TL;DR: The Thread

[TeckXKnight]

If you're not striving towards equality, then you're striving towards inequality.

This will sound strange, but not necessarily. If you are working towards a goal without a clear mindset of what your actions will foster, then you can very much be working against your goal without realizing it. If you believe that the current trend towards equality is leading towards inequality and its methodology is dubious then not following that trend is generally wise.

[Claeyt]

If you're not striving towards equality, then you're striving towards inequality.

This will sound strange, but not necessarily. If you are working towards a goal without a clear mindset of what your actions will foster, then you can very much be working against your goal without realizing it. If you believe that the current trend towards equality is leading towards inequality and its methodology is dubious then not following that trend is generally wise.

how is the current trend towards equality leading towards inequality? As to methodology of modern society to achieve equality, we can argue that for days, I don't mind. I don't think it's perfect by any means, but the goal of achieving equality of opportunity is still there. If you aren't striving for that, or are fighting the progressive forces trying to achieve it then you are against it.

argue the methodology not the goal.

If you're not striving towards equality, then you're striving towards inequality.

again,

Progressive thought would define "Equality" as: "a dream, a goal of least inequality and most opportunity."- Robert M. La Follette

Certainly there must be a meaningful difference between not striving for something and advocating its inverse position.

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

Not if you're talking about a goal of "Equality of Opportunity" or the "Progress of the Human Condition". The inverse of those are exactly what Jorb is arguing for when he uses terms like preferring "The Old Order" or "I do not believe in democracy, nor in human equality before any yardstick other than God."

or this:

Seatribe does, for the record, not condone or in any way lend any support to the (lack of) principles (of) liberalism, jacobinism, illuminism or any other sort of crypto-marxist newspeak designed to undermine the fundamental tenants of Christian civilization through the processes of ideological subversion. The company believes in freedom of speech, a healthy sense of humour, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.

God save the King.

[Procne]

how is the current trend towards equality leading towards inequality?

Example 1

In my country there aren't many women in government. So politicians passed a law, in the name of fight against this inequality, that during elections at least X% (40% afair) of candidates from each party must be female.
In this way they acknowledge that women are weaker and need special treatment. Of course there is no law for minimal % of men.

Example 2

There are laws that forbid firing female workers who are pregnant and during their maternity leave. At the same time maternity leave was extended. All in the name of making it easier for women to keep their job, and increase birthrate. Result? Some women work few months and then suddenly take a 2 year leave to give birth to 2 babies. At this time employer has to suffer some of the costs of such "employee's" leave. Further result? Employers are even more reluctant to hire young women. Oh, and of course it's forbiden to ask if someone is planning to have a baby.

Example 5

In school, if you have certificate of dysgraphia then teachers must ignore your spelling errors. Other handicaps "certificates" (sorry, don't know proper english words) may give extra time on exams and similar stuff. Result? Some students pretend to have such handicaps to get extra time on exams or not have to learn proper spelling. Instead of working hard to fix their deficiencies people are instead promoted for having them.

Example 6

Public education - meant to give equal opportunities must have its level set to the weakest students. Because every child must pass basic school. As a result education level is going down. To a degree that whoever can afford moves his child to a private school. Result? Gap between kids in public schools and in private ones is increasing.

[jwhitehorn]

how is the current trend towards equality leading towards inequality?

Example 1

In my country there aren't many women in government. So politicians passed a law, in the name of fight against this inequality, that during elections at least X% (40% afair) of candidates from each party must be female.
In this way they acknowledge that women are weaker and need special treatment. Of course there is no law for minimal % of men.

Example 2

There are laws that forbid firing female workers who are pregnant and during their maternity leave. At the same time maternity leave was extended. All in the name of making it easier for women to keep their job, and increase birthrate. Result? Some women work few months and then suddenly take a 2 year leave to give birth to 2 babies. At this time employer has to suffer some of the costs of such "employee's" leave. Further result? Employers are even more reluctant to hire young women. Oh, and of course it's forbiden to ask if someone is planning to have a baby.

Example #3:
Colleges for higher education are now scrutinized and funded based on the "Diversity" which is viewed as a form of equality. As such a minority with substantially lower test scores and IQ could get his College application approved to increase the diversity of the school. This means that the HIGHER IQ more qualified student gets REJECTED. What if that higher IQ student was the key to unlocking the cure to cancer and he now gets a sub-par education all so we could maintain the illusion of equal opportunity?

Example #4:
Groups of individuals are now popping up with the lovely little idea of a "Protected Class". You cannot ask people several key questions in the business arena such as Marital status, Sexual preferences, etc. etc. While it might seem like a good idea to LIMIT the information that employers have so that they no longer have the ability to use their instincts and are forced into the ***** politicly correct "equality of opportunity" this comes with some very REAL consequences. Sexual Predators are now being pressured as a "Protected Class". Therefore, you would be punished for asking somebody if they like to rape small children. As a result you may hire somebody who rapes small children (because you are not allowed to ask questions that would single out protected classes). So when you have your company picnic and Employee #1's child gets raped by Employee #2 you can thank Equal Opportunity for blazing the path in eliminating logical thought when stereotyping the mannerisms of individuals.

CITATION: http://www.letstalkpm.com/forum/topics/ ... ffenders-a

Example #7:
ESL Programs (English as a Second Language). Because we have to give Equal Opportunity to the children who have parents too ignorant or stupid to teach them English in their own homes the public system must now offer special teachers/translators and programs in THE SAME classroom as kids who speak English as their primary language. As a result the entire curriculum of the public education system is slowed down to the pace of a snail while the ESL students try to understand what the classroom is doing. Those who learned English first and have brains like a sponge are instead twiddling their thumbs listening to translators catch up their peers who will most likely fail anyway based on the simple fact that they are offspring of (2) people who thought it would be a good idea to deprive their child the language of the country they were born in.


Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe

[Claeyt]

Now we're talking. Let's get down to the Nitty Gritty.

how is the current trend towards equality leading towards inequality?

Example 1

In my country there aren't many women in government. So politicians passed a law, in the name of fight against this inequality, that during elections at least X% (40% afair) of candidates from each party must be female.
In this way they acknowledge that women are weaker and need special treatment. Of course there is no law for minimal % of men.

Perhaps Women are weaker politically in your country to need such special treatment. If women had dominated politics for hundreds of years and men were seen as unable to be in politics, then I would hope that your country would make such a law. The U.S. national politics falls far below 40% but local politics is around that %. A better question to ask about this is "Why would they make a law to empower women, when clearly it takes power away from men?'

Example 2

There are laws that forbid firing female workers who are pregnant and during their maternity leave. At the same time maternity leave was extended. All in the name of making it easier for women to keep their job, and increase birthrate. Result? Some women work few months and then suddenly take a 2 year leave to give birth to 2 babies. At this time employer has to suffer some of the costs of such "employee's" leave. Further result? Employers are even more reluctant to hire young women. Oh, and of course it's forbiden to ask if someone is planning to have a baby.

Does an employer truly "suffer" because a woman chooses to have a baby. Then companies should never hire women if that's the case. Instead basic rights of women to both have children and have jobs should be put in place, like your society seems to have done. Again, change the question around "Why should companies hire women if they might have babies?" or... "Why should companies (or society) have to accept and support the possibility that women might become pregnant, thus needing extra time off?" or... "Does it help the child if the mother is given some time off with it after it's born?" or... "Is it better for society and for the woman's ability to be productive in the workplace throughout her life, if she's given some time off when their child is first born."

Example 5

In school, if you have certificate of dysgraphia then teachers must ignore your spelling errors. Other handicaps "certificates" (sorry, don't know proper english words) may give extra time on exams and similar stuff. Result? Some students pretend to have such handicaps to get extra time on exams or not have to learn proper spelling. Instead of working hard to fix their deficiencies people are instead promoted for having them.

If some people are abusing the system set up to help people with learning disabilities then they should be punished. If there's a system in place to diagnose people for those certificates, and it's broken, then it should be fixed. But it seems like people with dysgraphia, dyslexia or learning disabilities should be given an equal opportunity to take those exams, possibly by giving them a bit more time. I'd hate to see their other abilities and talents wasted if the dysgraphia was the only thing holding them back from achieving that goal and becoming a more productive member of your country.

Example 6

Public education - meant to give equal opportunities must have its level set to the weakest students. Because every child must pass basic school. As a result education level is going down. To a degree that whoever can afford moves his child to a private school. Result? Gap between kids in public schools and in private ones is increasing.

Instead of thinking that they are lowering the bar to the weakest student, rather think that they are requiring a basic level of education to be a productive member of society. Here in my State, we have 3 general levels of classes for students in public education, 'Remedial', 'General', and 'AP' (advanced placement). Specialized courses above that labeled "Gifted and Talented" usually exist on a district wide basis, and possibly school wide if it's big enough. Students may even take courses at the local college if they qualify for it. You should fight for your country to adopt these types of levels.

In my country private schools like the kind you're talking about charge more per student, and because of that are able to pay their teachers more. They don't accept average, below average students or students with disabilities. Because of that their students seem to be doing better when really they're not, the populations are just different. Public education is one of the greatest gifts Progressive thought has ever achieved. Think of where we would be as a world without it. It's a matter of Equality of Opportunity.

Example #3:
Colleges for higher education are now scrutinized and funded based on the "Diversity" which is viewed as a form of equality. As such a minority with substantially lower test scores and IQ could get his College application approved to increase the diversity of the school. This means that the HIGHER IQ more qualified student gets REJECTED. What if that higher IQ student was the key to unlocking the cure to cancer and he now gets a sub-par education all so we could maintain the illusion of equal opportunity?

Individual colleges value "Diversity" at different levels, and there is no federal funding based on Diversity to my knowledge. Private colleges can do whatever they want, but publicly funded colleges are what we're talking about here. That being said, there may have been a time and place for "Direct" diversity recruitment back when it started, but maybe not as much anymore. I've fought for and commented towards recruitment based on poverty and lack of economic opportunity rather than 'Race' based admissions. You might know that the Supreme court just ruled to keep "Affirmative Action" but in a much reduced role. Most progressive colleges are focusing on a future of supporting and promoting college preparatory classes in Poor school districts so as to prepare those students for the tests and admission requirements. Many are changing to poverty based admissions that I mentioned above, while also promoting minority students to apply. So you and I agree on this kinda, but I'd also say that diverse college campuses prepare students for the real world and that corporations actually prefer students that went to more diverse colleges because they tend to be better employees.

Example #4:
Groups of individuals are now popping up with the lovely little idea of a "Protected Class". You cannot ask people several key questions in the business arena such as Marital status, Sexual preferences, etc. etc. While it might seem like a good idea to LIMIT the information that employers have so that they no longer have the ability to use their instincts and are forced into the ***** politicly correct "equality of opportunity" this comes with some very REAL consequences. Sexual Predators are now being pressured as a "Protected Class". Therefore, you would be punished for asking somebody if they like to rape small children. As a result you may hire somebody who rapes small children (because you are not allowed to ask questions that would single out protected classes). So when you have your company picnic and Employee #1's child gets raped by Employee #2 you can thank Equal Opportunity for blazing the path in eliminating logical thought when stereotyping the mannerisms of individuals.

CITATION: http://www.letstalkpm.com/forum/topics/ ... ffenders-a

I don't know of a single large corporation that doesn't do a background check. Do I think that anybody, corporations or landlords, whoever should be allowed to discriminate based on race, sexuality, or stuff like that, No. That's idiotic. Corporations are public entities certified by the state and under state law concerning job actions. A private non-corporate company unlicensed by the state in any way CAN discriminate based on race in some cases. Of course none do that because of the publicity.

As for criminal records and housing, I actually live in Dane County and know some of the people who worked on that ordinance you cited and it has nothing to do with child molesters.

The basis of the ordinance goes to property law, and the aspect of you can't do whatever the hell you want with your property inside of the local government. Property owners can do whatever they want with the property as long as it doesn't affect their neighbors property, but as in most cities in America, here they also have to get a license from the city or county to be able to rent the property for residence or commercial use. Part of that license is a set of rules that the landlord has to follow. Some are basic like everywhere (Fire Alarms and exits, Lead tests, Safety Stuff) in the country. Other cities require "Green areas" and such. Here in Dane county they have rules like no pressuring lease signing until 3 months before the lease is up (for the Student Population), and No discrimination based on race or sex (for minorities and men, apparently landlords love renting to women), and also the criminal background check rule that's cited.

Landlords were using criminal background checks (including misdemeanors and traffic violations) to discriminate against minorities. It was actually an open vote for it city wide, and later county wide which passed both times that made it law. The licensing for Landlords now require that they can not discriminate based on criminal history except for violent crimes (including all rapes), property crimes and other defined felonies. They have the right to ask the city for a waver for it for other felonies and such. What it basically is, is that they can't rent in this city if they can't prove the person would be a bad tenant. They were already required to take applications in the order that they were given like most cities. They can still refuse criminals and child molesters of course (child molesters actually have pretty strict limits as to where they can live here: distance from schools and day care, etc...)

What it comes down to is that if someone wants to rent their property in this local government they have to follow the governments rules. They're welcome to not rent property here if they don't want to follow the rules, but most of them want to because we have one of the fastest growing cities in the country and one of the lowest empty rental rates. Again, every local government in this country has rules and licensing for landlords.

Example #7:ESL Programs (English as a Second Language). Because we have to give Equal Opportunity to the children who have parents too ignorant or stupid to teach them English in their own homes the public system must now offer special teachers/translators and programs in THE SAME classroom as kids who speak English as their primary language. As a result the entire curriculum of the public education system is slowed down to the pace of a snail while the ESL students try to understand what the classroom is doing. Those who learned English first and have brains like a sponge are instead twiddling their thumbs listening to translators catch up their peers who will most likely fail anyway based on the simple fact that they are offspring of (2) people who thought it would be a good idea to deprive their child the language of the country they were born in.

As I taught ESL and Special Ed for years, I know something about this.
First off 9/10 of ESL kid's parents don't speak English very well themselves, so I don't know how you want them to teach them at home. Only about 1/2 of ESL kids speak Spanish so don't go blaming it on the Mexicans. The other 1/10 of kids whose parents do speak English while their kids don't are adopted from foreign countries, and those parents do teach them at home but aren't professional ESL teachers.

One of the greatest ways to getting recent immigrants (and the U.S. has more Immigrants than the rest of the world combined) fully involved and productive to society is by teaching them English. It opens up a huge range of opportunity for these kids the faster we get them speaking English. The earlier they learn English the better they do in school and the better they do as citizens of the country.

In no school district in this country is class stopped for ESL kids. ESL programs generally includes a pull-out (separate) class where the kids just learn the language. They also include an inclusive portion, which is probably what you'r talking about. That usually looks like 2-5 ESL kids in a general classroom of 20-30 kids where there's one 'Teacher' and 1 or 2 aides (who are fluent in their language) for the ESL kids. Different states have different laws, here it was 1 aide for every 3 kids back when I was teaching. The Teacher is required to provide the aides with materials and tests before hand so that the aides or main ESL teacher can translate the stuff for the kids to use. At no time is the flow of the class stopped for the ESL kids. It's the aides job to translate and the teacher's to teach. All studies show that all kids (ESL or not) do better in inclusive ESL classes (mostly because they have 2 or 3 times the adults in the room, the aides act as general help for any of the kids during the class).

I taught kids from Mexico, all of Central America, India, Cuba, Serbia, China, Laos, Brazil, Russia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, France, and even Sweden when I taught ESL, Special Ed and General Curriculum and let me tell you, Immigrants made this county. Their parents work their asses off all day and when Parent/Teacher conference night came up the ESL student's parents were the first ones in line every time. Your family were immigrants, mine were immigrants, all of us from the U.S. came from immigrants (except of course the Natives) and this country's greatest talent and ability and power comes from that continuous flow of desire for a better place. ESL requirements for school districts is maybe one of the greatest examples of Progressive Government action ever. It absolutely represents the notion of 'Equal Access to Opportunity' that we've been talking about, and is unique in the world of nations as to it's size and scope, here in the U.S.

[Champie]

Wow, this is a great thread! It has been a pleasure reading the thoughtful responses.

Also, can anyone direct me to the "Claeyt Fan Club" sign-up sheet?

[Tonkyhonk]

I must admit this thread is better than the corresponding one on the HnH forum.

because you dont want to read 40 pages? i didnt see any strong points made here to call it better.
all worth reading here was alloin still whining about the previous moderation(which sure sucked), and one by potjeh.

@Claeyt,
so what was your "nitty gritty" in your last huge walls of text there? i dont see anything you added to the discussion. was the bottom line just about your opinion of "Murica #1" as it is? your chair seems sure comfy. 'equal opportunities' is different from 'equal outcomes'.

[Claeyt]

I must admit this thread is better than the corresponding one on the HnH forum.

because you dont want to read 40 pages? i didnt see any strong points made here to call it better.
all worth reading here was alloin still whining about the previous moderation(which sure sucked), and one by potjeh.

@Claeyt,
so what was your "nitty gritty" in your last huge walls of text there? i dont see anything you added to the discussion. was the bottom line just about your opinion of "Murica #1" as it is? your chair seems sure comfy. 'equal opportunities' is different from 'equal outcomes'.

by Nitty Gritty I was talking about the examples that we could really dig into. They tossed out perceived examples of liberal skewing of equality and I responded. I def don't think Murica's #1 in all things, some things, but not all. This thread is a little more advanced than the HnH one, less name calling more specifics.

The only thing I meant by the end line is that the U.S. ESL programs are huge compared to most countries, because we have such a large immigrant population.

[Tonkyhonk]

by Nitty Gritty I was talking about the examples that we could really dig into. They tossed out perceived examples of liberal skewing of equality and I responded. I def don't think Murica's #1 in all things, some things, but not all. This thread is a little more advanced than the HnH one, less name calling more specifics.

The only thing I meant by the end line is that the U.S. ESL programs are huge compared to most countries, because we have such a large immigrant population.

and where do you claim you dug into "Nitty Gritty" in there? it doesnt seem like you understood how equal outcomes could be problematic. if i use your logic, having equal outcome means giving others inequal opportunities. your responses were ignorant advice(?) of "you should" "they should", without seeing the reality, introducing your background or experience whatsoever to fake your words legitimacy.
(and you must be joking with what you said about this thread being advanced.)
now, i also have a bit of experience in JSL (Japanese as a second language, my major) programs and wouldnt deny american ESL programs being huge (along with huge issues). but i know that such programs do not represent the notion of "Equal Access to Opportunity" no matter how ESL staff want to believe that. It does help their demand of language acquisition when they wish, but it is merely for the convenience for both people around them and themselves living there, not to give them real equal opportunities for jobs. dont you talk to your students?

[jwhitehorn]

You tell em' ManyLetters

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe