PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Results


petegz28
12-11-2009, 09:39 AM
I don't know if any of you saw the thread I made with the video of the Lt. Col. who is running for Congress, but he made a great point. And that is we are all guaranteed equal oppotunity, not equal results.

It seems many on the Left feel that they are entitled to equal results as opposed to the equal oppotunity to acheive such results.

Discuss....

banyon
12-11-2009, 10:20 AM
I don't know anyone who feels that people are "entitled to equal results".

I think that's a convenient strawman to hold up when people on the right don't want to acknowledge a difference in equality of opportunity.

fan4ever
12-11-2009, 10:25 AM
Did you read the Green Party's "Economic Bill of Rights" posted the other day? Sure smacked of the "equal results" thought process to me.

I know the Green Party doesn't speak for liberals in general, but I think a lot of the left thinks that way.

Baby Lee
12-11-2009, 10:38 AM
I don't know anyone who feels that people are "entitled to equal results".

I think that's a convenient strawman to hold up when people on the right don't want to acknowledge a difference in equality of opportunity.

The distinction without a difference comes when people offer inequality of results as evidence of inequality of opportunity.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 10:40 AM
I don't know if any of you saw the thread I made with the video of the Lt. Col. who is running for Congress, but he made a great point. And that is we are all guaranteed equal oppotunity, not equal results.

It seems many on the Left feel that they are entitled to equal results as opposed to the equal oppotunity to acheive such results.

Discuss....

Racist.

banyon
12-11-2009, 10:41 AM
The distinction without a difference comes when people offer inequality of results as evidence of inequality of opportunity.

It can certainly be a correlation which may want you to check to see if there is in fact a cause. is there something wrong with using it that way?

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 10:43 AM
Often the case is that for those who fail to achieve the result, the blame is on lack of opportunity instead of taking responsibility personally for the failure.

Baby Lee
12-11-2009, 10:45 AM
It can certainly be a correlation which may want you to check to see if there is in fact a cause. is there something wrong with using it that way?

Certainly, if logic and sound analysis are ancillary concerns, or if you decline to see any distinction between correlation and evidence.

banyon
12-11-2009, 10:47 AM
Certainly, if logic and sound analysis are ancillary concerns, or if you decline to see any distinction between correlation and evidence.

You think it's illogical to look for causal relationships among correlations?

Baby Lee
12-11-2009, 10:48 AM
bee-yo, reread post 4, slowly and carefully.

banyon
12-11-2009, 10:49 AM
bee-yo, reread post 4, slowly and carefully.

I guess I disagree that what you allege there is a common phenomenon. Perhaps you have a noteworthy example?

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 10:52 AM
The need for equal opportunity is one of the primary reasons that I am as left as I am. I realize that that sounds absolutely backwards for many of you. I'm no egalitarian. But I don't see the market -- free, deregulated, what have you -- as providing that equality of opportunity. (Not that I see government as a total savior either.)

Baby Lee
12-11-2009, 10:54 AM
I guess I disagree that what you allege there is a common phenomenon. Perhaps you have a noteworthy example?

You're better than this.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 10:54 AM
Do we believe we have equal opportunity to fail?

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 10:57 AM
Do we believe we have equal opportunity to fail?
Fuck no. Sure, everyone can fail but it's a Hell of a lot easier for some. A lot of people in this country are up to their ears in failure just for being born.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 10:58 AM
Do we believe we have equal opportunity to fail?


Surely you are not that naive? :spock:

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 11:02 AM
I guess I am.

Do you think that the opportunity to fail is different for one vs another?

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:04 AM
Pressure makes diamonds.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 11:04 AM
I guess I am.

Do you think that the opportunity to fail is different for one vs another?


You honestly believe a baby born to a crack whore in Harlem and who meanders through a pathetic hand-to-mouth existence....has the same odds of becoming President as George Bush, or even Barack Obama?

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 11:05 AM
Pressure makes diamonds.

It can. But humans are not hunks of carbon.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:06 AM
You honestly believe a baby born to a crack whore in Harlem and who meanders through a pathetic hand-to-mouth existence....has the same odds of becoming President as George Bush, or even Barack Obama?

Do you believe that resources should be taken from someone else and given to that crack baby?

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:08 AM
It can. But humans are not hunks of carbon.

Whoever said that life was fair? It's a tough world out there; survival of the fittest is necessary to allow the strongest to flourish. Only then can the strong care for the weak to the best of their ability and inclination.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 11:08 AM
I think that crack whore made choices that got her there. Thats one.

I think that crack baby will make choices just like you did or I did. I believe the opportunity to make the right decisions is equal and I believe that those decisions are the individuals responsibility.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 11:09 AM
Do you believe that resources should be taken from someone else and given to that crack baby?

Do you believe that talented or weathly folks are entitled to the endless opportunities that this country uniquely provides to them, that are not available elsewhere to the degree they are here....comes with no social or moral obligations to the general welfare and public good of our society?

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 11:11 AM
I think that crack whore made choices that got her there. Thats one.

I think that crack baby will make choices just like you did or I did. I believe the opportunity to make the right decisions is equal and I believe that those decisions are the individuals responsibility.

You possess knowledge of psychological, emotional, and intellectual development of children....of a Neanderthal. Or a monkey.

Congrats. :shake:

fan4ever
12-11-2009, 11:12 AM
You honestly believe a baby born to a crack whore in Harlem and who meanders through a pathetic hand-to-mouth existence....has the same odds of becoming President as George Bush, or even Barack Obama?

Same odds; of course not. Same opportunity; yes.

We'll never be able to even up odds for everyone.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:12 AM
Do you believe that talented or weathly folks are entitled to the endless opportunities that this country uniquely provides to them, that are not available elsewhere to the degree they are here....comes with no social or moral obligations to the general welfare and public good of our society?

Is it a benefit to society to weaken the strong in order to try and strengthen the weak?
Those endless opportunities you mention did not fall from the sky. They were created by the wealthy, the talented, the hard working. Are not the creators of those benefits entitled to reap the fruits of their labor?

Brock
12-11-2009, 11:14 AM
People aren't obligated to take care of their own kids, much less anyone else's.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 11:16 AM
You possess knowledge of psychological, emotional, and intellectual development of children....of a Neanderthal. Or a monkey.

Congrats. :shake:

Thats pretty shallow Kotter. If you want to make a case, make it. For goodness sakes man dont drop to the level of I disagree I think Ill call you a name. Grow the fuck up and act like a damn educator if you expect to have the respect shown that you deserve.

Lets try it this way. In that rat infested sewer of a place full of Crack whores, do all of the residents end up as second, third and forth generation crack whores? Or do some rise above it and become a success?

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Thats pretty shallow Kotter. If you want to make a case, make it. For goodness sakes man dont drop to the level of I disagree I think Ill call you a name. Grow the **** up and act like a damn educator if you expect to have the respect shown that you deserve.

Lets try it this way. In that rat infested sewer of a place full of Crack whores, do all of the residents end up as second, third and forth generation crack whores? Or do some rise above it and become a success?

Sorry; don't have time for lengthy discourse. This isn't a classroom; it's a frig-gin' bulletin board.

Seriously, anyone with rudimentary understanding of child development understands what I'm talking about. Obviously, you don't. Sorry if that is painful for you.

To write off children because of the sins of their parents....talk about shallow? Please; spare me.

:shake:

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 11:19 AM
Lets try it this way. In that rat infested sewer of a place full of Crack whores, do all of the residents end up as second, third and forth generation crack whores? Or do some rise above it and become a success?
Some succeed. More should and if the opportunities were equal the successes and failures would be more even.

The reason that only a very, very few succeed in that scenario is because one's ability to succeed is not limited to individual choices. Because... wait for it... the opportunities are not equal.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 11:25 AM
Some succeed. More should and if the opportunities were equal the successes and failures would be more even.

The reason that only a very, very few succeed in that scenario is because one's ability to succeed is not limited to individual choices. Because... wait for it... the opportunities are not equal.

I agree only to an extent, the opportunity to escape and make a better life should be greater. But it still exists. People are not forced to live without change. If an individual decides they want to escape that environment and work to be better for themselves it is possible. Its not easy and it may be a really hard way to go. But we have the opportunity.

Because some fail to make good choices, or becuase they fail to put forth the effort...that does not say the opportunity is not there.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:28 AM
Some succeed. More should and if the opportunities were equal the successes and failures would be more even.
The reason that only a very, very few succeed in that scenario is because one's ability to succeed is not limited to individual choices. Because... wait for it... the opportunities are not equal.

Comrade Reaper you do us proud.

penchief
12-11-2009, 11:31 AM
I don't know if any of you saw the thread I made with the video of the Lt. Col. who is running for Congress, but he made a great point. And that is we are all guaranteed equal oppotunity, not equal results.

It seems many on the Left feel that they are entitled to equal results as opposed to the equal oppotunity to acheive such results.

Discuss....

Who on the left are you referring to? Equal opportunity is all that I have ever advocated. It seems many on the right want to equate the goal of equal opportunity to an outcry for equal results.

Equal opportunity, equal access, and equal justice are the elements of universal liberty. Without those things there cannot be universal liberty. And there is no true liberty unless it is universally guaranteed, IMO.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 11:33 AM
failures in every endeavor I would bet are far greater than successes. Think about a resturaunt business. Isnt the failure rate in the high 70% range?

What % of High school students entering Freshman year graduate?

What % of Graduates score high enough on ACT to get into a Big 10 or Big 12 school?

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 11:39 AM
For the record, you can believe in equality of opportunity and equality of results. They're not mutually exclusive.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 11:40 AM
You possess knowledge of psychological, emotional, and intellectual development of children....of a Neanderthal. Or a monkey.

Congrats. :shake:

I thought of you reading the OP -- isn't the notion of equality of opportunity vs. the equality of outcome like the first thing you teach in a political science 101 class?

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 11:42 AM
Pressure makes diamonds.

Hunger can be a great motivator.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 11:54 AM
Hunger can be a great motivator.

As can desire, work ethic, need, family pressure, crying kids, pride, self respect, etc.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 12:39 PM
I thought of you reading the OP -- isn't the notion of equality of opportunity vs. the equality of outcome like the first thing you teach in a political science 101 class?

Basic concept, yup. Chapter one.

What's missing from some with their understanding of the notion though, is that it is ONE of the concepts--not the only one.

It's balanced by notions like general welfare, public good, and the social contract; but that's probably asking a lot for folks to grasp when they don't even have an elementary understanding of child development and the impact of nature versus nurture....so I chose not to go there.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 12:53 PM
As can desire, work ethic, need, family pressure, crying kids, pride, self respect, etc.

Well as long as you believe that hunger can be a great motivator...

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 12:54 PM
As can desire, work ethic, need, family pressure, crying kids, pride, self respect, etc.

There are many, many successful people who, had they faced the obstacles that others have had to overcome....would be living in poverty and squalor--assuming they'd survive at all.

Ambition, work ethic, perseverance are....VERY important to success. However, care as an infant-child rearing (especially during impressionable early years,) socio-economic circumstances, parenting, role models, education, education level of family members, substance abuse by loved ones, and a myriad of other sociological demographics....each, can have a profound affect on the development of children.

Every kid, due to the great variety of factors that can impact development, confronts and handles every "opportunity" differently. As educators, like it or not....right or wrong, society has ceded/handed-over the responsibility for mitigating the negative impact of these factors, and to instill skills, a work ethic, intellect, and most importantly a resiliency that will empower kids to overcome whatever their circumstances.

It's much easier with some kids than with others, obviously; but to say that every kid is given an equal opportunity....is simply ignorant.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Basic concept, yup. Chapter one.

What's missing from some with their understanding of the notion though, is that it is ONE of the concepts--not the only one.

It's balanced by notions like general welfare, public good, and the social contract; but that's probably asking a lot for folks to grasp when they don't even have an elementary understanding of child development and the impact of nature versus nurture....so I chose not to go there.

That's kind of what I find myself doing on here far more than I should, debating political science 101 when I wish some of the discourse was less rudimentory.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 12:59 PM
but to say that every kid is given an equal opportunity....is simply ignorant.

Right.

I mean, it's something to say that we're working to create equal opportunity, and that this is our true ideal. But much different to say that we're there.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 01:55 PM
Well as long as you believe that hunger can be a great motivator...

You don't?

vailpass
12-11-2009, 01:57 PM
There are many, many successful people who, had they faced the obstacles that others have had to overcome....would be living in poverty and squalor--assuming they'd survive at all.

Ambition, work ethic, perseverance are....VERY important to success. However, care as an infant-child rearing (especially during impressionable early years,) socio-economic circumstances, parenting, role models, education, education level of family members, substance abuse by loved ones, and a myriad of other sociological demographics....each, can have a profound affect on the development of children.

Every kid, due to the great variety of factors that can impact development, confronts and handles every "opportunity" differently. As educators, like it or not....right or wrong, society has ceded/handed-over the responsibility for mitigating the negative impact of these factors, and to instill skills, a work ethic, intellect, and most importantly a resiliency that will empower kids to overcome whatever their circumstances.

It's much easier with some kids than with others, obviously; but to say that every kid is given an equal opportunity....is simply ignorant.

Yes of course and I"m glad that you as an educator take that tact. I'm sorry to have come across so antagonistically. It is completely sad that parents expect educators to parent their children.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 02:32 PM
There are many, many successful people who, had they faced the obstacles that others have had to overcome....would be living in poverty and squalor--assuming they'd survive at all.

Ambition, work ethic, perseverance are....VERY important to success. However, care as an infant-child rearing (especially during impressionable early years,) socio-economic circumstances, parenting, role models, education, education level of family members, substance abuse by loved ones, and a myriad of other sociological demographics....each, can have a profound affect on the development of children.

Every kid, due to the great variety of factors that can impact development, confronts and handles every "opportunity" differently. As educators, like it or not....right or wrong, society has ceded/handed-over the responsibility for mitigating the negative impact of these factors, and to instill skills, a work ethic, intellect, and most importantly a resiliency that will empower kids to overcome whatever their circumstances.

It's much easier with some kids than with others, obviously; but to say that every kid is given an equal opportunity....is simply ignorant.

Everything you said up to the last line is a truth. Well done.

We all have equal opportunity, we just dont all come to the party with equal ability or talent.

I had the opportunity to learn to play Basketball but I did not, could not and never would have had the necessary elements to be successful. Did I have the same opportunity as everyone else?

Every individual is not supplied with the exact same skills, thus some people are wonderful at math, others can write and cannot balance a checkbook. Some are gifted speakers others cannot face a crowd.

We all know a blind baby will not go on to pilot the space shuttle. But there are opportunities for everyone to excel in some manner if they have the will, desire, and motivation.

We all have the right to fail. Most of us do. Some regroup from failure learn from it and move on to try again. Others find it much easier to fail and blame the system or whatever blameable thing is closest to them.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 02:36 PM
Kotter,

How can we even aspire to "equal opportunity" when parents' individual rearing choices are constitutionally protected?

The desire of social engineers to provide equal opportunity to children seems incompatible with "parental rights".

In fact, sociobiology works against this dream. Darwinian behavioral selection will operate to drive successful parents to create as unequal opportunities for their children as they can. Do you really expect a billionare to not hire the best tutors, send his children to the best schools, provide plastic surgery to give his children an appearance edge, utilitize genetic modification (when it becomes available) to give his children genetic competitive advantages? But, even billionares with equal resources are unlikley to make the same rearing choices, consequently their children won't have equal opportunity.

So, I now ask you, what do you really mean by "equal opportunity", since, obviously, that cannot happen while parents are free to make rearing choices.

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Everything you said up to the last line is a truth. Well done.
This does not make sense. If you agreed with Kotter then it would follow that you'd see that we don't have equal opportunity.

Your definition of equal opportunity is insane. Just because success is possible for all Americans does not mean that all Americans have equal opportunity to achieve it.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 02:48 PM
We all have the opportunity to get in the race. Thats Opportunity. We wont all finish and only a few win.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 02:49 PM
Everything you said up to the last line is a truth. Well done.

We all have equal opportunity, we just dont all come to the party with equal ability or talent.

I had the opportunity to learn to play Basketball but I did not, could not and never would have had the necessary elements to be successful. Did I have the same opportunity as everyone else?

Every individual is not supplied with the exact same skills, thus some people are wonderful at math, others can write and cannot balance a checkbook. Some are gifted speakers others cannot face a crowd.

We all know a blind baby will not go on to pilot the space shuttle. But there are opportunities for everyone to excel in some manner if they have the will, desire, and motivation.

We all have the right to fail. Most of us do. Some regroup from failure learn from it and move on to try again. Others find it much easier to fail and blame the system or whatever blameable thing is closest to them.

You still don't seem to get the real point:

All of us have opportunities, yes. Those opportunities are NOT equal though.

Thankfully, most Americans understand that as a society we have a moral obligation to ameliorate inequities that can, in a reasonably cost-effective way, help those who face significant obstacles (especially obtacles not of their own making) to equip themselves with skills and an education to overcome those obstacles.

As a society, it is in all of our best interests to do so. It may mean, additional taxes for some of us--at least in the short run. However, in the long run, reduced crime, reduced need for prison space, and an education that enables a disadvantaged kid to become a productive and tax paying citizen....is much less costly than a higher crime rate, staffing more prisons, and paying for welfare, food stamps, and medicaid for folks who were never equipped with the skills necessary to succeed....allowing them to take advantage of the opportunities that we agree DO exist.

Make no mistake though; those opportunities are far, far from "equal" in any sense of the word.

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
We all have the opportunity to get in the race. Thats Opportunity. We wont all finish and only a few win.
Some people can just drive up to the race's registration booth and sign up and line up for the race. Others have to sprint 70 miles jump over canyons, dive through flames, stave off giant panthers with lazer beam eyes, and scale 4 mountains made of melting butter in order to get to the registration booth to sign up for the race. And then they have to race.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

Direckshun
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
You don't?

I believe if you keep a kid fed well, he'll be more likely to succeed than a kid who you cannot keep fed well.

There are fewer forms of motivation shittier than hunger.

It'll motivate you, alright. But not to excel.

KC native
12-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Some people can just drive up to the race's registration booth and sign up and line up for the race. Others have to sprint 70 miles jump over canyons, dive through flames, stave off giant panthers with lazer beam eyes, and scale 4 mountains made of melting butter in order to get to the registration booth to sign up for the race. And then they have to race.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

ROFL

http://www.freewebs.com/bens80cartoons/Godzilla.jpg

vailpass
12-11-2009, 03:07 PM
I believe if you keep a kid fed well, he'll be more likely to succeed than a kid who you cannot keep fed well.

There are fewer forms of motivation shittier than hunger.

It'll motivate you, alright. But not to excel.

I believe if you put a hungry kid and a well-fed kid in a locked room with a steak in it the hungry kid is going to get that steak.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Some people can just drive up to the race's registration booth and sign up and line up for the race. Others have to sprint 70 miles jump over canyons, dive through flames, stave off giant panthers with lazer beam eyes, and scale 4 mountains made of melting butter in order to get to the registration booth to sign up for the race. And then they have to race.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

Wrong.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:09 PM
You still don't seem to get the real point:

All of us have opportunities, yes. Those opportunities are NOT equal though.

Thankfully, most Americans understand that as a society we have a moral obligation to ameliorate inequities that can, in a reasonably cost-effective way, help those who face significant obstacles (especially obtacles not of their own making) to equip themselves with skills and an education to overcome those obstacles.

As a society, it is in all of our best interests to do so.

I actually find the last line much more compelling than "moral obligation". What the heck is moral obligation other than a social buzz word for something someone else tells you you should do, for someone else's benefit?

Sigh, I suppose I'm revealing my basic education as a biologist, and my interest in sociobiological analysis.

But, I do agree with the notion that we have a common interest in trying to prevent "trashing" large groups in society. How many Einsteins do we lose because of drug use, racism and lack of opportunity?

If society functions to trash 10% of our "raw material", then we lose huge amounts of GDP, and the price of goods increases for all of us. That analysis does not even consider social instability costs.

I guess I don't like the "equal opportunity" rhetoric because its an inherent distortion that causes us to justify eternal social engineering even if we do accomplish our realistic goals.

ClevelandBronco
12-11-2009, 03:10 PM
I am in favor of neither.

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 03:13 PM
I believe if you put a hungry kid and a well-fed kid in a locked room with a steak in it the hungry kid is going to get that steak.

Hungry kids are usually that way because they are lazy. The hungry kid will sit back and demand the well-fed kid to feed him steak. The well-fed kid, being from a good family, will eat the steak because natural selection says the strongest survive. The hungry kid will die and society will be freed from another leach.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:17 PM
Some people can just drive up to the race's registration booth and sign up and line up for the race. Others have to sprint 70 miles jump over canyons, dive through flames, stave off giant panthers with lazer beam eyes, and scale 4 mountains made of melting butter in order to get to the registration booth to sign up for the race. And then they have to race.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

But, the odd thing is, many times the people who DO all those things, actually excel in the race...far beyond the guys that just drive up to the window.

Look at the billionare list. More than 70 percent of them are self made, vs. inherited money.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 03:17 PM
This is the twisted line of thought that says we shouldnt keep score in a game or we shouldnt track grades on tests. That way everybody gets to say they are a winner and everybody gets a nice prize.

Then suddenly reality hits and the real world says we reward those who produce best. If you are at any level in any role or job, those who perform in the peer group are rewarded and those who dont are not.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:26 PM
This is the twisted line of thought that says we shouldnt keep score in a game or we shouldnt track grades on tests. That way everybody gets to say they are a winner and everybody gets a nice prize.

Then suddenly reality hits and the real world says we reward those who produce best. If you are at any level in any role or job, those who perform in the peer group are rewarded and those who dont are not.


Actually, that's not exactly how our society works.

One of the interesting consequences of specialization is that people outside that specialty are often unable to determine the best performers, the best value, and the high skilled individuals.

And, because any organization requires employees with a vast multitude of specialties, we need a management class to synthesize the efforts of each group into a functining whole. Consequently, often promotions and status is decided by people who DON'T know how to identify the most effective individuals. Thus, promotion and status often goes to the members who APPEAR to be the most effective.

You know, studies show the average height of fortune 500 CEOs is 6'4". Do you really think that management ability is genetically linked to height?

petegz28
12-11-2009, 03:27 PM
Hungry kids are usually that way because they are lazy. The hungry kid will sit back and demand the well-fed kid to feed him steak. The well-fed kid, being from a good family, will eat the steak because natural selection says the strongest survive. The hungry kid will die and society will be freed from another leach.

Thus the stereo type of skinny, lazy, couch riders.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:28 PM
Hungry kids are usually that way because they are lazy. The hungry kid will sit back and demand the well-fed kid to feed him steak. The well-fed kid, being from a good family, will eat the steak because natural selection says the strongest survive. The hungry kid will die and society will be freed from another leach.

You can mock natural selection and its affect on behavior all you want, but all the social engineering in the world won't repeal it.

Brock
12-11-2009, 03:30 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that poor people are also some of the fattest ones.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 03:33 PM
Actually, that's not exactly how our society works.

One of the interesting consequences of specialization is that people outside that specialty are often unable to determine the best performers, the best value, and the high skilled individuals.

And, because any organization requires employees with a vast multitude of specialties, we need a management class to synthesize the efforts of each group into a functining whole. Consequently, often promotions and status is decided by people who DON'T know how to identify the most effective individuals. Thus, promotion and status often goes to the members who APPEAR to be the most effective.

I recall that sort of BS when we would have to do performance evaluations on all the employees. There was always someone who said that they had a specialty that cannot be evaluated by anyone who is not in that specialty. Those people are malcontents long term because they never do understand they are evaluated on what they produced or how they performed within and across work groups.

When they got poor performance ratings they never look at why they were so rated, they lash out and deny the very things included in the evaluation.

Poor them.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 03:34 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but it seems to me that poor people are also some of the fattest ones.

That's because food is relatively cheap in our society. We can pacify the poor by feeding them.

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 03:37 PM
You can mock natural selection and its affect on behavior all you want, but all the social engineering in the world won't repeal it.

Sometimes taking the good side means fighting a losing battle.

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 03:39 PM
That's because food is relatively cheap in our society. We can pacify the poor by feeding them.
/off topic That's completely true, no matter the sarcasm behind it. What is worse is that some of the worst food for you (think fast-food offerings) is available at the low cost of one dollar. Our food system is fucked.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 03:42 PM
Sometimes taking the good side means fighting a losing battle.

So God is bad???? :eek:

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 03:44 PM
/off topic That's completely true, no matter the sarcasm behind it. What is worse is that some of the worst food for you (think fast-food offerings) is available at the low cost of one dollar. Our food system is ****ed.

Thus the very origin of the phrase "Fat, dumb, and happy"?

petegz28
12-11-2009, 03:50 PM
Thus the very origin of the phrase "Fat, dumb, and happy"?

On my recent vacation to San Francisco I saw several of the homeless and poor. One that stood out was the 400 lb man sitting outside of McDonald's begging for a hamburger. :eek:

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 03:55 PM
So God is bad???? :eek:

No, God is good.

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 03:56 PM
On my recent vacation to San Francisco I saw several of the homeless and poor. One that stood out was the 400 lb man sitting outside of McDonald's begging for a hamburger. :eek:

What does this tell us?

petegz28
12-11-2009, 03:57 PM
No, God is good.

But God created the whole "survival of the fittest" gig, did he not?

2bikemike
12-11-2009, 03:57 PM
It is impossible to have entirely equal opportunity. There will alway be those who have more opportunity than others simply because of their socio-economic status or because they have more or less brain power than someone else. But everybody does have opportunity to change their lot in life and become somewhat successul. My life is a good representative of that fact.

IMHO the problems we face today is that too many people want to blame their lot in life on their childhood or whatever. Well I say get over it and do something about it. The more the Govt. handouts that are given the more you enable people to continue on their chosen path and creates a class of people dependant on the Govt. for basic subsistence.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 03:58 PM
What does this tell us?

Not sure since there was a twig man sitting with him begging for the same thing.

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 03:59 PM
But God created the whole "survival of the fittest" gig, did he not?

Not directly at all.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 04:00 PM
It is impossible to have entirely equal opportunity. There will alway be those who have more opportunity than others simply because of their socio-economic status or because they have more or less brain power than someone else. But everybody does have opportunity to change their lot in life and become somewhat successul. My life is a good representative of that fact.

IMHO the problems we face today is that too many people want to blame their lot in life on their childhood or whatever. Well I say get over it and do something about it. The more the Govt. handouts that are given the more you enable people to continue on their chosen path and creates a class of people dependant on the Govt. for basic subsistence.

I have\had a buddy who blames his drug addiction and sparse work record on the fact that his dad, who he has not lived with since he was 12, was an abusive alcholic.

I asked him several times if he udnerstands that being a lazy, drug addict is wrong? And of course he says yes. So then I ask him WTF his dad has to do with him being almost 40 and a lazy drug addict if he knows it is wrong?

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 04:01 PM
What does this tell us?

If the MacD's were further apart, he could drop a few pounds?

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 04:01 PM
Not sure since there was a twig man sitting with him begging for the same thing.

Either the twig man needs a new location or he is trying to generate sympathy in a theoretically effective way. Did you see anyone give them food or money?

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 04:03 PM
Not sure since there was a twig man sitting with him begging for the same thing.

Bet you a biggie Fry the twig guy gets more done in a day.

vailpass
12-11-2009, 04:05 PM
Hungry kids are usually that way because they are lazy. The hungry kid will sit back and demand the well-fed kid to feed him steak. The well-fed kid, being from a good family, will eat the steak because natural selection says the strongest survive. The hungry kid will die and society will be freed from another leach.

Easy kid, you and I are on the same team on a lot of issues. Human compassion and social responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 04:06 PM
Either the twig man needs a new location or he is trying to generate sympathy in a theoretically effective way. Did you see anyone give them food or money?

no

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 04:07 PM
I recall that sort of BS when we would have to do performance evaluations on all the employees. There was always someone who said that they had a specialty that cannot be evaluated by anyone who is not in that specialty. Those people are malcontents long term because they never do understand they are evaluated on what they produced or how they performed within and across work groups.

When they got poor performance ratings they never look at why they were so rated, they lash out and deny the very things included in the evaluation.

Poor them.

Sure, denial is always going to exist, and people always manipulate their perception of reality to make themselves look better within their own mind.

Yet, if promotions and evaluations are purely accurate, do you really think that the average fortune 500 CEO would be 6'4" or that physically attractive people would make more money than their unattractive peers?

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 04:10 PM
Sure, denial is always going to exist, and people always manipulate their perception of reality to make themselves look better within their own mind.

Yet, if promotions and evaluations are purely accurate, do you really think that the average fortune 500 CEO would be 6'4" or that physically attractive people would make more money than their unattractive peers?

Perhaps tall guys do better than short guys who dont get promoted and blame it on the fact they are short rather than understand its competence not height that made the difference.

How do you define unattractive? Tall we can measure. Ugly we can't.

2bikemike
12-11-2009, 04:10 PM
I have\had a buddy who blames his drug addiction and sparse work record on the fact that his dad, who he has not lived with since he was 12, was an abusive alcholic.

I asked him several times if he udnerstands that being a lazy, drug addict is wrong? And of course he says yes. So then I ask him WTF his dad has to do with him being almost 40 and a lazy drug addict if he knows it is wrong?

Yeah I have somewhat the same situation with my brother. Our father left when we were 11 and 12 and he wasn't around much before he left. My brother hasn't worked in 11 years. My siblings and I took care of him for about 5 years when I said enough is enough. Told my siblings we aren't helping him were enabling him so we cut him off. I don't know how he survives but he does. I do know the Govt isn't funding him.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 04:47 PM
Perhaps tall guys do better than short guys who dont get promoted and blame it on the fact they are short rather than understand its competence not height that made the difference.

How do you define unattractive? Tall we can measure. Ugly we can't.

Yeah, there are limits to "attractiveness" research, but there have been some pretty interesting studies done.

For example, one study had different teachers give identical lectures to various groups of students. Interestingly enough, teachers that the students percieved to be more attractive also were percieved to be more intelligent and more competent (e.g. there was a positive correlation btw percieved attractiveness and how well the students thought they did their job, while giving the same lecture).

As for the CEO thing, your response is that tall guys didn't have a "failure" excuse that the short guys did..is that your reasoning? Sounds pretty complicated to me, like you're biased against concluding that there's a perception difference.

You might have an argument if research didn't also show that successful entrepenuers tend to be SHORTER than average. Since I highly doubt business acumen is genetically linked to height, and since short entrepenuers don't tend to suffer from an "excuse burden", I suspect the difference is in how their performance is percieved in a corporate setting, and vs. the actual marketplace.

What seems to me to be happening is that highly skilled tall executives tend to do well within established organizations, so, consequently, don't seek to leave and take an entrepenuer's risk. While highly skilled short guys often percieve themselves short changed (gee...the bias is in the LANGUAGE TOO), by organizational perceptions, which drives them to the higher risk entrepenuerial path.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 04:53 PM
No, my reasoning is that height or appearance is a correlation after the fact and cannot be used to evaluate ones rise in a company. Thats beautiful acedemic froo froo that has been around since I was in college.

Most all fortune 500 companies have on staff a Corp Psych who deals with this sort of mumbo jumbo every day. They work hard to ensure that evaluation is done well, that its consistant, and repeatable. As well as having in most cases anymore 360 feedback that is tabulated by outside or impartial internal stat people.

At the end of consensus on the employee, you dont ask those two key questions...how tall is she/he, or on a scale of 1-10 give me an ugly rating.

HonestChieffan
12-11-2009, 05:04 PM
You may want to read on the use of the pygmalion effect in management.

That is the issue you describe in the teacher example. In management there are some theories and some rather good examples of success where by management establishes higher goals and expectatiuons because people tend to demonstrate they will actually achive more if the management expectation is that they can. In a few examples higher performing managers were found to be those who set the highest expectations of their subordinates.

In some respects what goes on in school is the opposite, where the teacher makes a subliminal jugdgement that Bobby isnt quite as smart as Sally. And there are data to show Bobby wont get as good a grade as Sally as a result. The student lives up to the expectation.

Its actually some very interesting work.

It also begs the question of if in fact these are real, then why are we surprised when we implement social programs in government that establish that the expectation is you can live off the handout forever...and they do.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 05:27 PM
Not directly at all.

Oh, he didn't? Sp God didn't create nature then, heh? I see.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 05:47 PM
You may want to read on the use of the pygmalion effect in management.

That is the issue you describe in the teacher example. In management there are some theories and some rather good examples of success where by management establishes higher goals and expectatiuons because people tend to demonstrate they will actually achive more if the management expectation is that they can. In a few examples higher performing managers were found to be those who set the highest expectations of their subordinates.

In some respects what goes on in school is the opposite, where the teacher makes a subliminal jugdgement that Bobby isnt quite as smart as Sally. And there are data to show Bobby wont get as good a grade as Sally as a result. The student lives up to the expectation.

Its actually some very interesting work.

It also begs the question of if in fact these are real, then why are we surprised when we implement social programs in government that establish that the expectation is you can live off the handout forever...and they do.


Hmmm...I'm not so sure the pygmalion effect is what's driving that teacher study, because 1) the different teachers gave the same lecture, hence there was no significant "performance" difference 2) that theory assumes that attractiveness leads to higher student expectations, which may not necessarily be true.

Even so, that pygmalion effect is interesting and certainly might play a role in how welfare affects the recipients' performance.

I would like to learn more about management theories. I'm one of those short entrepenuers and in our very small organizations we really don't have the management skills that large organizations must develop.

Part of that is lack of resources. Part of it is simply that entrepenuerial ventures succeed based on attacking an unoccupied market niche, techinical innovation or a business model that larger competitors are reluctant to adopt. In the early stages, a successful venture will typically have way above normal profit margins. As such, its not usually managerial skill that makes them succeed (of course, entrepenuerial ventures usually fail), its strategic position and mobility.

Once you prove the concept, entrepnuers bring in skilled managers to handle the increased managerial problems due to scale.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 05:50 PM
Kotter,

How can we even aspire to "equal opportunity" when parents' individual rearing choices are constitutionally protected?

The desire of social engineers to provide equal opportunity to children seems incompatible with "parental rights".

In fact, sociobiology works against this dream. Darwinian behavioral selection will operate to drive successful parents to create as unequal opportunities for their children as they can. Do you really expect a billionare to not hire the best tutors, send his children to the best schools, provide plastic surgery to give his children an appearance edge, utilitize genetic modification (when it becomes available) to give his children genetic competitive advantages? But, even billionares with equal resources are unlikley to make the same rearing choices, consequently their children won't have equal opportunity.

So, I now ask you, what do you really mean by "equal opportunity", since, obviously, that cannot happen while parents are free to make rearing choices.

You are right about millionaires providing the best for their children; I have no problem with that though. What I have a problem with is millionaires, or simply upper middle class folks and above, who refuse to make very modest "sacrifices" in the form of higher taxes to fund more programs that we KNOW can help many kids--Headstart, WIC, AFDC, free and reduced lunch programs, and other similar programs. I don't understand how we can ignore children who, in many cases are nothing more than victim's of their parent's poor choices. I know we already fund many of these programs---but there are still many, many kids who "slip" through the cracks. Investing in them as children, would help to break the cycle of poverty so many are trapped in.

By equal opportunity, I mean....society removing as many significant barriers to success as we can, in a cost-effective way. I'm not talking about extravagance; I'm talking about food, shelter, and protection from abuse and neglect. While there are programs in place, they are inadequate in many places---and they lack proper supervision and over-sight because of over-burdened social workers and compliance agents. It's an investment that could likely pay HUGE dividends in the differences that it can make in the lives of many children.

Yet, ensuring that the income tax rate stays at 36% instead of 38% or 40%....is much more important in the minds of too many people. I understand, at some point we have to say enough; looking around at the prosperity of our nation though, it's hard for me to think we've reached that point yet....given the luxury and opulence I see in so many neighborhoods.

Then again, I guess being a low-life "looter"....of course I'd think that way. ;)

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 05:55 PM
This is the twisted line of thought that says we shouldnt keep score in a game or we shouldnt track grades on tests. That way everybody gets to say they are a winner and everybody gets a nice prize.

Then suddenly reality hits and the real world says we reward those who produce best. If you are at any level in any role or job, those who perform in the peer group are rewarded and those who dont are not.

Most teachers and schools loathe the trend you are addressing; but parents of the children in our schools are the ones who often demand it....

Jenson71
12-11-2009, 07:01 PM
Oh, he didn't? Sp God didn't create nature then, heh? I see.

Nature? Is survival of the fittest natural? Is that that how evolution works? Or is that the most popular way of describing it? Is that a phrase from the father of Social Darwinism or is that something God created? Let's suppose that it is nature. What else is 'nature' that might not be good? What about sex, is that natural? What about sex with children, still natural? Is that all good to God? Sometimes fighting nature is good. It's not fighting God, at least the God I believe in.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 07:18 PM
Nature? Is survival of the fittest natural? Is that that how evolution works? Or is that the most popular way of describing it? Is that a phrase from the father of Social Darwinism or is that something God created? Let's suppose that it is nature. What else is 'nature' that might not be good? What about sex, is that natural? What about sex with children, still natural? Is that all good to God? Sometimes fighting nature is good. It's not fighting God, at least the God I believe in.

Yes, survival of the fittest is natural. Sex is natural as well. Sex with children is a moral issue. You can't pick and choose what God made or how he made it.

JohnnyV13
12-11-2009, 07:28 PM
Nature? Is survival of the fittest natural? Is that that how evolution works? Or is that the most popular way of describing it? Is that a phrase from the father of Social Darwinism or is that something God created? Let's suppose that it is nature. What else is 'nature' that might not be good? What about sex, is that natural? What about sex with children, still natural? Is that all good to God? Sometimes fighting nature is good. It's not fighting God, at least the God I believe in.

Survival of the fittest actually comes from Darwin. Tho, fitness is a more complex concept than physical survival.

Basically, fitness means the ability to get your genes into the next generation rather than "survival" of the biological organism. Hence, male black widows are gaining a fitness advantage when they have sex, even though the female eats them afterwards, in order to provide food for their offspring.

By the way, sociobiology is NOT social darwinism, since sociobiology does not postulate that behavior selected by darwinian forces is MORAL behavior.

dirk digler
12-11-2009, 07:53 PM
We all have equal opportunity, we just dont all come to the party with equal ability or talent.


Sorry hcf but this is a really stupid statement. You think a kid born in the ghetto has the same opportunities as a kid that goes to Pembroke Hill?

You have to remember that kids can't choose who their parents are or where they live and go to school.

I honestly thought you were smarter than this.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Sorry hcf but this is a really stupid statement. You think a kid born in the ghetto has the same opportunities as a kid that goes to Pembroke Hill?
There is truth in what he says and there is truth in what you say.
Then again you picked an extreme example to make your point.

They don't have all of the same but they have enough things that everyone gets whereby they can still make a difference in their lives. If some people break the cycle others can. There's enough programs out there already. If some still don't make it then either the programs don't work or some people will never take advantage of them. Some just won't.

You have to remember that kids can't choose who their parents are or where they live and go to school.
That's true for all of us.

stevieray
12-11-2009, 08:18 PM
same opportunities won't garner same results...

you can give a million dolars to five diferent people form all walks of life, and they will all handle it differently...like giving them a a new truck..or a football to throw or a song to sing.

poor people rise up, rich people piss it all away.

there will always be those who are poor.

not everyone is going to be an NFL player, or a docotr, or a rock/rap star.

Mr. Kotter
12-11-2009, 08:26 PM
same oppurtunities won't garner same results...

you can give a million dolars to five diferent people form all walks of life, and they will all handle it differently.

poor people rise up, rich people piss it all away.

there will always be those who are poor.

not everyone is going to be an NFL player, or a docotr, or a rock/rap star.

Society can, and does, try to even the playing field though. Of course, different people will achieve different results given the similar opportunties. No one disputes that, really.

In a democratic society though, the deck shouldn't be completely stacked against you from birth--just because of stupid decisions by your parents. There is significant value in a free society to ensuring that no one enters the "game" down by 6 or 8 TDs.

Besides, making the playing field more "even" benefits society in the long run, by helping to make more people self-sufficient and independent. Just like most of us conservatives say we think it should be. Investing in proven programs pays huge dividends for everyone--a fact that should make any taxpayer happy.

dirk digler
12-11-2009, 08:28 PM
There is truth in what he says and there is truth in what you say.
Then again you picked an extreme example to make your point.

They don't have all of the same but they have enough things that everyone gets whereby they can still make a difference in their lives. If some people break the cycle others can. There's enough programs out there already. If some still don't make it then either the programs don't work or some people will never take advantage of them. Some just won't.


That's true for all of us.

BEP it is not an extreme example it is reality. Kids from the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as a kid that goes to a $16,000\semester school.

Given equal opportunity kids from the ghetto excel. I watched 60 minutes last Sunday about the charter school in Harlem that is being modeled for the rest of the country. They now have test scores and skills equal to students in rich neighborhoods. But prior to that school being around the opportunities were not even close.

stevieray
12-11-2009, 09:01 PM
Some people can just drive up to the race's registration booth and sign up and line up for the race. Others have to sprint 70 miles jump over canyons, dive through flames, stave off giant panthers with lazer beam eyes, and scale 4 mountains made of melting butter in order to get to the registration booth to sign up for the race. And then they have to race.

That is NOT equal opportunity.

I agree....the latter gets a sense of appreciation, a sense of self.... a sense of acheivement....perserverance, character and hope, not to mention integrity, strength and wisdom..something the former can't buy with all the money in the world.

BucEyedPea
12-11-2009, 09:06 PM
BEP it is not an extreme example it is reality. Kids from the ghetto don't have the same opportunities as a kid that goes to a $16,000\semester school.
Yeah well my mother grew up in the same conditions and she broke it. She lived in projects and on welfare due to an alcoholic father. It can be done. In fact her and her two sisters broke only she even more.

I don't wanna hear it.

Go to church and give some of your own money.

Reaper16
12-11-2009, 09:55 PM
same opportunities won't garner same results...

you can give a million dolars to five diferent people form all walks of life, and they will all handle it differently...like giving them a a new truck..or a football to throw or a song to sing.

poor people rise up, rich people piss it all away.

there will always be those who are poor.

not everyone is going to be an NFL player, or a docotr, or a rock/rap star.
That's fine if the oppurtunity is as equal as it should be. I don't have a problem with failure if that failure was caused by the choices of the individual. With too many people in America of all nations it isn't just up to an individual's decisions.

petegz28
12-11-2009, 11:36 PM
That's fine if the oppurtunity is as equal as it should be. I don't have a problem with failure if that failure was caused by the choices of the individual. With too many people in America of all nations it isn't just up to an individual's decisions.

Not true. Your argument is based on everyone having an equal starting position and that is out of the realm of reality. Life is a domino effect to a certain point. The choices the parent makes effects the child's starting point. It is unrealistic to think everyone can have the same starting point. It just is a fact of life that people won't. That doesn't change the fact that the same opportunities in general are there for everyone. Some may be able to take advantage of those opportunities easier than others but then again, that is just how life works.

People are not equal in their creation, therefore life is inherantly unfair to a degree.

As far as this country goes, we provide the best opportunities for everyone more than any other country. That is why people move here to take advantage of them and not the other way around.

SNR
12-11-2009, 11:42 PM
I just have a quick comment

One other side note about all of this is that it's difficult for some people to "break free" from bad stuff in their childhood simply because "breaking free" isn't a part of their culture. The best example I can use is a few Native American reservations. The Lakota tribe about 80 miles away from me is pretty impoverished. Know why? Lakota culture places importance on family and tribe, not on "breaking free" from them. Their children are raised to stay at home or close by and take care of their family and neighbors. Studying hard, going to college, and moving away to a high-paying job simply isn't DESIRABLE to them.

It's true, most of them live on government handouts, and there's a lot of crime in the impoverished area, but imposing the ideas of what it means to be successful onto that reservation is not only impossible, to me it's also simply not the moral thing to do.

Okay, I'm done.

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 05:15 AM
Yes, survival of the fittest is natural. Sex is natural as well. Sex with children is a moral issue. You can't pick and choose what God made or how he made it.

My argument is obviously against social darwinism. In that sense, survival of the fittest is a moral issue. We have a moral obligation to help, protect, reach out to those who are not the "fittest" of society. The poor, the minority, the disabled, the sick and dying, the children, etc.

HonestChieffan
12-12-2009, 05:36 AM
Sorry hcf but this is a really stupid statement. You think a kid born in the ghetto has the same opportunities as a kid that goes to Pembroke Hill?

You have to remember that kids can't choose who their parents are or where they live and go to school.

I honestly thought you were smarter than this.

Well Dirk, that is why we have Opportunity on one side and skills/ability on the other. Its a fine line of difference that you are confused on. Your confusion does therin make me stupid.

We all have the opportunity regardless. We are limited in our ability to capitalize on it. And it is the individuals who make that determination.

Is it as easy for the two examples you give? No. But is the opportunity to fail as well as be a success the same for each? Yes.

The kid in Pembroke has a head start but will he or she be a success because they come form Pembroke? No. In fact many fail and fail big time because they lack the grit determination, desire and maturity the kid who has to earn it develops. There is a line of thought that says the children of that level of success ful parents are actually hobbled by thier lack of challenge.

Just as you say kids cant choose their parents, they can choose to not become their parents. The freedom to choose comes with a equal freedom to fail.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 09:03 AM
My argument is obviously against social darwinism. In that sense, survival of the fittest is a moral issue. We have a moral obligation to help, protect, reach out to those who are not the "fittest" of society. The poor, the minority, the disabled, the sick and dying, the children, etc.

Take a look around you.....how can you say survival of the fittest is a moral issue when it is evident in every form of life? Human and otherwise.

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 09:22 AM
Take a look around you.....how can you say survival of the fittest is a moral issue when it is evident in every form of life? Human and otherwise.

Just so we are on the right track here: are you, like me, equating 'survival of the fittest' with 'Social Darwinism?'

Reaper16
12-12-2009, 09:38 AM
You drooling simians need to stop confusing opportunity with possibility.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 09:41 AM
Just so we are on the right track here: are you, like me, equating 'survival of the fittest' with 'Social Darwinism?'

I am equating survival of the fittest with the fact of that is how life is.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 09:42 AM
You drooling simians need to stop confusing opportunity with possibility.

Take two cents worth of your own advice.

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 09:54 AM
I am equating survival of the fittest with the fact of that is how life is.

How life is is not always how life should be. Just because how life is is how life is does not mean that it is necessarily morally right. Right?

I'm not even sure that survival of the fittest is the way life is. Survival of the fittest what? Strongest? No. Smartest? No. The more accurate thing to say is survival of those best able to adapt to their environments.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 10:06 AM
How life is is not always how life should be. Just because how life is is how life is does not mean that it is necessarily morally right. Right?

I'm not even sure that survival of the fittest is the way life is. Survival of the fittest what? Strongest? No. Smartest? No. The more accurate thing to say is survival of those best able to adapt to their environments.

"Should be" is a matter of perception and personal values.

The more accurate thing to say is survival of those best able to adapt to their environments

That is called survival of the fittest, Jenson....DOH!

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 10:45 AM
"Should be" is a matter of perception and personal values.

So a moral question, then.

That is called survival of the fittest, Jenson....DOH!

No, I am sure I was taught that there was disagreement among scientists as to whether survival of the fittest is the same as saying best able to adapt. However, I'm not a scientist and I can't say for sure the differences, so I'm not going to argue it.

My point is this, to reiterate: Survival of the fittest is not a human moral aim. It is immoral to consciously determine life value with such an outlook.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 10:56 AM
So a moral question, then.



No, I am sure I was taught that there was disagreement among scientists as to whether survival of the fittest is the same as saying best able to adapt. However, I'm not a scientist and I can't say for sure the differences, so I'm not going to argue it.

My point is this, to reiterate: Survival of the fittest is not a human moral aim. It is immoral to consciously determine life value with such an outlook.

I would say those who can adapt best are the most fit to survive, wouldn't you? It is ignorant to pretend you can change Mother Nature. Some of us look after our weak just as many animals do. Then again, some cast the weak aside as also many other animals do. We are a product of nature, Jenson. And the weak or non-fit will always fall to the bottom of the ladder. Don't blame me, I didn't write the rules.

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I would say those who can adapt best are the most fit to survive, wouldn't you? It is ignorant to pretend you can change Mother Nature. Some of us look after our weak just as many animals do. Then again, some cast the weak aside as also many other animals do. We are a product of nature, Jenson. And the weak or non-fit will always fall to the bottom of the ladder. Don't blame me, I didn't write the rules.

Nothing is written. Human beings have the capacity of consciousness which can change "nature." We are better than animals. Casting aside the weak is as natural as domestic abuse or having sex with children. You correctly saw the last as a moral issue. So is casting aside the weak.

petegz28
12-12-2009, 11:17 AM
Nothing is written. Human beings have the capacity of consciousness which can change "nature." We are better than animals. Casting aside the weak is as natural as domestic abuse or having sex with children. You correctly saw the last as a moral issue. So is casting aside the weak.

Again, you are infusing morality into the argument. One could argue it would be better for mankind to cast off the sick and weak.

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 11:20 AM
Again, you are infusing morality into the argument. One could argue it would be better for mankind to cast off the sick and weak.

That's exactly what I'm talking about!

Is that not what I've been talking about, pete? Is that not a near textbook definition of Social Darwinism? Have I tried to hide that I was making a moral argument?

petegz28
12-12-2009, 11:22 AM
That's exactly what I'm talking about!

What is? That everyone should share your morals?

Jenson71
12-12-2009, 11:28 AM
What is? That everyone should share your morals?

Well of course everyone should share my morals.

By the way, thank you for giving me the opportunity to use the "Nothing is written" line.