The Glade 4.0

And what is equality, Aizle? The historical context provided by the last 45 years of politicking indicates something entirely divorced from the idealism of Jefferson or Locke or Smith. If, indeed, all men are created equal, how are they equal? Equal with regards to the compact that defines this nation; equal before god; equal in ability; equal in outcome; equal in opportunity? What do you think the answer was when the Constitution was written? What do you think Adam Smith meant by equality in the Wealth of Nations? Or what about John Locke's notion of Liberalism? Do these things apply today? Or are the meanings simply void and abstract because then is not now?

Or, perhaps, there is some implicit qualifier that gets left out to make a pretty phrase, to lift the tenor of the speech into something a little less real and a lot more charismatic. What is equality?

That said, English is an analytic language and consequently capable of exacting precision in terms of denotation. That you choose to impart connotations into things where none exists is precisely that: a choice.

_________________

Yeah, predictable response Rynar.

And thanks for proving my point Khross. Were the English language so precise as you claim, then you wouldn't be asking me which definition of equality I meant. It would be patently clear by using the word "equal".

I've already explained my views on equality in this context. YMMV.

So when you decide to play rough and get smacked down for it, you blame other people, then kick sand, grab your football, and go home?

Yeah, predictable response, Aizle.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Aizle:

English is an exacting language. Whether it used in that manner or not, is something else entirely. I haven't proven anything for you; indeed, I have asked you to substantiate your opinion precisely. Instead of doing so, you simply refer to "context". Except, context is meaningless unless you define the parameters in which you are speaking.

There are verb tenses you don't use. There are qualifiers and specifiers you ignore, vacate, or otherwise choose not to employ. You can nail down what you mean. Rynar has done so: he chose equality in a mathematical manner -- x = y. X and Y need not be the same thing, but they are identical in terms of value and practice. If x =/= y, then there is no equality.

Of course, from what I've read, I suspect you're more interested in egalitarianism than equality. And those are not synonymous concepts, either political or philosophically.

_________________

To quote someone, shut the **** up.

Frankly I'm tired of wasting my time with you.

My dispute has been Rynar's exceptionally narrow and wrong definition of equal, and his ignorance of apparently the English language and how to use it. He hasn't been precise, he's been wrong and myopic.

As for how precise I've been, I've posted my thoughts on what equality means. If you have clarifying questions based on that post, I may decide to answer them. But by and large I'm done with this thread.

Dude, you are a whiny little *****. You started the **** slinging, and now, when you are backed into a corner, you blame other people for your bullshit. Your faux indignation isn't fooling anyone. You're nothing but a little boy and an intellectual coward who likes to try and dish it out, but can't handle even a drop of it himself.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Doesn't geometry use "congruent" to avoid exactly this uncertainty?

How has he been wrong and myopic? This is by all means a metaphysical discussion. Consequently, he can neither be incorrect nor near sighted in his arguments. He has chosen a narrow and precise definition. You may disagree with it, but to say it is wrong is neither productive nor contributory. Why do you feel it unacceptable? What makes it incongruent with the philosophical outlook you want to espouseI asked clarifying questions based on the statements you've made. Indeed, I asked for you to deliberately establish the definition of equality you want to use. You have chosen not to do so.

_________________

Yes, but it uses equals signs for congruence. They're roughly interchangeable. IIRC (it's been 15 years since I actually had a Geometry class), congruence ignores orientation.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

You've posted a one-line answer with no context, and then claimed that the meaning is contextual. When people have asked you to clarify, you got all defensive and ****.

"Equal before the law."

Equal how? Does the law guarantee equality of opportunity? Equality of outcome? Equality of ability? Equality of resources? Equality of what?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Since people apparently can't read...

Except, that doesn't answer the question, Aizle.

_________________

How are you measuring quality of the public schooling? By the grades of their students? Or maybe the funding offered? What if market forces cause equal funding (in absolute terms) to result in unequal talent in the teachers, or unequal availability of resources (say, the area is dangerous, or prone to theft of school supplies) -- how do you measure that to determine if they're equal? What does it mean to get the same base opportunities as anyone else -- should I be receiving an offer to be an astronaut?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Those are all very good questions.

I don't have an answer to most of those questions, because quite frankly I'm not informed enough to be able to get down into the weeds. I expect that trying to keep public schooling equal would necessitate taking all of the things you list into account in some sort of balance.

And you should only be receiving an offer to be an astronaut if you've earned the offer. What I mean by same base opportunities is that you aren't prevented from being able to attend a quality school because you are a minority or come from a poor family. So for instance if you come from a very poor family there might be additional resources available to you in the form of tutors or additional instruction in order to try and help overcome some of the hurdles that are classically found in low income children. Or you may have additional grant and loan opportunities to help you pay for college. Honestly, I think we're pretty good on the opportunity part these days. I'm sure there are some local areas where there are still problems, but overall and nationally I'm pretty ok with the status quo.

Seems pretty clear to me Aizle.

_________________

What students are taught in schools about government doesn't affect anything.

No, it doesn't mean that, and that's the point I'm trying to illustrate. We can constrain it just find based on context. You don't have to constrain it explicitly; you can rely just fine on your audience to be able to draw what you mean from context and ask questins if they aren't sure.

That is, unless you've got a vested interest in taking issue with the word "equal" to rant about "sameness" and generally act like a douchebag.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That would be fine, if the person relying on context fielded questions from the audience, DE.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

A noble sentiment, but one which, empirical evidence suggests, is held only through a supreme effort of willful ignorance.

_________________

I see no empirical evidence to suggest any such thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not addressing any specific person's behavior. I'm pointing out that the word equal does not mean "same", "identical" or "alike in every respect", and that if you leap to the assumption that it does, you're doing it for your own reasons.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's internally inconsistent; consequently, it cannot answer the question in any manner Aizle would support. For instance, the last sentence precludes a parent using their own wealth to improve or expand the opportunities available to their children. The first sentence, however, explicitly indicates a support for equality of outcome all things except wealth being equal. The second sentence reinforces the notion derived from the fourth sentence: that wealth cannot be used to bias the result of a child's growth. The third sentence is a red herring: current law is already equal on the subject, love just isn't the qualifier.

So, if I'm to take Aizle at this word and that said quote constitutes a specific definition of equality; the only REASONABLE conclusion I can reach is that Aizle thinks we could regulate wealth related opportunity into oblivion. However, since I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt ...

The paragraph doesn't answer the question. It is, in point of fact, just feel-good nonsense.

_________________

I would argue that to some parties their questions are never "answered" unless the response indicates a complete 180 to the questioner's viewpoint.

_________________

I can only assume this to be a case in point.
A brief Google search beginning with "audience " revealed "audience centered approach" in the first ten suggested searches. The conclusion drawn from this is that transmitting intended information is a desirable skill, enough so that a sufficient number of people have sought out information regarding how to do it to register highly in the collective. Which would imply that the worry amongst them is that their audience will not sufficiently comprehend, nor will interact to the extent necessary for comprehension.

_________________