In this universe the brain is a physical organ. And different humans have objectively different brains. It does society no good to cripple or hinder those with superior minds to make those with below average minds feel better.
I don’t believe that, but will admit it’s a matter of faith. If the results are unequal, that tells me there is a bias built in to the system one place or another.
It doesn’t have to be a malign bias. Black youths are more interested in basketball than white youths. That’s a social bias, and is reflected in NBA stats.
But some bias is hellishly malign, such as high-school drop-out rates broken down by ethnicity and race. That’s terrifying, and poisonous to an entire generation.
One of the weird differences between men and women is that the standard deviation on IQ for men is larger then is is for women so we should expect more men in the lowest intelligence positions (jail) and in the highest (ceo if were dreaming). I’d be curious how people would take unequal results based on intelegence spread?
Ignoring reality for political reasons is common with regards to human biology. The left would have the world believe that physics, biology, and chemistry do not apply to humanity. Will trumps nature even though will is nothing more than a manifestation created by a natural construct.
Let’s use this example then: Suppose a high school announces that all students are welcome to try out for the football team (equal opportunity.) This doesn’t mean everyone has equal likelihood of making the roster. Those who are strong, fast, and athletic are far more likely to make the roster than those who are weak, in poor shape or have no experience with football. That means unequal result.
I don’t support affirmative action on grounds of ‘equality of opportunity’, ‘disadvantage’ or anything else. I support it on the grounds that racially segregated educational environments are bad for society, even if they do reflect meritocracy, and that I’m fine with allowing in somewhat less qualified people to achieve racial balance. I also think equality of opportunity is mostly an incoherent concept, and I’m fine with striving some measure of (relative) equality of results, e.g. using the government to ensure income and wealth differences between the top tier of society and the lowest are fairly small.
Other than that I agree entirely with your comments here.
Do you know what “equivocation” means, in terms of a fallacious argument? It basically means changing the meaning or implication of a word or phrase in the middle of an argument in order to distort or misrepresent. You have engaged in either a straightforward straw man or a blatant equivocation in very nearly every post in this thread.
For example, this post. You begin your argument using the term “equal” clearly meaning the absence of bigotry - as in, Jews and African Americans are welcome to try out. You end your comment with “equal” meaning that people of lesser abilities will not make the team.
There’s really only two responses to such a poorly thought out post - either you have no idea that you’re engaging in such an obviously bad line of reasoning; or you are subconsciously making some kind of association between the two meanings of equality, such that you are implying that certain races or creeds are less physically capable, therefore those types of people deserve to be cut from the team.
No matter how you twist the semantics, the facts as presented are indisputable: A school that invites everyone to try out for the football team will still most likely see strong and fast applicants prevail over weak and slow applicants. If you want to dispute that, then you are not seeking an honest debate.
I don’t see any fallacy here. He’s merely saying one sort of “equality” will not LEAD to the other: that equality in the form of “absence of bigotry” (anyone can try out for the team) will not lead to equality in the form of “equality of outcome” (the stronger, faster or more skilled will succeed).
You may disagree that this argument has merit or meaning. One could, for example, point out that formal equality in the form of absence of bigotry could have less meaning, if bigotry in other aspects of life has lead in various ways to one group being inherently weaker, slower, or less skilled on average than they otherwise would have been: this is, as I understand it, basically the argument for affirmative action.
But you haven’t actually identified a fallacy in his argument.
On several occasions, you have attempted to tie race to ability in a less than blatant manner. In you OP, it doesn’t take a sociologist to understand that you’re using a short basketball player as a metaphor for groups of people that have experienced a long history of racial, religious, and/or sexual discrimination in this country. You’re implying, if not outright stating, that these types of people are less capable.
If you want to have a real discussion of equal opportunity, why not drop the sports metaphors and talk about race? Sure, you’re comfortable saying that a slow person is going to make the track team, but why not simply cut out the literary devices and actually tell us what this means in terms of how you think opportunity works for white people as compared to black people these days? Just say what you mean and don’t beat around the bush. If you want to talk about sports tryouts, move this to the Game Room.
The fact that one guy is big, strong, and fast, and the next guy is small, weak, and clumsy means that they did not have “equal opportunity” to begin with. Their physiques gave them advantages and disadvantages.
That’s how it is with athletics. Remember, I said that not all forms of discrimination are malign. In sports, it’s the price we pay for performance.
Discrimination is malign when it is across boundaries not ascribed to nature, such as Hispanics dropping out of high school at a vastly higher rate than Anglos.
No, they did have equal opportunity - the school offered the invitation to everyone. Nobody was barred from applying.
If the school said, “Jews are not allowed to try out,” then that would be indeed lack of equal opportunity.