Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cool Hand Fluke

A Personal Inequity...

Rate this topic

15 posts in this topic

Brilliant

 

A Personal Inequity

 

Sometimes, when I hear about "disparities" and "inequities," I think of a disparity that applied directly to me- the disparity in basketball ability between myself and Michael Jordan.

When I was in school, I was so awful in basketball that the class coach wouldn't even let me try out for softball, at which I was actually pretty good.

I was more than forty years old before I ever got the ball through the basket. It wasn't during a game. The basket was in my brother's backyard and I was just shooting- unopposed- from practically right under the basket. The only pressure on me was that my little nephew was watching.

After making that one basket, I never took a basketball in my hands again. I retired at my peak.

Think about it: Michael Jordan made millions of dollars because of having a talent that was totally denied to me. Through no fault of my own, I had to spend years studying economics, in order to make a living.

Economics is not nearly as much fun as basketball and doesn't pay nearly as much money either. We are talking inequity big time.

Most discussions of "disparities" and "inequities" are a prelude to coming up with some "solution" that the government can impose, winning politicians some votes in the process. How could the disparity between Michael Jordan and me be solved?

We could change the rules of basketball, in order to try to equalize the outcomes. Michael Jordan could be required to make all his two-point shots from beyond the three-point line, with five players opposing him and no one on his side. A three-point shot could require him to stand under the basket on the opposite side of the court and shoot from there.

Meanwhile, I could make two-point shots from a spot half the distance from the foul line to the basket, and of course without any other players on the court to distract me. Any shots I might make from back at the foul line would count as three-pointers.

Even under these conditions, you would be better off betting your money on Michael Jordan. But, conceivably at least, we might change the rules some more to make the results come out less lopsided, in order to create "social justice."

The problem with trying to equalize is that you can usually only equalize downward. If the government were to spend some of its stimulus money trying to raise my basketball ability level to that of Michael Jordan, it would be an even bigger waste of money than most of the other things that Washington does.

So the only way to try to equalize that has any chance at all would be to try to bring Michael Jordan down to my level, whether by drastic rule changes or by making him play with one hand tied behind his back, or whatever.

The problem with this approach, as with many other attempts at equalization, is that it undermines the very activity involved. Basketball would be a much less interesting game if it was played under rules designed to produce equality of outcomes.

Attendance would fall off to the point where neither Michael Jordan nor anyone else could make a living playing the game.

The same principle applies elsewhere. If you are going to try to equalize the chances of women getting jobs as firefighters, for example, then you are going to have to lower the physical requirements of height, weight and upper body strength.

That means that you are going to have more firefighters who are not capable of carrying an unconscious person out of a burning building.

If you are going to have these lower physical requirements be the same for both women and men, that means that you are not only going to have women who are not capable of carrying someone out of a burning building, you are also going to have men who are likewise incapable of carrying someone to safety.

Most activities do not exist for the sake of equality. They exist to serve their own purposes- and those purposes are undermined, sometimes fatally, when equality becomes the goal.

Nor would a politician encouraging me to feel resentful toward Michael Jordan do any good. If I had such resentments, they would do me more harm than they would do Michael Jordan. They would make me feel bad- and could make me miss seeing some great basketball.

 

 

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw man argument of a deranged conservative.

 

So, who is Thomas Sowell

Sowell, a former Marxist, now opposes Marxism, providing a critique

in his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. He also argues that,

contrary to popular perception, Marx never held to a labor theory of value.

 

Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action.

While often described as a "black conservative", he prefers not to be labeled,

and considers himself more libertarian than conservative.[7]

Yet another disenfranchised right-wing/GOP/conservative

who clings to the imaginary and seriously flawed myth of Libertopia cwm27.gif

Freaks freak.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very good analogy and explanation. The fact that Punk started ranting ad hominem tells us a lot, too. The truth hurts and is hard to argue with legitimate points, so those that oppose the truth frequently resort to ad hominem fallacies in order to discredit what they can't rationally refute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Punk, can someone have a "born-again" revelation and change their entire outlook on life?

 

Kind of like when you were a baby, you cried alot and clung to just about anybody. Now, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostIt was a very good analogy and explanation. The fact that Punk started ranting ad hominem tells us a lot, too. The truth hurts and is hard to argue with legitimate points, so those that oppose the truth frequently resort to ad hominem fallacies in order to discredit what they can't rationally refute.

 

 

"ad hominem fallacies"

 

I gotta go look that one up. My first thought was that was what two consenting males do for fun in San Francisco. I don't think that's right, though. I'll report back soon, once the boss leaves for the day.

 

I suck at basketball, too. I demand reparations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostHey Punk, can someone have a "born-again" revelation and change their entire outlook on life?

 

Kind of like when you were a baby, you cried alot and clung to just about anybody. Now, not so much.

 

Maybe not so clingy, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostIt was a very good analogy and explanation.

The fact that Punk started ranting ad hominem tells us a lot, too.

The truth hurts and is hard to argue with legitimate points, so those that

oppose the truth frequently resort to ad hominem fallacies in order to

discredit what they can't rationally refute.

 

This is the typical Robert doing his *distorting/lying* thing.

 

Robert begins his argument with * The fact that Punk started ranting

ad hominem* suggesting that challenging Thomas Sowell's credibility is

what *those that oppose the truth* do. Thus he suggests that any

ad hominem challenge is based on a weak argument if not a lie.

He is suggesting that my post is untrue & that I can't handle the *truthiness*.

 

Next is Robert's straw man.

The truth hurts and is hard to argue with legitimate points, so those that

oppose the truth frequently resort to ad hominem fallacies.

 

Robert is calling me a liar. It's logical the conclude he is referencing me

as the *injured* party. Furthermore Robert suggests that *typically*

liars resort to ad hominem fallacies, thus...

 

Sowell, a former Marxist, now opposes Marxism, providing a critique

in his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics. He also argues that,

contrary to popular perception, Marx never held to a labor theory of value.

 

Sowell also writes on racial topics and is a critic of affirmative action.

While often described as a "black conservative", he prefers not to be labeled,

and considers himself more libertarian than conservative

 

is an ad hominem fallacy. It's not.

It's Sowell's biography as posted on Wiki.

 

Now, I have *rationally* disputed Robert's spurious claim and suggestion

that MY ad hominem challenge to the OP's author is based on lies & fallacy.

 

Furthermore, it appears that it is Robert who is guilty of both lying and

fallacy. He challenged the credibility of my post but never challenged

the facts in my post.

 

The truth is Thomas Sowell is an unstable ideologue who's politics are at

odds with his social identity. He is clearly internally conflicted as evidenced

in his consistently *extremist positions*. He went from poverty stricken

child, to Ivy League elitist. Yet, Thomas Sowell is AGAINST Affirmative

Action. He's clearly intelligent enough, but without Affirmative Action he

would have NEVER had the opportunity to attend those universities.

He also has an air of being an overcompensating, over achiever.

 

As an elitist he embraced a political extremist ideology, Marxism.

Makes sense to me as he overcame poverty and made his mark in society.

He prolly even wore a Che t-shirt. But then, flipping to the extreme, Sowell

rejects the politics & economics of the oppressed and embraces a the

polar opposite, conservatism-capitalism kooky.gif Stable people don't act that way.

 

In conclusion, when someone trots out a feely-good right-wing

propaganda piece written by a loony ideologue, don't expect any

atta-boys or glad-handing. Just because YOU embrace the rantings of

an extremist with a identity crisis, don't call me a liar to rationalize your

inability to handle the truth.

 

in order to discredit what they can't rationally refute.

 

So, does it hurt, robert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThis is the typical Robert doing his *distorting/lying* thing.

 

Robert begins his argument with * The fact that Punk started ranting

ad hominem* suggesting that challenging Thomas Sowell's credibility is

what *those that oppose the truth* do. Thus he suggests that any

ad hominem challenge is based on a weak argument if not a lie.

He is suggesting that my post is untrue & that I can't handle the *truthiness*.

 

Next is Robert's straw man.

Robert is calling me a liar. It's logical the conclude he is referencing me

as the *injured* party. Furthermore Robert suggests that *typically*

liars resort to ad hominem fallacies, thus...

 

is an ad hominem fallacy. It's not.

It's Sowell's biography as posted on Wiki.

 

Now, I have *rationally* disputed Robert's spurious claim and suggestion

that MY ad hominem challenge to the OP's author is based on lies & fallacy.

 

Furthermore, it appears that it is Robert who is guilty of both lying and

fallacy. He challenged the credibility of my post but never challenged

the facts in my post.

 

The truth is Thomas Sowell is an unstable ideologue who's politics are at

odds with his social identity. He is clearly internally conflicted as evidenced

in his consistently *extremist positions*. He went from poverty stricken

child, to Ivy League elitist. Yet, Thomas Sowell is AGAINST Affirmative

Action. He's clearly intelligent enough, but without Affirmative Action he

would have NEVER had the opportunity to attend those universities.

He also has an air of being an overcompensating, over achiever.

 

As an elitist he embraced a political extremist ideology, Marxism.

Makes sense to me as he overcame poverty and made his mark in society.

He prolly even wore a Che t-shirt. But then, flipping to the extreme, Sowell

rejects the politics & economics of the oppressed and embraces a the

polar opposite, conservatism-capitalism kooky.gif Stable people don't act that way.

 

In conclusion, when someone trots out a feely-good right-wing

propaganda piece written by a loony ideologue, don't expect any

atta-boys or glad-handing. Just because YOU embrace the rantings of

an extremist with a identity crisis, don't call me a liar to rationalize your

inability to handle the truth.

 

 

So, does it hurt, robert?

 

 

well stated

 

clapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gifclapping.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give the circumlocution a break, Punk. Your argument, in it's entirety, was ad hominem spiked with a generous dose of pithy insults.

 

 

That is prima facie evidence that you've got nothing. Unless you're the kind of guy who holds a full house aces over eights and calls with a pair of eights.

 

 

I did get a kick out of your assertion that I laid spurious lies upon you without challenging the "facts" of your post.

 

 

Here was your drivel (or "post" as you call it):

 

 

"Yet another disenfranchised right-wing/GOP/conservative

 

who clings to the imaginary and seriously flawed myth of Libertopia

 

Freaks"

 

Sorry I couldn't find any "facts" in that hodgepodge crap collage you threw together and called a "post". Maybe someone else can point out the "facts". then again, maybe not. cwm27.gifcwm27.gifcwm27.gifcwm27.gifcwm27.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however one might feel about affirmative action, where the rubber meets the road- it should be about "equal opportunity", not lowering the bar

 

i defy any or all of you to say with a straight face that a white boy with college educated parents who grew up in the burbs does not have a leg up on life that a black guy who grew up with grandma in the hood

 

how that translates to day to day living and what, if anything, to do about it is a seperate argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Posti defy any or all of you to say with a straight face that a white boy with college educated parents who grew up in the burbs does not have a leg up on life that a black guy who grew up with grandma in the hood

 

 

It's true, but the fact that some people have better/richer/more provident parents than others does not mean there isn't equal opportunity - or at least as equitable as we can realistically expect in this country.

 

 

Some are born with low IQ's, some smart. Some are born with real natural talents and others are not. Some are born with birth defects and some are not. Some are born with genes for great beauty and others are not. Still, the Lord does give us all enough to work with that we can make our way and our marks in the world. We might have to adjust expectations, work harder - or both. But unless we start cloning people, this is about as good as it can get and this is a damned good country for anyone to be born in and to live in. At least it is for now. We'll see what happens if we toss out the chance for everyone to pursue the bigger prize in favor of everyone getting the same cheap kewpie doll no matter how badly or well they play the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post

i defy any or all of you to say with a straight face that a white boy with college educated parents who grew up in the burbs does not have a leg up on life that a black guy who grew up with grandma in the hood

 

 

 

 

So your solution would be to send us all to the hood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostSo your solution would be to send us all to the hood?

 

Maybe some sensitivity training is needed. Make all the white folks do 40 hours of community service by hanging out on street corners wearing bling, knocking up ho's, selling crack and running three-card-monty cons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.