Animal Farm and Positive Discrimination

Offering is what we do now.

That you personally don't accept the choice some make NOT to take those 'chances to operate independently', should not factor into the determination. Especially when you predicate your refusal to accept that choice, upon the colour of the individual's skin, or some other personal factor you regard as 'lesser'.

 

I know your methods now.

 

Our access to opportunities has been equal in fact and by law, for decades. The many migrants and refugees from the Third World (some with deeply traumatic histories) making good in the West over the past 40 years, demonstrates just how long we've had that equal access.

 

Is this a serious question?

Or just more of the aforementioned 'we must cater for every iteration of the human condition' insanity?

 

Why don't you answer his question?

 

Its not entirely our choice because there's competition. If I decide 'this thing is what I need to be prosperous' and someone else gets it first, my choice has been limited. But this is the reality of existence. Its not that the existence of competition is mean (though it can be, sometimes people do seek to obtain things simply to prevent others from prospering...), but rather reality itself is mean. OIOW, life is hard and often unfair, especially to those who aren't suited toward competition. There's nothing wrong with trying to make it less mean and less unfair, but at the same time, we have to accept there will always be some inequality and its a law of nature for some people to prosper more than others.

 

1) No it ****ing isn't. Success is determined by the individual's effort, commitment, and self-discipline. The essentials are the same in every society, and at every strata of society.

2) What do you mean by 'different demographic groups'? Are you one of these people who can't accept the agency of a POC (or whoever) to choose 'failure'? You see them as one dimensional noble peasants, perhaps? And how do you explain to yourself the rise of the Indian migrant in America, if you're so invested in regarding brown/black people as incapable?

3) Tweaked how? By forcing "success" that some people clearly don't want (if they wanted it, they'd have found it), at the cost of someone else's success? That would totalitarianism and inequality. Is that what you're seeking?

 

My own view is that nature (in all it's 'unfairness' and 'meanness') is the context in which we exist. It's the only system that allows us to actually survive, so in that sense it's entirely just. And like most creatures of nature, we endevour personally, to keep our kith and kin fed and housed when nature applies that unfairness despite their best efforts. That's our survival skill - our charity. To pick up the slack of nature .. not to pick up the slack of the individual.

 

Imagine being so insulated, that you've never bothered to consider the implications of these spastic ejaculations of 'compassion'. The depth of delusion (and awfulness) just in this idea alone, could be demonstrated fairly easily to a reasonable sensible child. Coming from adults it's mind-snapping.

 

Agreed. When resource scarcity occurs, natural law necessitates competition which leads to innovation and less resource scarcity. This is beyond 'just', it is in fact beneficial and essential to the survival of the whole. I think what OP might be trying to get at is how do we make a distinction between this and when resource scarcity is being created while innovation is being stifled to sort of alter this natural law to create an unjust situation that favors those unsuited to competition?

For example, civilization has always been dependent on a managerial class to organize and direct human productivity toward the proliferation of more civilization. However, that is starting to become no longer the case in the digital age, when instant mass communication allows the voluntarily cooperative to voluntarily cooperate more and more effectively in larger and larger groups. Civilization is becoming self-proliferating with the advancement of technology. The managerial class is quickly becoming obsolete. Once civilization no longer needs managers (it could be argued that this would have already happened if not for deliberate meddling by the managerial class), what will managers do instead? Much like those predisposed to hunting, who were the most prosperous and esteemed heroes of the hunter-gatherer era but are now increasingly cast further and further to outer fringes of society, those predisposed to management stand to lose their power and prestige as their utility to civilization decreases. But they don't want to go the way of the hunter. The hunter at least still has skills that allow them to prosper as an individual. The manager does not. And they seek to guide society away from the voluntary mass-cooperation, partially by manipulating and manufacturing a false resource scarcity in their favor that inhibits the natural order of competition that favors producers to favor instead the manager. I may be way off base here, but I think OP may essentially be trying to answer the question- what do we do about the managers?

 

The differences in equality are defined by money and intelligence, in that order.

 

Success is entirely determined by the system, because it defines success.

Football and baseball have different rules. Different skills are required to be successful in baseball v/s football.

Someone could be a successful baseball player, and a failure as a football player. The person is the same, yet their level of success is not.

This isn't hard to grasp.

 

Not in my life.
But hey. To each his own.
No money could buy the knowledge and best moments of my life...some spent in very basic accommodation indeed.

 

Have to add government's laws a policy preferences.

“To the mentality which in the past has used advances in health science to develop new weapons, such discoveries must look very inviting. Indeed, the possibility of direct interference with human genes through the use of synthetic viruses opens the possibility not merely of ethnic weapons, but of wars and in which the outcome would be determined not on the battlefield but with the birth of a mutant next generation.” p. 266.

“If such possibilities now seem in the realm of science fiction, we should do well to remember that in the field of chemical and biological warfare once a thing has been shown to be possible, it has generally been done. Poison gas seemed and equally unlikely weapon before a German professor developed what he chose to call ‘A Higher Form of Killing’.” (emphasis mine)
A HIGHER FORM OF KILLING, Robert Harris, Jeremy Paxman, Hill & Wang, NY 1982. p. 266. p. 267.

 

They can if they do they're not equal. People who achieve excellence are not equal to people who only achieve mediocrity.

 

Why are you asking people for definitions you should look them up yourself.

There's nothing to think about you're asking someone to do something you should be doing yourself.

 

yea, sorry. I didn’t realize it went above your head.

 

This from the person that doesn't know how to use a dictionary?

 

Exactly what opportunities are denied to people in this country? I mean other than white people of course.

 

No success is not determined by the system. That’s why some people come from crappy backgrounds and end up happy billionaires. The system isn’t holding you back.

Exactly what in the system is holding people back?

 

How can I say when they are not allowed to be demonstrated?

 

Housing
Post code education lottery
Discriminatory employment practices
Police discrimination
The usual.

 

You are looking at outcomes, not potential.

 

That depends on the opportunities that are offered, which are often fewer due to social expectations.
And on what excellence is.
Clue:it isn't money.

 

delete