- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I'll put this here, as I think this is a philosophical point.
I've noticed here over the past year many instances of what I call "The Fallacy of the Faster *****cat".
This was a mistake I made when I was much younger that led to unpleasantness more than once.
Simply put, some people are born more "capable" than others. Intelligence, charisma, looks, all confer advantages to those born with these traits over those who aren't.
What is easy for me (or you) may not be anywhere near as easy for someone else.
The way this manifests here is where those who obviously are in the "faster *****cat" subset assume that what they have accomplished can be accomplished by EVERYONE else if they just do as they did.
This is simply not the case. But I've seen a lot of intelligent, competent people get FURIOUS with others because they can't keep up, can't understand what is SIMPLE for THEM.
All things being equal, all people are not equal.
I've always been able to find work, regardless of the state of the economy, for instance. I have a HUGE skillset now, but this was true back before I had ANY skills to speak of. I'm very smart, not hideous, and possess a certain degree of charisma. I learn new things VERY quickly.
Does this make me "better" than others? No. No more than being able to run faster or lift more weight than another person makes them "better" than anyone else.
But in a race, the faster is will always win.
In a weightlifting contest, the strongest will always win.
(And I'm not referring to advantages that come from training or edcation, only those that result from the genetic roll of the dice, in these examples)
And the smart, attractive, charismatic person will virtually always win in economic competition over the less smart, less attractive, less charismatic person. "Drive" being equal.
My point is that far too many arguments here that revolve around issues of "fairness" and equality of opportunity and outcome from those in the faster *****cat class assume that all *****cats could run at the same speed if they just educated themselves and tried harder.
I don't believe this viewpoint is accurate as applied to the real world because people simply aren't born equally ABLED.
The "quick" kid and the "slow" kid are not going to have equal outcomes, even if their opportunities are equal. Doesn't mean we should intentionally damage the quick kids brain, just not get so "mad" when the slower kid can't "keep up".
So what do y'all think?
Do you agree that sometimes those of us who have no problem competing expect too much from those who are less well equipped?
We all know people who really try but just can't keep up. Is it ok for us to dismiss them as "lazy"? Tell them what we did that worked for us and then judge them ill if it doesn't work for them?
What are your thoughts on this?
I think that the person who's fastest in a footrace will not win a weightlifting championship, and, likewise, a weightlifting champion will not win in a footrace.
But both will do better than the guy who sits in his easy chair and refuses to get up.
Good post, but at first I thought this was about the old Xploitation film, "Faster *****cat! Kill! Kill!" :lamo
It's too generic of an arguement. Some are incapable or less capable and some are lazy.
It's not that everyone can compete equally, but people can compete better if they are expected to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them to the best of their ability. Absolutely everyone, without exception, has the opportunity to get an education. They will do much better in life with an education of any quality than without an education. No one is pretending that all educations are created equal, but some education is always better than no education. Anyone who drops out of school and refuses to get an education is only harming themselves. Harming yourself and then expecting other people to pay your way because you refused the opportunity to better yourself is your own damn problem.
But both will do better than the guy who sits in his easy chair and refuses to get up.
I agree with What If. Many defend the abysmal schools in Cleveland by pointing out SOME children graduate, SOME go on to excel in adulthood.
IMO, if the schools are adequate, the AVERAGE parent could get an AVERAGE student to graduation and give him a chance at a decent life.
In other words, the existence of exceptional people and their results doesn't bless the system, IMO. In fact, if only they survive, IMO, it condemns it.
I don't think being inactive means that nothing is happening. Sometimes a person appears lazy but there is a lot going on inside of them.
Our society values action but maybe if more people balanced that out by sometimes doing nothing, we would end up needing less action since we'd have more time to reflect on what is happening.
The system is setup with rules for playing the game and some people are subjectively more skilled at this, but it's hard to draw conclusions about people's value based on that.
Any given situation can have variables that are advantageous. Sometimes waiting and listening is the best thing you can do.
I agree with What If. Many defend the abysmal schools in Cleveland by pointing out SOME children graduate, SOME go on to excel in adulthood.
IMO, if the schools are adequate, the AVERAGE parent could get an AVERAGE student to graduation and give him a chance at a decent life.
In other words, the existence of exceptional people and their results doesn't bless the system, IMO. In fact, if only they survive, IMO, it condemns it.
And they'll both do better than me, as an asthmatic ectomorph.
I did say that I was leaving out differences derived from training in my examples.
not trueThe point is, people who go out and give it their best effort will always do better than those who don't even try.
you insist this is true but you offer nothing to support that bold assertionLiberals want to reward people who don't even try to succeed, just for waking up in the morning, then they claim that everyone doesn't have opportunity. That's ludicrous.
The point is, people who go out and give it their best effort will always do better than those who don't even try. Liberals want to reward people who don't even try to succeed, just for waking up in the morning, then they claim that everyone doesn't have opportunity. That's ludicrous.
The point is, people who go out and give it their best effort will always do better than those who don't even try. Liberals want to reward people who don't even try to succeed, just for waking up in the morning, then they claim that everyone doesn't have opportunity. That's ludicrous.
The point of this thread isn't to justify some agenda.
Just to point out that it is good to remember that just because one is blessed doesn't make one inherently superior to others less so.
I'm not blessed because I have a job. I have a job because I went out and worked for it. Maybe one shouldn't make assumptions about those doing O.K.?
It's not that everyone can compete equally, but people can compete better if they are expected to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them to the best of their ability. Absolutely everyone, without exception, has the opportunity to get an education. They will do much better in life with an education of any quality than without an education. No one is pretending that all educations are created equal, but some education is always better than no education. Anyone who drops out of school and refuses to get an education is only harming themselves. Harming yourself and then expecting other people to pay your way because you refused the opportunity to better yourself is your own damn problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?