[–] daskapitalist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
And in the background we have everyone who earned the right to watch the game by purchasing a ticket instead of freeloading.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
[–] TremorAcePV ago (edited ago)
is at all fair
The results are the same. That seems to be what is used to discern what is "fair" in that situation.
[–] ghotioninabarrel 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
In this case the fairness is not fairness of what is given, but fairness of effect.
The first distribution only really benefits the middle guy. The second benefits both the middle guy and the short guy. Switching from the first distribution to the second doesn't hurt the tall guy in any significant way.
That last bit is the really important bit imo. It's why the analogy breaks down when people try to use it to justify quotas etc, because in those cases the benefit to the (assumed) disadvantaged is in fact coming at the expense of the (assumed) advantaged.
The third setup is obviously superior to the other two, it's also the hardest to make happen.
[–] Claudius 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
I'm a man in the ~89.6% height percentile. I'm taller than 99.89% of women. Therefore, I require more food to survive than 99.89% of women. If we're going to start enforcing equity, I should be paid more than almost every woman to accommodate my individual food needs.
[–] Gake_The_Cake 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
This is an excellent argument. Most men make more money, but they also spend more on food and water due to biological needs.
[–] Apathy 3 points 0 points 3 points (+3|-3) ago
And how exactly do you remove the barrier when the barrier is a low IQ (different races have different IQ's), ambition, and capability (see men vs women). You can't make people smarter. You can't make them less violent (without castrating them or drugging them, but that's a whole different issue) and you can't force them to become more motivated/inventive/creative. So although the analogy is nice, there are certain barriers that you can't remove.
Moving on to the equality and equity part. Why help others? Because it's nice? Because we should? Okay, but guess what, this is a zero sum game. Meaning that when we pay to help others, we are taking from people who don't require help. Why should person B and C get aid, while person A has to pay for it? How is that fair? How is that "equal"?
True equality would mean everyone gets the same aid, the same privileges, the same everything regardless of gender or race. Unfortunately this will never happen, because we live in a society where we have bullshit like affirmative action trying to make some people more equal than others.