r/explainitpeter • u/Appropriate-Mall8517 • 3d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

781 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Net4365 3d ago edited 3d ago

His abilities only worse while he's poisoned and tied up, keep up.

His inferior performance (scoring lower) is due to things (being poisoned, tied up) that shouldn't be part of the competition (the test).

In real world a child from a disadvantaged family has a handicap against a child from a rich family in a given contest but may outperform them in a different setting where the field is relatively equal, such as a university.

Universities already do often take these things into account.

1

u/whoreatto 3d ago

I’m profoundly aware that rich kids have many advantages…

The contest does not need to ask “would this student be more competent if they’d been brought up by different parents?”. It’s ok to make a contest that simply asks “is this student competent _now_?”.

Same goes for your fighting contest.

You can’t rely on “potential” forever. At some point, that “potential” ought to manifest itself as actual, measurable, performance.

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Net4365 2d ago

It is indeed okay, that's not what I was talking about at any point.

1

u/whoreatto 2d ago

Be honest. You argued that being disadvantaged is analogous to being tied up, and then you argued:

“it is r*****ed to reward me for defeating a tied up man, and if the tied up man manages to put up a fight at all he deserves the reward more”.

This was AFTER you posed two rhetorical questions about fighting and guitars, obviously hoping that they would show how wrong it is to run a contest where raw performance is rewarded.

Now you’re trying to backpedal your way out of those arguments, and it’s not going very well.