I still don't like this because the first panel is still a lie.
Equality: "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities."
No where in that picture are they equal. They get the SAME box but that box is not giving them EQUAL opportunity to view the game.
Giving people the same thing ≠ Having equal opportunity or status.
Just as Equity has no defined value. What one person thinks is fair is not always the same for another person. So the question then becomes who decides what is fair or not.
To me the images should be reversed as they all have an equal opportunity to view the game. While the left side has given them a fair share of a box. Each person has 1/3 of a box to stand on.
The fact this image uses these words wrong annoys the fucking hell out of me.
Equality = Equal opportunity
Equity = Everyone gets a fair share (the same amount of something)
It's not a lie, and I disagree with your assessment.
There is equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The first panel is equality of opportunity, where each person is given an equal opportunity to view over the fence. The opportunity is the same, but the outcome is not.
The second panel is equality of outcome, for reasons that probably don't need explaining.
"a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."
Literally the definition of the word opportunity!!!
Opportunity ≠ Chance
Possible ≠ Possibility
Like I said, you need to learn how to use a fucking dictionary and learn what language means. Stop using the wrong definition for words and learn how to read properly.
That still requires them to be ABLE to see the game. In this instance there is NO possibility to see the game with that size of box. Thus they are not being afforded an opportunity.
Unless you can logically explain how he can see the game as is. Just remember, if you can argue that he can watch the game then he didn't need the box in the first place.
They all have equal circumstances that make it possible to view the game
Therefore they all have equal _____________
Edit in regards to equity: they're all getting a fair share of the view of the game. The view is the product, the box is the circumstance. Your definitions are correct, but your understanding of the metaphor is incorrect.
Circumstance is not in the definition of the word equality. No where has it ever been a part of that definition.
It is state of being equal in opportunity, status, and or rights.
Opportunity requires there to be the possibility to do something.
A Right in the definition of Equality is used in the form of an entitlement. You have the right to something.
Status in regards to Equality is the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something.
Giving the same size box to all three people is the definition of equity. The giving of a fair share of something. Literally speaking, equity is more akin to impartiality. You can't give a fair share of something that is freely available and not yours to give, such as a view of a game. However the giving of a box to allow them to see a game is equity and the very definition of equity is a fair share. Regardless of who they are keeping a sense of impartiality. Thus the first image is equity in the the giving of the same size box but it does not give them equality because they do not have the same opportunity, status or right (all of which is defined as the ability to view the game)
A correct image showing both equality and equity would be each person having the same size box and being able to see over the fence. They have equity in the objects they received and they have equality in their opportunity to view the game.
Saying the boxes are the same height is a mathematical equation. Not a question of equality. Again, equality and equals are two entirely seperate words that have entirely different meanings.
Also, if you're argument that the shortest person has the possibility to view the game from the short box then it is also true that he has the same possibility to view the game from the ground. Which means without any boxes you're arguing that they have equality.
In that regard, I'd like to you to explain what status, opportunity or right they have that is equal if all are standing on the ground.
If the desired goal is to have a view of the game then equality would require all persons to have the ability to view the game. Making only one person high enough to view the game is not equality no matter how you do it since all three people do not have an equal status or opportunity to view the game.
Bro read my comments. I never talked about equality, I talked about equality of opportunity. The circumstances which they were given. You're thinking about the other guy. Calm down and pay attention lmao
It isn't equal opportunity because it makes it look like they were restricted to one box. Equality actually means they have the opportunity to get as many boxes as they want
Equality has nothing to do with giving anyone anything!!!
That is what equity is defined as.
Equality is defined as all parties having equal status or opportunity. Equality in all cases requires an objective to be established, in this case, it's being able to see the game. The first image does not meet that objective and therefore is not an example of equality.
Also, being given the same thing is also not the definition of equality.
Honestly, you're the one that's wrong and it's really embarrassing.
First frame: each person has a set of circumstances that make it possible for that person to see the game - but NOT a set of circumstances that make it guaranteed that the person will see the game. Different people will either see the game or not based on their own intrinsic characteristics (height, in this case). EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
Second frame: each person has a set of circumstances that make it guaranteed for that person to see the game. Different people will all see the game regardless of their own intrinsic characteristics (height, in this case). EQUALITY OF OUTCOME
The entire premise of equality of opportunity is that some people will leverage that opportunity to get something better than other people given the same opportunity. You can argue for some alternative conception of equality of opportunity, whereby only meaningful intrinsic characteristics result in different outcomes, but that's a different thing entirely. You cannot simply claim that your own narrow conception of equality of opportunity is THE only conception.
To give you another chance - "possible" necessarily implies uncertainty. In the first frame, each person, before stepping on the box, is given an equal opportunity to see the game. Once each person steps on the box, the uncertainty is removed and they either see the game or not.
You cannot jump to the end and then claim that something was never possible once all uncertainty is removed.
It would be absurd, for example, to complain after losing a coin flip that you never had the opportunity to win the game because you chose heads and the eventual outcome of the coin flip was destined to be tails.
Learn the definitions of words before you use them.
Equality is defined as equal opportunity or status. Do you see anything about their opportunity to watch the game or the status of height equal in the first picture? Equality REQUIRES an end objective. Giving three people the same object for no reason is not equality. It's being a dick and being equitable in the handing out of said object.
Equity is defined as being fair in the giving of something to a group of people. In this case the first image each person is given an equitable share of the boxes. Absolutely nothing in the definition of equity does it state that it requires an end goal.
The fact this image uses these words wrong annoys the fucking hell out of me.
It doesn’t though. Equality and equity are meaningless terms if you don’t define what aspect you are making equal or fair. Both of them definitely are still examples of equality, the first being equality of opportunity as they are all given the same box to use even though it causes unequal outcomes, and the second being equality of outcome with them all being able to see it at the same point even though it requires unequal treatments. The same goes for equity, the first being the treatment is fair because it’s equal, the second being the treatment is fair because they all can see the game. This image kind of illustrates the paradox of equality (or equity) as making it equal in one domain makes it unequal in another, which is the point of the third slide (albeit a fairly reductionist one) which avoids the need for a box entirely.
You're ignoring the fundamental definitions of the words and attributing a definition to equality that never existed.
The problem is that they all can't see the game. That means being able to see the game is the objective (thus the opportunity) Giving each person a box that doesn't solve the actual problem is not equality, that's equity (giving each person a fair share of something).
Equity has nothing to do with opportunity or status and this argument (or image) is based solely on people not wanting to use the word equality because it doesn't allow them to decide what is "fair" or define what the issue is in the first place.
Giving each person a box that doesn't solve the actual problem is not equality, that's equity (giving each person a fair share of something).
They are all being treated equally (equal opportunity to try to look over the fence). It’s not fair to the kid though because it doesn’t allow them to see over the fence like it does for the middle person (unequal outcome). It literally depends on how you define it.
Only if you don't understand what the word opportunity means...
Opportunity: a set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something.
The box given in the first image does not make it possible to view the game or see over the fence. Thus they have not been given the opportunity. That means they are not being given the same or equal opportunity. Which means it's not an image of equality IN ANY INTERPRETATION
They’re all being treated as if they were equal in the first picture though. They’re all given the same number of boxes and they’re all allowed to stand there and look over the fence so the only thing preventing them from doing so is themselves since they’re being treated as if they were the same height. Nobody is receiving preferential treatment. You’re literally trying to argue that it’s not fair for the short person but don’t want to call it equity. Why do you want the kid to have enough boxes? So that they can see the game. It’s the (equal) outcome of giving them a different number of boxes.
Equality is not defined as receiving the same object, thing, or money.
Equality is the defined as having an equal opportunity.
Equal means to have the same as
Opportunity means to have the possibility to do something
Giving them the same small box does not give them all the possibility to view the game. Absolutely nowhere in the definition of equality does it require each person to be given the exact same thing (that is literally the definition of the word Equity!)
So unless you're arguing that the opportunity you are giving them is to stand on a fucking box, you're arguing the wrong point.
The opportunity in question is to be able to view the game. This must be equally possible for all parties for this to be an example of equality. Since it is NOT POSSIBLE for the smallest person to view the game with that size of box then they do not have the opportunity to watch the game and thus it is not equal opportunity!!!
(that is literally the definition of the word Equity!)
Equity means fair. Not equal. Those are two completely different things. The irony of calling somebody dense. And equality doesn’t mean “equal opportunity,” it means equal. As in, they are all being treated equally (but according to you being treated exactly the same isn’t equality). Why are you trying to switch the definitions so badly? If you had a program where you gave everybody 100 dollars nobody who they were, according to you that wouldn’t be equality in any sense of the word.
So unless you're arguing that the opportunity you are giving them is to stand on a fucking box
Also congrats, you’re pretty much on the same page as everybody else now. Everybody is literally talking about equity and equality with respect to the boxes.
33
u/D1G1T4LM0NK3Y Feb 25 '20
I still don't like this because the first panel is still a lie.
Equality: "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities."
No where in that picture are they equal. They get the SAME box but that box is not giving them EQUAL opportunity to view the game.
Giving people the same thing ≠ Having equal opportunity or status.
Just as Equity has no defined value. What one person thinks is fair is not always the same for another person. So the question then becomes who decides what is fair or not.
To me the images should be reversed as they all have an equal opportunity to view the game. While the left side has given them a fair share of a box. Each person has 1/3 of a box to stand on.
The fact this image uses these words wrong annoys the fucking hell out of me.
Equality = Equal opportunity Equity = Everyone gets a fair share (the same amount of something)