The Glade 4.0

Diamondeye:

I demonstrated that Aizle is concerned with equality of outcome despite protestations otherwise. I would suggest Aizle either needs to re-evaluate his examples or accept that his opinion runs counter to what he says it is.

_________________

I'll repeat myself and point out once again that I am not talking about Aizle. I'm talking about the use of the word A) in general and B) in the quoted passage.

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

Here's an idea. Since it was your assertion of to which I objected, how about you start?

_________________

Do you have a valid point to make or are you just pissing in the wind for being called out as a boorish snob?

_________________

So then, since you said the following:

"Equal (=) means exactly the same as. Not "similar". Not "reminds me of"."

And now you are saying that the word equality has shifted, this must mean that equality did not mean the "same" in 1776? Dude, you're killing me. The meaning hasn't shifted at all, it has multiple meanings depending on what you are referring to.



Maybe, if your semantics argument is relevant, and more importantly - correct.



Bullshit. It's not. You may think that, and some may believe that, but it's not. "Equal" means the same as it always has. If you are talking about "equal opportunity", then ok, but if you are talking about "equality of outcome" that's totally different. "Equality" is easily and correctly applied to both. Some politicians legislate to one, some legislate to the other.



Equality of outcome, then yes - it opposes freedom (but is still not the antithesis). But very few people (including Aizle most of the time) don't believe in equality of outcome. That's dumb. Equality for most people falls into the category of being treated the same by the government. This is completely and totally compatible with freedom.

Math deals in much more than values. For example, it deals with processes. Subtraction (on the left) is not the same as addition (on the right). Therefore the left and the right side of the equals sign are not the same. However, they are equal.

But of course I know you mean "value", even if you aren't technically correct. This is my lesson for you - it's a derail to constantly, and in every thread, get bogged down in semantics when you know WTF people are talking about.

The amount of retardation in this thread is abhorrent.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Then why do we hear so much about how we have to pour more money into, say, inner city schools because their students perform poorly?

_________________
"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

Are you seriously asking me for evidence that people cam figure things out from context? That's a basic function of people of average or even below-average intelligence. If I say someone is an "engineer" in the middle of a conversation about electrical power only a total moron would fail to understand I meant a person who designs things, not a person who drives trains.

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

Actually including Aizle all of the time. I believe in equality of opportunity.

Then, as I said, you need to figure out how to express what you think your opinion really is. Because everything you've posted in this thread uses outcome based metrics.

_________________

Khross, I believe the problem is that you and the other hard core libertarians can't read what I've posted without reading in all sorts of things that aren't there because of your predispositions.

Khross, can you give some examples of opportunities that cannot be recast as outcomes? It seems to me that you're moving the discussion further back along the causal chain to point out that each opportunity is itself the outcome of prior events.

I don't know if you are including me in the "hard core libertarian" group, but I think it has more to do with that we see the conclusions you don't in your statements.

For example, you stated:


So individuals that put for the effort and are qualified to do the job should be given the opportunity to do the job. I can support that. What I have issues with is your "clarification" of how individuals arrive at the point they are qualified for that job, and what forcing those opportunities to be there does to other people, that would seemingly also be in the position to earn the rewards of their efforts.



This is your "clarification"... just looking at the first part... should those tutor's be able to select their pupils and recieve compensation for doing so? Should the best tutor's receive the best compensation? Assuming that by providing public funds to pay these tutors doesn't remove the ability of the individual that has to forfeit the funds, at what point has it been determined, and how frequently is it evaluated, that this students efforts are at the level that warrant getting to keep this tutor.

It has nothing to do with my predispositions. Look at the language you used: every metric is based on "sameness of outcome", as opposed to opportunity. Whatever it is you think you're saying is not what your post actually states.

_________________

I don't really. Not nearly as much as I hear about developing voluntary programs to help get kids ready for their first day of school, so they aren't behind on day 1.

Regardless, measuring "performance of a school", in terms of the education of the average graduate, is an outcome-based measure, but still has value in managing your school. That's more about measuring performance, not about ensuring all outcomes are equal. It gives you an opportunity to see what's working in a good school, so you can apply it to a poor school.

It certainly doesn't mean all kids have to graduate with the same grades or education. There's nothing inherently dumb about inner city school children. If a school has a 0% literacy rate, there's something seriously wrong. This doesn't have anything to do with equality of outcome as much as it has to do with ensuring our tax dollars are being spent appropriately.

But yes, I'm sure there are individuals out there that believe everyone should be equally educated by the end of public school. Can't really help these folks.

Ladas:

First as I stated a while back, I haven't gone into detail on most of these ideas because I don't have the background and knowledge to know what is the most effective methods in all cases.

That said, I would think that the way that a publicly funded tutor would be arranged would be something like this:

The public school system in a district would have a certain number of tutors on the payroll. They would travel to the various schools in the district on a schedule and be available to qualifying students that were performing below a certain minimum standard. In some respects, very similar to a court appointed lawyer.

So in answer to your questions, these publically funded tutors may or may not be able to select their pupils, they may be appointed to them by their management. The would certainly recieve compensation. The best tutors should recieve the best compensation, and it would almost be guarenteed that the best tutors would work for a private company and not be a public school tutor. As for what level of performance and how often a student would be reviewed to be able to use a tutor, I don't know and would leave that up to the educators that have a much better handle on where those lines should be drawn.

^This I am on board with.



^This not so much.

Equality means everyone starts with the same blank page as everyone else regardless of religion, race, gender, socio-economic status or culture and what you write on that page is entirely up to you.

_________________

Ok, I'm going to try this one last time. Overall, really what I'm advocating is a minimum level of standard for every citizen. Not a maximum level of standard.



What I mean here is that the sentence that someone receives is based on the quality of the evidence and their argument, not the color of their skin or social status. Obviously from a practical standpoint there are going to be some differences in the quality level of lawyer a rich man can afford compared to a poor man. I didn't think I had to specifically call that out as it's assumed. That said, the court appointed lawyers should be competent and skilled enough to present a quality defense to anyone they are assigned to.



Again here, I'm talking about leveling the playing field for the services that are provided, not the outcome of the students themselves. Currently with property taxes funding schooling, rich neighborhoods have amazing schools, teachers and programs, while poor neighborhoods have horrible schools, teachers and programs. I believe that we need to raise the bar across the school system so that the overall success of our children is increased. Certainly richer parents tend to be more involved in their childs education and put more emphasis on it, so I would still expect rich kids to perform better overall, but we would hopefully be increasing the chance of success of those on the bottom end of the spectrum. However, at the end of the day, the success or failure would still reside squarely on the shoulders of the student.



Really all this one is about is allowing everyone, regardless of gender and sexual orientation to be allowed to properly care for their loved ones. Stay with them in the hospital, take advantage of various insurance coverage and have the state recognize their love for one another.



The key word in this sentence is "base". That is that if you are a citizen of the US, you should expect to be able to treated fairly by the law, receive a quality public education and provide for the people that you love/live with just like everyone else. It's about setting a reasonable "base" minimum standard. Nothing more. What you do with those opportunities is up to the individual. Some will undoubtedly waste them. Others won't and in time may very well be able to provide better opportunities for themselves. Good for them. However, I firmly believe that society as a whole will be better off by providing them. I believe the term is called Pay it Forward.

So you believe that someone who is born to a crack-whore in compton starts with the same blank page as someone who is born to a millionaire?

I disagree. One will need more help to become a productive member of society, and I believe that society should provide that help.

Except that anything defined as the "base" becomes below standard. See our education system... base has shifted from any, to HS, to undergrad and now graduate... not because people have gotten smarter, but because people teach to the "base", and those that don't put for the effort are left in the system, eating valuable resources.

This is equality (sameness) of outcome, with the thing being compared as equal being a "productive member of society". This is what I've been talking about this whole thread.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I completely disagree. Education levels have gone up because our society as a whole has become more technical and complex.

Except that it's not. It's setting a minimum threshold. There absolutely will be those who are much more productive than others.

You're doing the same thing Khross is doing, though, Rynar - noting that each "opportunity" is itself an "outcome" of prior inputs. That's true, of course, but it's a game that can be played all the way back to the dawn of civilization or even the Big Bang. Not to speak for Aizle, but I suspect that's why his clarification was centered around the concept of a "base", a starting point or minimum standard. I'm not sure why you guys seem so unable (unwilling?) to get that.