunity
Not really. Nature made people extremely unequal. If I was born with an IQ of 130 and you with an IQ of 90 then I have waaaay more opportunities than you. You are automatically excluded from 100s of well paying occupations at the time of your birth.
In a free society people can achieve according to their abilities and their choices in life. It means freedom from govt determining winners and losers. When govt tries to tilt the table against nature in order to achieve equality then govt always loses and nature wins.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:45 pm to Zach
Well, yeah. People have different abilities. The point is that the society supports equal opportunity. What you are saying doesn't change the validity of my post.
This post was edited on 2/27/17 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:49 pm to Zach
quote:Interestingly IQ tests are a prime example of this very topic. In other words, a "fair" test isn't determined by the equality or the scores, it's determined by the relationships internally and externally.
If I was born with an IQ of 130 and you with an IQ of 90 then
So if you have a test that says Group A is higher than Group B, but it can just accurately predict a slew of outcomes, then the test is fair, even if unequal.
It directly comparable to opportunities (IQ test) and outcomes in other areas.
Posted on 2/27/17 at 1:50 pm to Geauxgurt
no kidding, I like to think of it in terms of sports because it is easy to layout
Let us say by some freak miracle of nature a woman were good enough to play on a men's team and she was allowed to do so. Equality would say that if a man were good enough to play on a women's team but not a men's team, he should be allowed to do play on a woman's team
Let us say by some freak miracle of nature a woman were good enough to play on a men's team and she was allowed to do so. Equality would say that if a man were good enough to play on a women's team but not a men's team, he should be allowed to do play on a woman's team
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News