Re: Adam Goodes

[Brodders17]

Why not quote Peaka who raised it then? Rhetorical question alert there :blah

You might consider that comic a fallacy. I consider it an example of what I'd love to see eradicated from the world.

i quoted you because i read Peaka post then read yours and hit quote on the last post i read.

it is not the cartoon that is a fallacy. the fallacy is the idea that we should suddenly start treating people equally and everything will be alright. im not sure what you want eradicated. the person in power who has used and abused the other to get in that position, or the assistance for the disadvantaged person to have a chance to reach equality?

 

[Peaka]

Hi a riders, its a fine line between treating people equally and providing equality of opportunity ( whatever that means). Whilst equality is a laudable aim (a bit une world peace) it's actually very hard if not impossible to actually deliver on anything approaching a consistent basis. I could give heaps of examples to back that proposition up but unless you can realise that just from thinking about it then there is little point.

Treating people equally irrespective of race, gender religion etc is much easier to achieve. For what it's worth many of your examples are a bit off the point. I agree that anybody from a disadvantaged socio economic background and circumstance should be able to receive assistance. I just don't think that the ability to access assistance we provide as a society should be linked to racial identification. Similar you imply that my wish to treat people equally means I don't agree with welfare etc which is ludicrously. I just think it should be provided based on need not race.

 

[Peaka]

In addition many of the examples you gave are fully in accord with treating people equally. Merely by way of example I have. I problem with everybody being subject to the same tax rules with the consequence that a high income earner invariably pays more ( and proportionally more) than a low income earner. What I do have a problem with is where some government benefits and tax exemptions are based on race which to me is racist where's it should be based on socioeconomic circumstance.

To illustrate how it is difficult to provide equality of opportunity using your examples the AFL grand final should rotate through every city in Australia so d dry supporter has the opportunity to watch a grand fi al in their home town. This is clearly a farcical situation but illustrates the point.

Anyway have s great day.

peaks out

 

[tigersnake]

its a fine line between treating people equally and providing equality of opportunity ( whatever that means).

No fine line, they are different but linked, and its a simple concept to grasp.

To give an obvious example of providing equality of opportunity, the offspring of a multi-billionaire tycoon and the offspring of an impoverished, uneducated homeless person do not have equality of opportunity. So some would argue the latter needs some assistance to redress the imbalance.

Extreme conservatives and right wingers argue we're all equally able to rise to the status of multi-billionaire tycoon. A claim that falls over after the tiniest scrutiny of course.

 

[Peaka]

Where your argument falls down of course is that determining the level of assistance is almost impossible to quantify so these schemes almost always fail. In reality rather than in some idealistic world it is very hard to quantify discrepancy in opportunity and even harder to rationally do something about it in an equitable way.

What people need to realise that in order for government to give anybody anything they have to take something we from somebody else. In my experience as lng as it is the role of somebody else to take the pain most people agree, when they actually have to commit themselves suddenly it's not such a good idea. The cage eggs example demonstrates this regrettable human behaviour perfectly.

Eddie aka guide is also a perfect example of this. Politically in real life he is a socialist but when the AFL proposes redistribution measures whereby the rich clubs like Collingwood have to make a small contribution to support struggling clubs he suddenly rages about how that removes all incentives. I am not sure why he thinks the same argument applies in the real world.

 

[tigersnake]

http://i.imgur.com/QtdDA42l.jpg

im more concerned about people having equal opportunity.

Missed that, its spot on.

 

[Rosy]

.........
To give an obvious example of providing equality of opportunity, the offspring of a multi-billionaire tycoon and the offspring of an impoverished, uneducated homeless person do not have equality of opportunity. So some would argue the latter needs some assistance to redress the imbalance.
........

I don't see the obvious. How don't the examples you give have equal opportunity? Assistance is usually means tested and judged on need. Education is compulsory and virtually free. The public health system is available for everyone. By equality of opportunity do you mean the billionaire's son should qualify for welfare and have a space reserved under a park bench? People are always going to have different circumstances and make different choices. Some turn left when maybe they could have turned right. Billionaires can blow the lot and an impoverished, uneducated homeless person can become a millionaire. I'd like to see everyone treated equally...ie with courtesy, consideration and politeness, helped when needed, offered a feed when hungry, given a coat when cold, a smile of friendship etc regardless of their bank balance or their race.

 

[tigersnake]

Where your argument falls down of course is that determining the level of assistance is almost impossible to quantify so these schemes almost always fail. In reality rather than in some idealistic world it is very hard to quantify discrepancy in opportunity and even harder to rationally do something about it in an equitable way.

No its not that hard. Research-based criteria determines need, a subsidy or grant is determined on the basis or how much will redress that need, (politics means its usually not that simple of course), the need is met. Rational, equitable, basic. This has been going on since the depression.

Government is a large organization, they don't get every program right that's for sure, but they get a lot of them right. And what the tabloids don't tell you is that a lot of government largess goes to big business, so in terms of 'taking something from somebody else', there's your problem.

 

[tigersnake]

I don't see the obvious. How don't the examples you give have equal opportunity? Assistance is usually means tested and judged on need. Education is compulsory and virtually free. The public health system is available for everyone. By equality of opportunity do you mean the billionaire's son should qualify for welfare and have a space reserved under a park bench? People are always going to have different circumstances and make different choices. Some turn left when maybe they could have turned right. Billionaires can blow the lot and an impoverished, uneducated homeless person can become a millionaire. I'd like to see everyone treated equally...ie with courtesy, consideration and politeness, helped when needed, offered a feed when hungry, given a coat when cold, a smile of friendship etc regardless of their bank balance or their race.

I've got nothing.

 

[Rosy]

I've got nothing.

I've noticed. :hihi

 

[Peaka]

Tigersnake I think we agree to disagree on how "easy" it is to provide equality of opportunity. Regrettably as Rosy stated there will always be personal circumstances that affect life outcomes and in many curcumstsnces there is nothing that can or even should be done about it.

For example when I was a kid I wanted to be an AFL footballer. Unfortunately due to my genetics ( a circumstance of birth) I did not have the skill set to achieve this goal and all the benefits that go with it. Using your analysis therefore I was denied opportunity that other people had. Should the government have regulated that afl clubs had to draft a number of bad players???? This example is light hearted but demonstrates how unfortunately not everybody can have equality of opportunity irrespective of how much that might appeal in an idealistic world.

 

[Scoop]

No fine line, they are different but linked, and its a simple concept to grasp.

To give an obvious example of providing equality of opportunity, the offspring of a multi-billionaire tycoon and the offspring of an impoverished, uneducated homeless person do not have equality of opportunity. So some would argue the latter needs some assistance to redress the imbalance.

Extreme conservatives and right wingers argue we're all equally able to rise to the status of multi-billionaire tycoon. A claim that falls over after the tiniest scrutiny of course.

Great example very obvious.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

Adam Goodes is a ripping bloke. Great show tonight on ABC Anh's Brush with Fame

 

[easy_tiger]

Adam Goodes is a ripping bloke. Great show tonight on ABC Anh's Brush with Fame

he is a fine man TF. I'll check it on iview.

 

[22nd Man]

Adam Goodes is a ripping bloke. Great show tonight on ABC Anh's Brush with Fame

It was. Travesty the way he left the game. Fitzpatrick fiddled can while the joint was in flames.

Negates a lot of the positivity AFL footy has achieved in the indengenous sector.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yeah Goodes was a great footballer, and used his position to shed light on issues which are ignored too often.

Pity how well he played against us

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

Funny, they played a bit of his interview with Ahn Do on SEN and the board lights up with the typical moronic bogan types - people trying to justify their position, always starting with I'm not a racist but....

Terrible way for a champion of the game to be treated.

 

[easy_tiger]

I'm not a racist but....

Terrible way for a champion of the game to be treated.

a dead give away

and yes.

 

[Ian4]

Funny, they played a bit of his interview with Ahn Do on SEN and the board lights up with the typical moronic bogan types - people trying to justify their position, always starting with I'm not a racist but....

Terrible way for a champion of the game to be treated.

probably be criticised for this, but this is the demographic of your traditional footy fan.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Funny, they played a bit of his interview with Ahn Do on SEN and the board lights up with the typical moronic bogan types - people trying to justify their position, always starting with I'm not a racist but....

Terrible way for a champion of the game to be treated.

Very well said.