Are you more for Equality or Equity?

[Physics-Man]

Equality

Equity

[Mango-man]

Equality because it means everyone got the same opportunity to try climbing a tree. Sure, only the tall one can actually reach it, but that also means that only the small one will be able to fit into a tunnel or go through the next small doors. Everyone had different talents and we can't artificially force painter to do nursing job just because there is some limit on how many painters from certain neighborhood there can be. And I wouldn't want to be operated on by someone who passed the medical school only because of artificial proviliges that "were supposed to give everyone the same reach while ignoring their strengths and weaknesses".

[HighValue]

Equality is good and equity is bad.

Equity means the person that didn't do the work gets the same as someone that did do the work to earn something. Plus the one that did the work got taxed more to pay for the lazy person.

Equality is better because people get the same benefits if they accomplish the same thing.

[Ez-Bri-Z]

The same thing I preach for on this site all the time, equality. I'm not looking for special circumstances for women to be given just to hang with the guys in certain tasks or for men to be given a boost when it comes to tasks women are naturally better at. All I want is either sex to be given the same opportunities to try doing those roles with what they already have without discrimination. If they can't do it as effectively, that's still ok. It forces them to adapt and become a better version of themselves through ingenuity.

[KrisPW]

Equality. And while that tall guy is picking those apples for us, I'll be whipping up the pie crust and we'll all have desert together.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

❣️❣️❣️

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Everyone is great at something.

But if you put a fish in a tree and say it's as good at climbing as a monkey, it's probably gonna have a really bad time.

[Anonymous]

I choose equality but there is a reason for that. Not gonna list why but naturally we as humans have both. I'm not gonna explain how. Don't feel like it. But this is the great dilemma of mankind, in that most do not know. Equity being natural is the great dilemma because the world doesn't know. It is what the Bible tried to teach and they did a great job at it but I rarely meet even a religious person who understands. In fact, non-religious people are more likely to understand. But it is right there in the Bible. You see it in the Bible in the story of David vs Goliath. You see it in real life in the story of America vs Great Britain. The history books missed it.

[Naydyonov]

Equity is somewhat how you structure a family or friendship: each person receives what they need, bringing all to a more or less equal outcome. This can be splitting a pizza (adults get more, kids less), this can be the allocation of couch space.

However, a society cannot be organized around equity.
In a family, the parents distribute their own resources & time to achieve equity of sorts.
In a good friendship, each party voluntarily enters an arrangement (ex: hiking trip, each person carries however much weight they can).
This works because all parties know each other well.

In a society, there only way to achieve equity is through government. Government can only use force to achieve goals, seeing as it has no other ways to hold people accountable. Because you cannot have millions of people voluntarily enter into an arrangement of equity, you can only achieve equity through force.

Thus, best to have equality to opportunity and equality before the law.

[GreenLanternI0I]

I personally believe equity is a lot more fair. Some people need More resources to achieve goal (A), while other people need Less resources to achieve exactly the same goal (A). But, if you use equality method, a person who needed less resources now can reach a much higher goal (A) than a person who needed more resources to achieve exactly the same goal (A) and therefore that automatically creates inequality and from that point on, things will get only worse, since gap between those two people will start growing significantly.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

If A is getting by, and nobody is allowed to keep what they earn to reach a higher goal... How are we going to cure cancer?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Who's going to design better cars? Better computers?

Or do we just stop all progress because some people are born retarded, and no person should be allowed to cure cancer until the blind one armed mentally retarded kid with no family can cure cancer?

That doesn't make any sense.

Let the first guy achieve A, B, C, D and E. Help the incapable survive and get a place to live.

That will be easier if the capable are allowed to achieve more. Try to teach a guy with no arms to be an average swimmer is a waste of time and money that could be spent by the first guy researching advanced prosthetics.

Your plan is unfair to the capible and actually makes the incapable less likely to achieve their goals.

If the budget is 100, split evenly they each get 50.

If the capible earn and acomplish 1000 they can donate 100 and keep 900. So they are both way better off.

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Lost_in_the_Woods You can't, because there is no incentives, there is no reason to try to be better than somebody else, because you will be forced back down to equality. Neither of those two methods would work if it was either Equity or Equality. You have to use them both and probably something else, otherwise humanity will not be able to evolve and prosper.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I don't know how the picture doesn't help people to understand it better but... 🤷🏼‍♂️

[GreenLanternI0I]

@Lost_in_the_Woods Picture is picture, but reality doesn't work like picture. All humans are different and driven by different things. Whatever system you think be better for humanity, won't work because as I said before all humans are different and want different things. That is just the sad nature of the beast.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Regulated equality in opportunity is not the same as forced equity in outcomes.

I really get sick of arguing about it with people who don't understand.

It's pretty obvious that people were making faster progress when they had the freedom to get ahead Instead of someone taking their resources to try to stop "inequity"

Especially when those people rarely actually give the resources to those who need them and usually just keep them for themselves instead.

[RealMarek]

The problem with equity is the way it works in reality is to make the taller people in the picture stand in a hole until leveling is achieved, overall competence is reduced, and fruit production drops. Equity (equality of outcome) cannot be achieved without tyranny.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I was in school with a 99.9th percentile IQ when VA instituted no child gets behind.

They required the whole class to move at the place of the slowest student.

At the time, we thought they were incompetent idiots. Turns out it was a genius scheme to keep everyone poor and dumb and easy to control while tricking people into thinking they were supporting people who were having a bad time.

They didn't do shit for the dumb kids. All they did was make me suffer with them.

It's a scam. Problem is most people aren't at the top so they just hear "they are giving me a fair chance"

Bullshit. They are taking your chance and mine. The fact that I had a better one than you did is irrelevant when neither one of us is allowed to succeed.

The photo needs to be adjusted so everyone is the height of the short guy.

They stopped me from picking the apples and handing them you. People are so stupid and so greedy they will starve themselves to avoid getting second.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

And that's why we all get to be miserable.

[RealMarek]

@Lost_in_the_Woods That is a good example of the reality.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

It's a reflection of the goal.

The goal isn't to get all three people an apple. The goal is to fool the two who can't reach into helping the government kneecap the guy who can so they get to keep all three.

We didn't call it no child gets behind. It's no child gets ahead. They did absolutely nothing to help the kids who were struggling. They just mandated that nobody could go faster than them.

My highschool science teacher was smart. She sent her kids to private school. She figured out two of us were WAY ahead of the program so she gave us a research assignment and sent us to the library when she was doing stuff we didn't need.

We learned more, and didn't just check out and fall asleep or cause a distraction. Meanwhile, she could set everyone else you with some extra instruction, give them some work to do and help the kids who needed it.

They didn't feel left out or left behind. They got caught up and passed while we got to keep moving forward.

But the government doesn't want that. They want everyone to be too short to reach the apple so they can take the good ones for themselves, then pick and choose who eats.

It's not really about equity. It's all about control.

[RealMarek]

@Lost_in_the_Woods I agree completely.

[Snakeyes7]

I am sick of people using images like that because in reality no one can truly tell how "tall" anyone is so they come up with arbitrary bullshit like race to determine the "height" of the individual which they have no proof of that being the case and usually ends up with everything being more out of balance.

I don't think either is completely possible because there is no "one size fits all" deal so it's better to treat everyone as an individual rather than a collective.

[sunshineglow]

I think he thought about income and opportunities regarding getting out of poverty/financial needs satisfied etc

[Snakeyes7]

@sunshineglow That's fine but that's more on an individual basis not race, sex, whatever. To ensure that someone gets the income they deserve, they make sure they can do what is required of them.

[Soteris]

They are both useful. For example, Equality is super good for establishing a baseline. As such you can establish that everyone should have the best possible healthcare as a human right. Equity is good for dealing with unfair situations (for lack of better words). For example it is very good with dealing with help for people with disabilities to ensure that they can function in society like a normal person.

[bolverk]

Equality, always.
'Equity' is one of those things thought up by the academic 'white saviours' in higher education that has no meaning out side of accounting 'equity is the value of an asset less the amount of all liabilities on that asset'. It has nothing to do with how a life is lived.

[purplepoppy]

It depends on the situation. In the picture equity is the better option because height cannot be helped. But if it was say something that required brain power I'd be against it being dumbed down

[crmoore]

It depends on what it's being employed for, but for anything of any real concern, I'm generally for equality.

That fence example at the ball game is one example in which I'd be okay with equity. But something I'd not be okay with is equity for things like job application, loan forgiveness, medical access. For things like that it should be equality.

[mona_jin]

Equity. People are different, therefore having different needs. Equality means giving everyone a plate of food. Equity means giving and extra serving to those who are hungry. I feel as if equality if based on generalizations and standards that simply don't work for everyone. If you ask me, I'd say it's fairer, although I do agree that it might cause more arguments and disagreements as a result of jealousy.

[Guanfei]

From this pic, equality. Also called equality of opportunity. Starting from the same base, and whatever you get will be based on how much you worked for it.
That gives people a chance to succeed, but at the same time it pushes them to work for it, instead of asking to be given the same as other people who worked more.

[AviatorTom]

I'm treating your use of "Equity" as "Equal Opportunity". All humans should have "Equal Opportunity", regardless of sex, race, religion, or political opinion. That does not mean everyone is equal. For example, men and women are not equal... they have different physical features and different physical abilities.

[FreyaRed]

Equality, same chances for everyone.
Equity is in reality just a nice term for nepotism.

[MCheetah]

Equality. Equity is literally just Communism and only the weak and pathetic support it.

[sunshineglow]

I have literally watched a quite a nice intellectual debate among some very smart kids where exactly opposite was proven. That equity goes with (responsible) capitalism whole equality is rather communist way.

[MCheetah]

@sunshineglow
Okay. What did they say and why is it a "good thing" for individuality to be stripped away from us and for all of us to be treated like interchangeable, valueless, genderless, faceless drones in a machine?

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

They parroted the same leftist narrative about how the poor and black and gay and female don't get a fair chance and the solution is to handicap the straight white rich men so that it will be even.

Because, that way they can keep making billions and even more people will be stuck making $7.25 and giving their lives away to profit the powerful.

I mean, I haven't seen it but that's just an educated guess.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Reputations wasn't set to come from the rich.

The democrats sit there and say the rich don't pay their fair share when they are rich. Zuckerberg spent $400 million to help Biden win on top of social media manipulation. Bill Gates, Bezos, most super rich companies...

But then they want to spend tax money to "help the underprivileged"

But wait, if the rich don't pay their share. . . Where does that come from?

It comes from poor people. Work 60 hours a week, so they take your money, keep most of it, give someone who doesn't work a handout and call it helping the poor.

They aren't trying to help everyone reach the apple. They are trying to make sure only they can. They level everyone down, not up.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

It literally is exactly Communism.

Communism was and is sold on the idea that everyone will get a fair share but we all know that is absolute bullshit. Everyone gets the bare minimum while the government keeps the rest.

[sunshineglow]

@Lost_in_the_Woods yeah, I have a feeling everything is just talk and everything is just fake, which ever system, its just lies, lies. The only truth is that politics has some intrinsic shady system of money/social networks within itself and that it's one dirty bussiness. While you're a regular person outside, you think you'd change something were you in the position of power. But as soon regular person gets there IMMEDIATELY they get changed, because it's impossible to play by the good rules within a corrupt/evil system.
Example : my cousin got into politics, somehow got to be friends with a leader of one party, first thing next, she's becoming leader of the party, first thing what she does as a leader of the party: raises salary RETROACTIVELY FOR 6 MONTHS for herself and that friend former president of the party, so they immediately got huge paycheck. I bet at least part of the money came from tax pay collected budget. First assembly meeting! She used to be such an honest person... So as we can see, you can't survive inside of a mud by playing clean.

[sunshineglow]

The show was actually South Korean, with the best students from various schools. The motion was "Government shall give" universal lowest income " to everyone, to ensure healing of the poverty and financial freedom to those in need, hoping that it would produce enough of savings so that even previously unemployed people could start their small businesses, thus helping the country as a whole. The show is "debate practice", not political show, the point is to handle complex issues with perfect arguments and skilled rhetorics in 5 minutes each speaker. It's additionally harder as they are to be speaking in a foreign language with an advanced vocabulary and they couldn't prepare for the subject, they don't know which topic they will get to discuss prior the show. So they are masterclass trained kids in their debate classes. Anyway.
The kid who got the role of opponent of such idea, said that government needs to come up with strict criteria what is poverty and help exclusively to poor and not give "equal" minimum income provided by the government, to just everyone (apparently this kind of question was debated about in actual Korean government at some point), and even though it's not equal, it will he'll the equality to happen over the time. They are highschool kids, they gave a few false examples quoting (non true) experiences from other countries (out of lack of knowledge /understanding of the systems in those countries) but generally I was impressed with their general knowledge and ability to debate for any point of view, regardless of what they would prefer. Also, I am impressed how both Korean government and these students are highly ethical towards the population, they truly do want to help the poor. But it's Korea, I don't know, maybe their mentality is indeed cleaner, who would know.

[sunshineglow]

* it will he'll = it will help

[Anonymous]

Equality

[MCheetah]

Nice Photoshop job!

[Opinion Owner]

@MCheetah Thanks, it was actually MS Paint.

[dankstranger]

In reality it should be a case by case scenario. In some scenarios equality makes more sense and in others equity should be the choice.

[TadCurious]

I'm for equality of opportunity, not a mandated equality of outcome.

[AngelMegumin]

Neither. Equality is a utopian matter, equity in some cases doesn't allow people to mature and become better in stressful situations by overcoming them.

[joeldalton]

Equity is impossible. And a lot of people are morons on this website based on the voting.

[MCheetah]

A lot of people are morons in general among humanity.

[Anonymous]

Equality. Because that picture is fucking retarded.