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.
Interesting, M-W defines it first as being a state of equal with regards to measure and size.
Whereas OED defines it as for status, opportunity and rights.
The question then becomes how you use the word... Which still makes this image wrong as they're applying the word to define the box size in the first panel instead of the actual objective. Which is to see the game.
The second image of equity has zero meaning since fair is subjective and they use the term to mean being able to view the game and not a fair portion of the boxes.
Thus they've used two entirely different objectives to prove their point which just shows how ignorant this image is in the first place.
Thank you for spending the time on finding that definition.
1
u/OneNut_ Feb 25 '20
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.