{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/6/2016 11:14:27 PM
24
[quote]Today's lesson, is simple. Equality of outcome is a dangerous idea. Equality of opportunity however, is perfectly reasonable and should be embraced.[/quote]
I wouldn't say that you've illustrated "equality of outcome" very well, at least not in a moral sense. There's a distinction to be made.
Voluntarily letting somebody win (when you could have easily defeated them) might be a virtuous thing, depending on the circumstances. It might be senseless and patronizing under other circumstances. However, you're never acting immorally under [i]any[/i] circumstances by voluntarily letting somebody else win.
Using violence (or the threat of violence) to force an equality of outcome is immoral. Coercing somebody into losing so that another person may win is a whole different situation than if one competitor voluntarily threw the match to another.
English
-
Equality of outcome in this scenario means everyone, regardless of skill level, deserves an equal chance at victory. This is a dangerous belief that allows the less skilled, to think they're better than they really are, instead of trying their best to improve at whatever they're doing. To let someone win, is one of the most morally dishonest things you could possibly do. Your opponent learns [b]NOTHING[/b] from it! If he/her got metaphorically pummeled into the ground, they would most likely learn from what they did wrong and improve their skills. You don't acquire any experience or education from being given an easy win.
-
[quote]Equality of outcome in this scenario means everyone, regardless of skill level, deserves an equal chance at victory. [/quote] Wrong. An "equal chance" would mean that the disabled wrestler stood a fighting chance against the undefeated wrestler. He clearly didn't. There wasn't a "levelling of the playing field," so to speak. Nobody forced the better wrestler to throw the match, and nobody demanded that he should be disadvantaged because of his superiority. The undefeated wrestler weighed his options and decided that it would be more worthwhile to throw the match, giving the disabled wrestler a taste of victory. Having been a wrestler myself, I can tell you that victory is the only thing that makes it worthwhile. The undefeated wrestler was 27-0. I can guarantee that he will be seeded 1st at state, and he could definitely stand to take a loss. He voluntarily decided to throw the match to the wrestler that will never see a medal, let alone a state title. It's comparable to charity - the one who worked hard and reaped the benefits gives a portion of his "earnings" to somebody who was unable to compete, through no fault of his own. [quote]This is a dangerous belief that allows the less skilled, to think they're better than they really are, instead of trying their best to improve at whatever they're doing.[/quote] Like I said earlier, circumstances matter. The undefeated wrestler has a solid shot at a state title, and he's likely collected an impressive amount of hardware from other tournaments. The disabled wrestler, frankly, will never be able to even place at a state tournament. His potential is capped through no fault of his own, so the undefeated wrestler did a kind thing for him. It also speaks to the undefeated wrestler's humility. Intentionally destroying your undefeated record is something that no wrestler I know would ever do. [i]Ever.[/i] Our attitude could be, "The disabled wrestler didn't deserve to win. He's objectively inferior to the undefeated wrestler." That's true. He's objectively inferior. However, there are plenty of other inferior wrestlers that the undefeated wrestler will never throw the match to, because their potential isn't capped by a disability. Circumstances matter. The disabled kid could have easily lost that match, and his coach might have tried to squeeze a lesson out of the loss, but realistically, there's no way that raw ambition would carry him to the undefeated wrestler's level. [quote]To let someone win, is one of the most morally dishonest things you could possibly do. Your opponent learns NOTHING from it![/quote] You'd have to define morality, first of all. Would you say that it's morally wrong and dishonest for me to give some of my wealth to a charity for people with Down's Syndrome? I worked for my wealth. I earned it. It belongs to me. They aren't able to amass as much wealth as I can, but it isn't their fault. I'm letting them have more wealth than they've earned, so am I acting immorally? I would say that my actions are virtuous and not immoral. Nobody is hurt. Nobody is threatened. Nobody is coerced. Do they learn anything about improving the value of their labor? No. Is that relevant? Not necessarily. [quote]If he/her got metaphorically pummeled into the ground, they would most likely learn from what they did wrong and improve their skills. You don't acquire any experience or education from being given an easy win.[/quote] Cross-apply my previous point. The disabled wrestler is physically and mentally barred from ever being as skilled as the undefeated wrestler, and that's nobody's fault. The undefeated wrestler could have beaten the disabled wrestler, but what would the disabled wrestler have gained from it? An average wrestler would improve after the defeat, but can we really expect the same from somebody with a mental disability? Likely not. Circumstances matter.
-
[quote]Wrong. An "equal chance" would mean that the disabled wrestler stood a fighting chance against the undefeated wrestler. He clearly didn't. There wasn't a "levelling of the playing field," so to speak. Nobody forced the better wrestler to throw the match, and nobody demanded that he should be disadvantaged because of his superiority. The undefeated wrestler weighed his options and decided that it would be more worthwhile to throw the match, giving the disabled wrestler a taste of victory. Having been a wrestler myself, I can tell you that victory is the only thing that makes it worthwhile. The undefeated wrestler was 27-0. I can guarantee that he will be seeded 1st at state, and he could definitely stand to take a loss. He voluntarily decided to throw the match to the wrestler that will never see a medal, let alone a state title. It's comparable to charity - the one who worked hard and reaped the benefits gives a portion of his "earnings" to somebody who was unable to compete, through no fault of his own.[/quote]Just because he's disabled doesn't mean he deserves special treatment, which this obviously is. He doesn't learn from this. It only helps him learn he can get whatever he wants because he's disabled. He's intellectually disabled, not physically disabled. Remember that. [quote]ou'd have to define morality, first of all. Would you say that it's morally wrong and dishonest for me to give some of my wealth to a charity for people with Down's Syndrome? I worked for my wealth. I earned it. It belongs to me. They aren't able to amass as much wealth as I can, but it isn't their fault. I'm letting them have more wealth than they've earned, so am I acting immorally? I would say that my actions are virtuous and not immoral. Nobody is hurt. Nobody is threatened. Nobody is coerced. Do they learn anything about improving the value of their labor? No. Is that relevant? Not necessarily. [/quote]Poverty isn't as much of a choice as people think. having plenty of funds for a charity isn't a choice either. Being strong IS a choice. To be a good wrestler, you mostly need to be strong. Intelligence isn't that important.
-
[quote]Just because he's disabled doesn't mean he deserves special treatment, which this obviously is.[/quote] "Deserves" would imply that somebody [i]must[/i] give him this treatment, which isn't the case at all. The undefeated wrestler volunteered to do this, and he sacrificed his own record. It isn't a matter of what he deserves. It's a matter of what the undefeated wrestler believes is right, and what he's willing to [i]charitably give.[/i] [quote]He doesn't learn from this.[/quote] You ignored my previous point. We don't expect him to learn from this, just as we don't expect him to glean anything valuable from a defeat. Again, go back to my hypothetical charity situation. By giving wealth to a disabled person, I haven't taught them anything about creating new wealth or improving the value of their labor. Does that make my actions wrong? Certainly not. [quote]Poverty isn't as much of a choice as people think. having plenty of funds for a charity isn't a choice either.[/quote] First of all, whether or not poverty is a choice isn't relevant to my example. Having Down's Syndrome isn't a choice either, which fits in with the hypothetical situation. Through no fault of his own, he's unable to compete at undefeated wrestler's level. Having funds for charity certainly is a choice. I [i]volunteer[/i] to give, and I earned that wealth through my own labor and decisions. Similarly, the undefeated wrestler volunteered to lose, and he earned his status through hard work and certain decisions. [quote]Being strong IS a choice. To be a good wrestler, you mostly need to be strong. Intelligence isn't that important.[/quote] It takes an immense amount of mental fortitude to succeed at any sport, especially wrestling. You're trying to claim that the disabled wrestler can be expected to compete at the same level as the undefeated wrestler. That's ridiculous. How many Olympians do you see with Down's Syndrome? Is it a coincidence that people with Down's Syndrome are severely underrepresented on the Olympic podium? No, it isn't.
-
Well he's wrong. It wasn't right, and the fact that he's being commended for this is pathetic. Wealth is a different concept altogether. Acquiring a lot of money has a lot of luck in it. Much more so than actual skill in a field. Maybe he couldn't that day, but that doesn't mean he can't in the future. Again, he's intellectually disabled, not physically disabled. You don't see them, not because they can't compete at the same level, but because there's a separate division for them.
-
[quote]Well he's wrong. It wasn't right, and the fact that he's being commended for this is pathetic.[/quote] A baseless, warrant-less claim is not an argument. [quote]Wealth is a different concept altogether. Acquiring a lot of money has a lot of luck in it. Much more so than actual skill in a field.[/quote] Evidence for this? You have none and there is none. If wealth was arbitrary, then there wouldn't be patterns in its creation/distribution. [quote]Maybe he couldn't that day, but that doesn't mean he can't in the future. Again, he's intellectually disabled, not physically disabled.[/quote] [quote]You don't see them, not because they can't compete at the same level, but because there's a separate division for them.[/quote] This is a weak point. There's a separate division for a reason. Furthermore, you've repeated "he's intellectually disabled, not physically disabled," twice now. That's patently false. http://www.specialolympics.org/Sections/Who_We_Are/Down_Syndrome.aspx) "Physical development in children with Down syndrome is often slower than development of children without Down syndrome. For example, because of poor muscle tone, a child with Down syndrome may be slow to learn to turn over, sit, stand, and walk. Despite these delays, children with Down syndrome can learn to participate in physical exercise and similar activities like other children. It may take children with Down syndrome longer than other children to reach developmental milestones, but they will eventually meet all or many of them." There are varying degrees of physical inferiority, ranging from virtually nonexistent to obviously impaired. Let's see an example. The World Record Down's Syndrome 100m backstroke is 1:17:52 (http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/billy-shows-hes-a-real-41330/10 The World Record for regularly-abled people? 51.94 (http://www.yourswimlog.com/100m-backstroke-world-record/)
-
Edited by LiamCDM: 9/7/2016 12:27:11 AMIt's an opinion. Not everything here can be made into a fact based argument. I don't believe it was right, you do. That's an opinion. However, what I'm arguing, is a realistic approach to this issue. One, that needs to be considered, because in today's society, everyone's a winner, and that is another dangerous belief. If you talk to any rich person, they will tell you there is a high degree of luck involved in them becoming who they are. If skills alone made people rich, there would be a lot more rich people. You stated his physical ability is delayed, not permanently stunted. He can still build muscle and compete at a decent level. It may be harder for him, but that doesn't mean he can't do it. Even if he's physically stunted, why couldn't he compete in a "special' division? That's another thing to bring up. Why is someone who's disabled, being allowed to compete with normal kids in the first case?
-
[quote]It's an opinion. Not everything here can be made into a fact based argument. I don't believe it was right, you do. That's an opinion.[/quote] I've supported my opinion with facts and reasoning. You've failed to do so. [quote]However, what I'm arguing, is a realistic approach to this issue. One, that needs to be considered, because in today's society, everyone's a winner, and that is another dangerous belief.[/quote] More generalities and cliches. This is not an argument, and this does not support any claim you've made. It's pure sophistry. [quote]If you talk to any rich person, they will tell you there is a high degree of luck involved in them becoming who they are. If skills alone made people rich, there would be a lot more rich people.[/quote] Another baseless claim. You've provided no facts or evidence to support your claims, and your reasoning is weak. If I talk to any rich person? You haven't named even one (not that one would speak for the entire group, or indicate larger trends), and you haven't even defined your terms. [quote]You stated his physical ability is delayed, not permanently stunted. He can still build muscle and compete at a decent level. It may be harder for him, but that doesn't mean he can't do it.[/quote] Let's call everything as we see it. He [i]might[/i] be able to match a regular person's physical capability, but he also might not. It is also highly unlikely that he will surpass the mean, which is something that most (if not all) successful athletes do. Potential-wise, he's objectively inferior to the undefeated wrestler. Furthermore, that's the best-case scenario. We're dealing purely with physical capability, and wrestling relies on quick reflexes and brain synapses. Mental impairment is not conducive to any sport, let alone one like wrestling.
-
I have as well. You fail to see it as such. [quote]More generalities and cliches. This is not an argument, and this does not support any claim you've made. It's pure sophistry.[/quote]It IS an argument. It's obvious if you look at society today, that the idea of "everyone being a winner," is widely accepted. You see losers in tournaments be given "completion" medals and, people argue that everyone's a winner if they try, which is completely false. There's only one winner; the one that finishes in 1st. [quote] In a study by PNC Wealth Management of 1,500 Americans with $500,000 or more in investible assets, 37% of self-made wealthy agreed that “the money I have made so far has come from being at the right place at the right time.” [/quote]This means more than a third of wealthy individuals support my argument. That's huge evidence for my claim. If his situation dictates that he is truly unable to be as good as the competition, then so be it. Not everyone's destiny, is to be truly talented at something. It's sad, but that's the way it is/
-
[quote]I have as well. You fail to see it as such.[/quote] This is flimsy evidence, and it actually undermines the point you're trying to make. Let me show you. Your evidence reads... (all emphasis is mine) [quote]But is it possible to get rich without skills and hard work? In a follow-up segment on Fox, I made the point that practically all of the millionaires or billionaires I have interviewed over the years were obsessive workers. [b]Sure, people win the lottery. And some inherit their money. But they are the minority.[/b] [b]Repeated studies show that inherited wealth accounts for 10% to 20% of today’s multimillionaires.[/b] [/quote] [quote]In a study by PNC Wealth Management of 1,500 Americans with $500,000 or more in investible assets, [b]37% of self-made wealthy agreed that “the money I have made so far has come from being at the right place at the right time.”[/b] Perhaps, as one viewed wrote to Fox, “the harder I work, the luckier I get.”[/quote] Not only does your author undermine the point you're trying to make, but a [i]minority[/i] of the self-made wealthy agree that luck played a part. [quote]It IS an argument. It's obvious if you look at society today, that the idea of "everyone being a winner," is widely accepted. You see losers in tournaments be given "completion" medals and, people argue that everyone's a winner if they try, which is completely false. There's only one winner; the one that finishes in 1st.[/quote] Those situations are distinct from the example regarding a disabled wrestler and an undefeated wrestler, and I've made that clear. [quote]This means more than a third of wealthy individuals support my argument. That's huge evidence for my claim.[/quote] This means that a minority of wealthy individuals support your claim. Furthermore, you cut out the part where your author brings up an intriguing point against you. [quote]If his situation dictates that he is truly unable to be as good as the competition, then so be it. Not everyone's destiny, is to be truly talented at something. It's sad, but that's the way it is/[/quote] He situation certainly does dictate that, and that is sad. However, that does not make it morally wrong or dishonest for a talented wrestler to throw him a win.
-
The distinction doesn't matter. It's not a healthy practice, to let people win. It sends the message that you don't need to work for your victory. It sends the message that you don't need to get better at something either. You can just rely on others letting you win. It sickens me. 37% of wealthy individuals agree with me on something. That's a lot of people. There must be some shred of truth behind it. It does make it morally wrong. You don't throw games. You don't let people win. It doesn't matter the scenario. It's wrong. Plain and simple. there is no rational reason, to do that. Plus why is he even allowed to compete with the normal kids anyway?
-
[quote]The distinction doesn't matter. It's not a healthy practice, to let people win. It sends the message that you don't need to work for your victory. It sends the message that you don't need to get better at something either. You can just rely on others letting you win. It sickens me.[/quote] The distinction does matter, and you're trying to make the situation into something that it isn't. It doesn't send the message that you don't need to work, at least not in this case. The disabled wrestler was given a free win by an objectively superior wrestler. He hasn't gotten any better, and he's not going to be thrown a slew of matches culminating in a state title. A skilled wrestler did a kind thing for somebody whose potential was capped. There's no grave moral issue, here. [quote]37% of wealthy individuals agree with me on something. That's a lot of people. There must be some shred of truth behind it.[/quote] Here's another one of those fallacies that you're so fond of. [i]Argumentum ad populum[/i] A consensus among people is no basis for establishing fact. [quote]It does make it morally wrong. You don't throw games. You don't let people win. It doesn't matter the scenario. It's wrong. Plain and simple.[/quote] This isn't an argument, and I've already explained several times how it isn't wrong. [quote]there is no rational reason, to do that. Plus why is he even allowed to compete with the normal kids anyway?[/quote] There's certainly a rational reason. The undefeated wrestler found that the virtuous thing for him to do would be to throw the disabled wrestler a win, at the cost of his undefeated record. It's a display of humility. Why is he allowed to compete with normal kids? You just tried to make the point that he had the same potential as other wrestlers. Are you going back on that so soon? Furthermore, he's allowed to compete with the normal kids because there's no great abundance of wrestlers with his disorder.
-
There is. Again, you don't throw games for anyone. It's wrong; especially for someone as "different" as him. It doesn't teach him anything. He could learn a tip or two from him. Well then by that logic, evolution hasn't been proven, even though 98% of scientists support it. There isn't. It's not virtuous, it's moronic. It's one of the stupidest things he could possibly do. There's no merit to the win. At all. I was playing devil's advocate. I was humoring your argument. If he is as incapable as you say he is, why is he allowed to compete? Personally, I believe the disabled should be segregated from the general population. There's no reason to include them when they cannot be held to the same standards.
-
[quote]There is. Again, you don't throw games for anyone. It's wrong; especially for someone as "different" as him. It doesn't teach him anything. He could learn a tip or two from him.[/quote] You keep repeating this point, but that doesn't make it valid. A crushing defeat wouldn't teach him anything either. Furthermore, whether or not he learns something isn't relevant, as I've pointed out. Charitable donations don't teach people how to sustain themselves, but they're still virtuous. [quote]Well then by that logic, evolution hasn't been proven, even though 98% of scientists support it.[/quote] Wrong, again. Evolution has evidence behind it, and it can be logically explained. Evolution is true because of natural forces, not because scientists say so. A consensus is not sufficient grounds for truth. [quote]There isn't. It's not virtuous, it's moronic. It's one of the stupidest things he could possibly do. There's no merit to the win. At all.[/quote] There's no merit in receiving a donation. You didn't earn it. It was earned by somebody else and given to you. It's still a virtuous gesture on the other person's behalf. There doesn't need to be merit in receiving it. [quote]I was playing devil's advocate. I was humoring your argument. If he is as incapable as you say he is, why is he allowed to compete?[/quote] Again, he's allowed to compete because it gives him a constructive outlet. He's not destined to win tournaments, and he's not destined to earn medals, so there's no real harm in throwing him a win. [quote]Personally, I believe the disabled should be segregated from the general population. There's no reason to include them when they cannot be held to the same standards.[/quote] Your beliefs are, frankly, irrelevant. They're free people, and they can interact with us voluntarily just as we can interact with them voluntarily. The undefeated wrestler volunteered to lose, and you're here trying to tell me that his voluntary action is a grave moral sin.
-
It would. It would teach him how to improve. I know evolution exists, but luck being a factor in becoming wealthy is also a fact. Finances are different. There's skill in wrestling. There's no skill involved in receiving money. Skill is a choice. Poverty/wealth isn't completely. There is harm. It breeds a generation that believes everyone's a winner. I've said this before. Some are going to be superior to others. The superior should and will, dominate the inferior. Survival of the fittest.
-
[quote]It would. It would teach him how to improve.[/quote] You're ignoring my point. Stop. A charitable donation does not teach anything, yet it is still virtuous. [quote]I know evolution exists, but luck being a factor in becoming wealthy is also a fact.[/quote] No. You have to establish that it's a fact, and you haven't done so. [quote]Finances are different. There's skill in wrestling. There's no skill involved in receiving money. Skill is a choice. Poverty/wealth isn't completely.[/quote] There is certainly skill involved in gaining/creating wealth. In fact, the evidence you provided showed that a majority of self-made millionaires believed that their choices/decisions had led to their fortune. [quote]There is harm. It breeds a generation that believes everyone's a winner. I've said this before. Some are going to be superior to others. The superior should and will, dominate the inferior. Survival of the fittest.[/quote] Would you then be opposed to charitable donations, or even welfare?
-
Being rich or being given a donation, and being a skilled wrestler are two different concepts. You can't compare the two. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100803913 I already have with one simple sentence. [i]If hard work alone made you rich, there would be no poor people. [/i] Furthermore, this study on CSNBC has an increased number. Apparently 68% of wealthy business owners believe luck is a factor. 79% said it was about being at the right place at the right time. That's a version of luck as well. I said receiving money alone, is a skilless act. Becoming a millionaire has some skill involved yes. You cannot compare an athlete to a rich person. It's like comparing apples and oranges. No I'm not. As a left-wing individual, I support a progressive welfare state, which helps people stay out of poverty and reach their full potential. A living wage, a gaurenteed basic income, universal healthcare, affordable or free college tuition etc. I believe the right to a healthy body and an educated mind are rights. No one should have to work 40+ hours a week and be poor. No one. A wrestler throwing a game to a disabled kid is the equivalent of giving some random college kid their diploma without making them work for it. The same goes for Trials carries in Destiny.
-
[quote]Being rich or being given a donation, and being a skilled wrestler are two different concepts. You can't compare the two.[/quote] "Being rich" isn't a part of it. It's about giving a donation, and you don't have to be upper-class to do so. [quote]I already have with one simple sentence. If hard work alone made you rich, there would be no poor people.[/quote] Hard work isn't necessarily valuable work. I could work hard digging holes and filling them back up, but I'm not going to become wealthy by doing so. [quote]Furthermore, this study on CSNBC has an increased number. Apparently 68% of wealthy business owners believe luck is a factor. 79% said it was about being at the right place at the right time. That's a version of luck as well.[/quote] Here. Let me show you a few statements from this same article. [quote]Among people worth $5 million or more, more than 98 percent cited hard work as a "wealth creation factor." More than 90 percent cited education, followed by "smart investing," "frugality" and then "taking risk."[/quote] [quote]Slightly more than half of those surveyed cited "being at the right place at the right time" as a factor in their success—[b]ranking it far below hard work and education.[/b][/quote] Moreover, it's demonstrably false that wealth flows arbitrarily. There are patterns in its distribution. It isn't a coincidence that nations with large degrees of economic freedom have more wealth than nations with lower degrees. [quote]I said receiving money alone, is a skilless act. Becoming a millionaire has some skill involved yes. You cannot compare an athlete to a rich person. It's like comparing apples and oranges.[/quote] This isn't relevant, as I've pointed out. I never brought up the idea of "being rich." I brought up the idea of charitable donations, which don't necessitate the giver to be wealthy. [quote]No I'm not. As a left-wing individual, I support a progressive welfare state, which helps people stay out of poverty and reach their full potential. A living wage, a gaurenteed basic income, universal healthcare, affordable or free college tuition etc.[/quote] If those things fueled prosperity, American blacks would be incredibly prosperous. As it stands, they aren't. In fact, they've only degraded since the construction of the modern-day American welfare state. [quote]I believe the right to a healthy body and an educated mind are rights. No one should have to work 40+ hours a week and be poor. No one. A wrestler throwing a game to a disabled kid is the equivalent of giving some random college kid their diploma without making them work for it. The same goes for Trials carries in Destiny.[/quote] These things are not comparable. Rights stem from self-ownership, and they don't necessitate action on behalf of others. A "right to a healthy body" is a contradiction, since it necessitates action from another person. If you have to provided a healthy body, then somebody at the end of the line is going to be coerced into providing it. Furthermore, handing a diploma to somebody is not comparable to a wrestler throwing a match. In one instance, the school and student have entered into a transaction. The school provides education in return for cash. In the other instance, the two parties are competing. There's a huge difference in the importance of the two situations, as well.
-
You don't have to be upper class to give a donation. Besides, money helps people get on their feet and help them succeed. It's not like everyone's being given free college diplomas or million dollar checks. Hard work in general, doesn't guarantee success. It is ranked lower of course, but it's still a major factor. Actually, no. Countries with more economic freedom (U.S., Canada, U.K. and others) suffered the worst effects of the Great Depression and Great Recession not to mention the countless other recessions at a national level. Reaganomic theory (trickle down economics) is cherished by those who approve of a free market system, and it has always ended in a recession. There was a temporary boom in the economy, then the economy crashed. You can't expect the rich to not hog all of the wealth. people are naturally selfish. The ideas are different, but the principles are the same. Throwing a match means giving someone a win they didn't earn. Giving someone a free diploma means they get an educational degree they didn't earn. They share the sane principle: [i]"getting rewards and advantages you didn't earn."[/i]
-
[quote]You don't have to be upper class to give a donation.[/quote] That was one of my points. [quote]Hard work in general, doesn't guarantee success.[/quote] Valuable work makes you successful. Like I said, I can work hard digging holes and filling them up. That's backbreaking. However, it isn't going to make me rich. My labor and time have to be valuable in order to be successful. [quote]Actually, no. Countries with more economic freedom (U.S., Canada, U.K. and others) suffered the worst effects of the Great Depression and Great Recession not to mention the countless other recessions at a national level. [/quote] Even during the 2008 crash, the U.S was [i]far[/i] more prosperous than places with low degrees of economic freedom. Places like Venezuela don't get dramatic crashes because they don't have booming economies in the first place. Instead, they get a constant rate of poverty. It's also absurd to blame these recessions on the free market, given that the Federal Reserve's reckless printing and de facto monopolization of the banking industry is what fuels these things. [quote]Reaganomic theory (trickle down economics) is cherished by those who approve of a free market system, and it has always ended in a recession. There was a temporary boom in the economy, then the economy crashed. You can't expect the rich to not hog all of the wealth. people are naturally selfish.[/quote] First of all, supply-side economics are not a necessary component of a free market. Secondly, the crashes can be traced back to the Federal Reserve's printing practices and favoritism towards transnational banks. Third, "hogging all of the wealth" is a misleading phrase. This assumes that wealth is static. That is untrue. Wealth can be created and destroyed, which is to say that rich people don't take a larger slice of the pie and leave everybody else out in the cold. The total amount of wealth in a system is always shifting. There is not a loser for every winner. [quote]The ideas are different, but the principles are the same. Throwing a match means giving someone a win they didn't earn.[/quote] The ideas are vastly different, and it's absurd to say that throwing a match to a disabled wrestler is an immoral thing to do. Again, is a charitable donation an immoral act? It is giving somebody wealth that they did not earn. [quote]Giving someone a free diploma means they get an educational degree they didn't earn. They share the sane principle: "getting rewards and advantages you didn't earn." Reply[/quote] You've left out the part about potential, again. The disabled wrestler will never take home a state title, and that isn't his fault. The undefeated wrestler voluntarily throws him a win. That's a virtuous act.
-
It's not gaurenteed. That's beside the point anyway. No one who works for 40 hours a week should be poor. You're still missing my point. Nordic countries avoided the worst parts of the Great Recession, and a lot of that is due to to their economic model. In the current system, there are far more losers than winners; especially when the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90%. A charitable donation doesn't involve throwing a skill based, competitive game. Money helps people get on their feet; to help them unlock their full potential. Depending on the severity of his disability, he could if he tries hard enough. Throwing away a win shows weakness and how much of a fool you are. It doesn't show virtue. Showing virtue would be making him work for the win, or to help him improve his skills. Not giving him a free win.
-
[quote]It's not gaurenteed. That's beside the point anyway. No one who works for 40 hours a week should be poor.[/quote] Labor has market value. I might work for 40 hours per week digging holes and filling them back up again. That labor isn't worth very much, and the wages for it would reflect that. [quote]You're still missing my point. Nordic countries avoided the worst parts of the Great Recession, and a lot of that is due to to their economic model.[/quote] Nordic countries avoided the Great Recession because they didn't artificially inflate their housing market using quantitative easing and loan-buying quotas. Again, you're reverting to the [i]cum hoc[/i] fallacy. [quote]In the current system, there are far more losers than winners; especially when the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90%.[/quote] The top 1% did not deprive the others of their wealth to get where they are. Wealth is created. I don't get poorer when the Apple corporation gets richer. [quote]A charitable donation doesn't involve throwing a skill based, competitive game. Money helps people get on their feet; to help them unlock their full potential.[/quote] Some people's potential is capped. The disabled wrestler's, for example. He will never be able to compete at the same level as the undefeated wrestler. He's objectively inferior and it isn't his fault. The undefeated wrestler decided to grant him a win. That's altruism. He acted selflessly. A quadriplegic is likely not as productive as I am in the labor market, and he might scrape by mostly due to the compassion of others. I might donate to him. Am I acting immorally by doing so? Certainly not. [quote]Depending on the severity of his disability, he could if he tries hard enough.[/quote] Can we realistically expect him, too, though? I already showed you the physical limitations of Down's Syndrome. They can't be expected to compete at the same level. [quote]Throwing away a win shows weakness and how much of a fool you are.[/quote] An undefeated wrestler is certainly not weak, and it's preposterous to suggest that. You think he really suffered by giving that win away? Doubtful. You think the 20-odd kids he throttled earlier in the season are rejoicing that he gave the win away, because it apparently shows that he's beatable? Not likely. He's already demonstrated his utter dominance. What does he have to show by crushing a kid who can't defend himself? You think people are going to give him a standing ovation for pinning a disabled kid in 10 seconds? It doesn't show anything. There's nothing to be gained from that victory. Out of curiosity, are you an athlete? Your attitude in this statement is incredibly unsportsmanlike. If any of the kids I coach said something like this, I would run them to death. [quote]It doesn't show virtue. Showing virtue would be making him work for the win, or to help him improve his skills. Not giving him a free win.[/quote] These things aren't exclusionary to throwing him a win. Demolishing somebody who has no chance of victory doesn't benefit anybody. The undefeated wrestler isn't challenged, and the disabled wrestler gets 15 seconds of mat-time. That's the alternative, and it doesn't appear to be glimmering with moral light.
-
Look, people need to remember that what social democrats like myself are demanding, is a quality of life on par with that of the 50's. Back then, a minimum wage income could pay for a family to eat and live in a decent home; maybe even buy a car. Wages have been stagnant since the 80's. There needs to be some change. I'm not reverting to any fallacies here. I'm stating a fact. Nordic countries were able to bypass the worst of the recession. They've been at the top for economic competitiveness for years, because their economies have been so strong. That's beside the point. Wealth needs to be redistributed, so that the rich can still have plenty of money, but so the poor can have a share of that as well. You keep comparing financial donations to throwing a win, when they are completely different. Money helps people get on their feet. Being given a free win has no merit to it. He has nothing to gain by letting him win either. In fact it makes him a fool. He should've beat him, said GG then move on. Better yet, the disabled kid shouldn't even be competing. If his potential is as capped as you think it is, then there's no reason he should be allowed to compete with the normal kids. There's nothing unsportsmanlike about wanting to win, and believing in the idea, that if you're bad at something, get better. If he made fun of him and taunted him, then I'd be on your side. He didn't. Look. We're going around in circles. I'm not going to get through to you here. You can't seem to grasp the issue with this method of thinking. The method of thinking, that "everyone is a winner," and that "everyone is equal," and furthermore, that disabled people deserve special treatment, and that people should go easier on the inferior. That's a dangerous method of thinking, because it isn't rational. It isn't practical. If I'm disabled, I should have to work just as hard as everyone else, if not harder for everything. I shouldn't get a free ride. A free win doesn't benefit this kid at all. Being beaten by a superior wrestler could in fact teach him a thing or two, regarding positioning. Maybe he could focus on working out more and gaining more muscle. He could still compete at a somewhat competitive level, so to speak. It would just be harder for him to succeed, and that's fine, because not everyone is equal.
-
[quote]Look, people need to remember that what social democrats like myself are demanding, is a quality of life on par with that of the 50's. Back then, a minimum wage income could pay for a family to eat and live in a decent home; maybe even buy a car. Wages have been stagnant since the 80's. There needs to be some change.[/quote] I know what social democrats want, and I'll have no part in a disastrous planned economy, nor do I want to further burden unborn generations with debt. [quote]I'm not reverting to any fallacies here. I'm stating a fact. Nordic countries were able to bypass the worst of the recession. They've been at the top for economic competitiveness for years, because their economies have been so strong.[/quote] You've shifted your argument. You claimed that the Nordic welfare state is what shielded them from the effects. [i]Cum hoc.[/i] Now you're using circular logic. "They've been economically competitive because their economies are good." [quote]That's beside the point. Wealth needs to be redistributed, so that the rich can still have plenty of money, but so the poor can have a share of that as well.[/quote] I disagree. Using violence to redistribute wealth is senseless and immoral. It also destroys the incentive for further gain, [i]which you yourself acknowledge when you claim that letting people win doesn't teach them anything.[/i] [quote]You keep comparing financial donations to throwing a win, when they are completely different. Money helps people get on their feet. Being given a free win has no merit to it.[/quote] Receiving a donation has no merit in it either. Neither does receiving an EBT Card. You didn't earn the wealth. It was earned by somebody else. A donation is virtuous because it was voluntarily given. The EBT card is not virtuous, because it was taken from somebody else. Throwing a less-abled person a win voluntarily is virtuous for the same reason that donating to a quadriplegic is virtuous. [quote]He has nothing to gain by letting him win either. In fact it makes him a fool. He should've beat him, said GG then move on. Better yet, the disabled kid shouldn't even be competing. If his potential is as capped as you think it is, then there's no reason he should be allowed to compete with the normal kids.[/quote] Altruism arguably has its own benefits. He could have easily collected a win over the kid and then boasted about pinning a disabled kid, or he could show off his 27-1 record and explain that he gave away a win to a disabled wrestler. So not only was he a dominant wrestler, but he had the humility to sacrifice his undefeated season for a disabled person's benefit. It's a matter of principle - of sportsmanship, humility, and virtue. Furthermore, there's no real reason he shouldn't be allowed to compete. It's a constructive outlet. He's not likely to win, ever, so a win like this is good for his morale. It keeps him invested in the sport, which isn't about winning for him. There's more to be learned from athletics than just competitiveness. [quote]There's nothing unsportsmanlike about wanting to win, and believing in the idea, that if you're bad at something, get better. If he made fun of him and taunted him, then I'd be on your side. He didn't.[/quote] It's about more than merely "wanting to win." Like I said earlier, it's about humility. He sacrificed a win that he didn't need. Anybody with a 27-1 record has long since clinched the first seed position at state. He had "surplus wins," so to speak, and he gave one to a disadvantaged wrestler. That's virtuous. I may have surplus wealth, so I give it to a quadriplegic. That's virtuous. Point being made, let me tell you a story. My junior year of high school, my twin brother and I went to a tournament planning on entering in the same weight class. Turns out, they wouldn't let two wrestlers from one school into a single bracket, which meant that they had to drop me to the JV tournament in the same weight (my brother was given deference because it was his weight class, while I was cutting). Within 24 hours I had stomped every competitor and collected my medal. However, the first kid I wrestled had Down's Syndrome, and my coaches asked his father what I ought to do. After all, I was a high-level competitor surrounded by low-level competitors. His father said that too many people had thrown matches to the kid, so I ought to lay into him. So I did. In that case, letting him win would have been patronizing. He already had wins that had been given to him. He didn't need any more. In circumstances like that, throwing a win wouldn't be a demonstration of virtue. [quote]Look. We're going around in circles. I'm not going to get through to you here. You can't seem to grasp the issue with this method of thinking.[/quote] I'm not willing to accept fallacious arguments. [quote]The method of thinking, that "everyone is a winner," and that "everyone is equal," and furthermore, that disabled people deserve special treatment, and that people should go easier on the inferior.[/quote] Don't misrepresent my position. Not everybody is a winner. The undefeated wrestler will take home a state title. The disabled wrestler won't. They're clearly on different footing. Did he deserve special treatment because he was disabled? Not necessarily. The undefeated wrestler decided that since he had a surplus compared to the wrestler whose potential was capped, he ought to give away some of his surplus. Again, is it wrong for me to give away some of my income to a quadriplegic? He's objectively inferior to me in terms of productivity, and the donation doesn't teach him anything. [quote]That's a dangerous method of thinking, because it isn't rational. It isn't practical. If I'm disabled, I should have to work just as hard as everyone else, if not harder for everything. I shouldn't get a free ride. A free win doesn't benefit this kid at all.[/quote] You should certainly be subject to the same conditions as everyone else. There needn't be a forceful hand that punishes others and coddles you. However, if people [i]voluntarily[/i] decide to help you, then there's no harm in that. [quote]Being beaten by a superior wrestler could in fact teach him a thing or two, regarding positioning.[/quote] A disabled wrestler (on the low end of the bell curve) isn't going to glean anything valuable from being beaten by a wrestler on the far, high end of the bell curve. A 10-second pin teaches you nothing, just like a 15-0 tech-fall teaches you nothing. There's a reason that coaches put weaker wrestlers on the JV team, even if there's nobody in the varsity spot. The weaker wrestler won't learn anything if they're destroyed by a dominant opponent. They'll learn more by wrestling people of a similar skill level. [quote]Maybe he could focus on working out more and gaining more muscle.[/quote] This is just massively ignorant. [i]Gaining[/i] muscle? During the season? That's suicide, especially for the lighter weights. You have to maintain muscle and cut fat. You want to be as light as possible. Furthermore, strength will only get you so far. The horses in the 160 pound weight class might eek out a few wins with strength alone, but a smart wrestler with a creative repertoire will put them down. There's a reason that Olympic wrestlers aren't merely unpracticed sacks of muscle. [quote]He could still compete at a somewhat competitive level, so to speak. It would just be harder for him to succeed, and that's fine, because not everyone is equal.[/quote] It [i]is[/i] harder for him to succeed, and being thrown a win isn't success, especially in wrestling. Those wins count for nothing but data to be used in the seeding process at tournaments. The disabled wrestler will never clinch a top seed spot. The undefeated wrestler likely gets seeded first at every tournament he goes to. The win counts for nothing, and people know that. You think people are going to legitimately believe that the undefeated wrestler wasn't good enough to maintain his record? Doubtful.
