Why do we want or even expect equality in society?

[Angilion]

I'll stop you right there as you clearly have no understanding of what I said, even though I have explained it several times. You even go on to contradict yourself and actually repeat what I have said, even though you have spent several days disagreeing with it.

My position has been and remains consistent - it is best to judge each individual on an individual basis. If my position remains constant and whether or not it matches with yours varies, then your position varies.

The fact remains, whether you accept it or not, that a persons gender, social class, creed, language, and other shared attributes do influence a persons individual needs, and they are important variables in assessing anyone individually, to ignore them is to ignore a large part of what makes people who they are.

I'll remind you of what I wrote the last time you made that argument and attributed it to me:

What I am disputing is the idea that assessing an individual as an individual is a less accurate way of accounting for how those factors affect that individual than assessing at a group level and adding that assessment to individuals.

So, for example, a person's sex will have some effect on who they are, but it won't be the same effect for every person of that sex at every time. If you assess on an individual basis only, you will be assessing that particular individual, including whatever effect their sex, age or anything else has on them personally. If you add any assesment on a group basis, you are not making the assessment more accurate to that individual. You are making it less accurate to that individual. Using gender is even worse, since everyone's gender is different to everyone else's gender.

My position hasn't changed. It remains consistent.

Just to remind you, the final part of my original statement, with the relevant part highlighted:

I'll remind you of parts of your statements, with the relevant parts highlighted. This one is from the same post you quoted above...a quote with a different meaning. I refer you to your opening comments about me contradicting myself and my reply - the inconsistent position is in your posts, not mine:

[..] It shouldn't be about making everyone the same or equal, but about offering and ensuring everyone is given equal provision in society....that provision may not be the same for everyone, Men and Women for example have different needs, Ethnic groups have different needs [..]

This one manages to contradict itself in the same sentence:

[..] this doesn't mean applying a stereotype, it means assessing the individual using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements [..]

"using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements" is a fancy way of saying "applying a stereotype" when the "base of criteria" is sex, "race", etc. Or, more accurately, applying multiple stereotypes.

 

[Castiel]

My position has been and remains consistent - it is best to judge each individual on an individual basis. If my position remains constant and whether or not it matches with yours varies, then your position varies.

And yet you still do it. Again illustrating that you either cannot or do not want to admit that you what I have said has very little to do with your criticism as that criticism is based on your assumptions and not on anything I have actually proposed.

I'll remind you of what I wrote the last time you made that argument and attributed it to me:

My position hasn't changed. It remains consistent.

You don't have to remind me, this is exactly where you have been inconsistent (as you put it)...that is exactly what I said in my original statement and yet you maintain I am still wrong.

You have remained consistent in one area, consistently wrong about how you are interpreting what I have said based on your own assumptions.

I'll remind you of parts of your statements, with the relevant parts highlighted. This one is from the same post you quoted above...a quote with a different meaning. I refer you to your opening comments about me contradicting myself and my reply - the inconsistent position is in your posts, not mine:

This one manages to contradict itself in the same sentence:

Again, not it doesn't...because you are not applying anything in isolation. You are simply making assumptions that I have not introduced. They are not in contradiction to each other simply because they are assessed individually, not simply taken and applied to a group, the group is part of the criteria, and not one that is static...there are no stereotyping because the way someone's gender or whatever is assessed is incumbent upon the individual (for example if someone was a transsexual, then the effect their gender has on them would potentially be different than someone who was not, for an example) You are making assumptions that broad stereotypes are being introduced when in fact they are not.

"using a base of criteria in addition to their individual requirements" is a fancy way of saying "applying a stereotype" when the "base of criteria" is sex, "race", etc. Or, more accurately, applying multiple stereotypes.

Again you are assuming that is what I am saying, when I have tried over the past few nights to explain that you are wrong in making that assumption....I have not stated that you apply a broad, fixed formula for any particular group, for example someone's gender will mean different things to different people, this is why you assess them individually, that they fall into certain categories doesn't mean applying stereotypes of those categories...that is an assumption that you have made by yourself.

Anyway I expect you will ignore all this as you have done each time I have attempted to explain a very simple statement to you and maintain that I mean something I do not, you are pretty much arguing with yourself from here on in as it is your assumptions that you are arguing against rather than anything I have stated so either accept what I have said or don't, but I have had quite enough of this circular nonsense and therefore bid you adieu.

 

[eatcustard]

Its all survive of the fittest, its just that we have been dumbed down to the lowest denominator.

 

[Horse Pop]

Wow. This old chestnut.

The problem is it's really hard to seperate nurture from nature.

If we take this report:
http://www.suttontrust.com/research/social-mobility-report/

Britain isn't great at being a meritocracy.

This isn't survival of the fittest or essentialism at work, it's survival of those already in a position of priviledge. It's the deck being stacked. It's totally a social construction. Have you never talked to rich twits? Idiots wafting along on the back their forebears efforts.

You can make the argument the other way (e.g. there's papers argueing that you can explain the link between wealth and health because wealthy people are just naturally superior to the proles) but you end up sounding a bit silly.

Are we happy with this?

Most people seem to favour some notion of fairness. I've read even primates have a concept of this. The idea seems to be built into some bits of our constitution. Nobody is supposed to be above the law for example. OK only rich people counted originally but...

So if most people like the notion of fairness and the system is currently providing really unequal opportunities then what are you going to do?

IT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD.

 

[Angilion]

[..] I have had quite enough of this circular nonsense and therefore bid you adieu.

That's one thing we agree on.

If there's anyone else reading this exchange who cares (and I doubt that very much), they can read both sets of posts and reach their own conclusions.