No since the tree is leaning to one side, so more apples will fall that way.
Comment on The difference between equality, justice and equity.
toastus@feddit.de 10 months ago
Doesn’t the first panel also have equal tools and assistance?
Amilo159@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Whirlwindwanderer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What stops the other person from choosing a different spot…
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 months ago
Myriad factors, many of which is out of their control. The illustration could have added fences and other barriers, but that would have sacrificed clarity for unnecessary accuracy.
Amilo159@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The tree is a metaphor. In reality it could be job market, one being man and other a woman applying for jobs that traditionally want/prefer men to work.
Or any number of things.
pjhenry1216@kbin.social 10 months ago
I don't know. What stops you from living in any house you want?
Whirlwindwanderer@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Nothing equivalent of that is depicted.
Surreal@programming.dev 10 months ago
The image needs better ideas. Maybe make the right kid has broken legs so that kid could not freely move to the correct spot
toastus@feddit.de 10 months ago
I didn’t think the tree was either a tool or assistance.
Especially since it is still the same in the second panel where tools or assistance are supposed to be equal.But I am not good at those things. I just don’t seem to get it.
Amilo159@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Tree is the situation, that is benefiting one person more than other.
Equality means you provide equal help to all and expect them to be equally benefitted. Sometimes that doesn’t work.
Perfect example would be a Spaniard and Frenchman learning a new language, say Italian. This would be easy for a Spanish person because Italian is similar to Spanish. Not so much for French. Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.
toastus@feddit.de 10 months ago
Yeah thank you.
The part that I still don’t quite get is why giving both people 10 hours of classes is equality but giving both 0 hours of lessons isn’t.
(Or giving both kids 1 ladder vs. giving both kids 0 ladders.)I get that the analogy to a real situation would be to just let inequality run its course and that is obviously not the same as giving everyone the same assistance. I still don’t think the picture makes this point very well.
whats_a_refoogee@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
You said the quiet part out loud. “Equally benefitted” is another way to describe equity.
Providing them both with 10 hours of language classes will be equality but results won’t be equal.
Again, you’re just arguing for equity and against equality. Equality and equity are fundamentally incompatible, since achieving equity requires unequal treatment. Presumably your example ends with the Italian person getting more than 10 hours of lessons because of his nationality. You seriously need to acknowledge that you’re advocating for one person to receive better treatment because of their nationality, and consider the consequences of that being an acceptable practice. You’re trying to reverse over a century of human civilisation’s progress.
fiat_lux@kbin.social 10 months ago
Only if you consider no tools or assistance to qualify as "having tools or assistance". So no, because while you're correct that 0 == 0, you need values of greater than 0 to have something.
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 months ago
No. The system leaning in favor of one group is very much a type of assistance.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
It represents unintentional assistance though, not a bias that exists on purpose. Ex: old building entrance is higher than sidewalk, there’s stairs to go up, it wasn’t the intention to cut access to the disabled, it’s a consequence of the default choice.
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 months ago
Some of it IS intentional, though, or (as in your own example) lack of intentionality from another time with a lot less attention being paid to equal access for people outside of the “standard human” powerful people had in mind when building structures both physical and societal.
There being a default at all is a form of discrimination and harm against the people that it disadvantages, whether or not it’s intentional.
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
The inequality wasn’t intentional, people didn’t put stairs so disabled wouldn’t have access, they put stairs because that’s what you do when you want people to go up and it had that unintended effect.
The tree didn’t grow leaning on one side so the kid on the wrong side wouldn’t get apples, it grew like that because nature made it.
Giving them ladders was intentional, building a ramp too narrow for wheelchairs that’s intentional…
uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Even if the inequality is completely accidental, shouldn’t we do something about it? Like, we don’t have to make everyone millionares, but if the system accidently makes some people suffer, shouldn’t we try to change that?
Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Never said nothing should be done about it, just pointing out that there’s in fact a difference between panel 1 and panel 2 contrary to what people are arguing.
toastus@feddit.de 10 months ago
Wouldn’t then in the second panel still not be equal assistance?
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 months ago
No. “Except for the basics of the system itself” is implied.
toastus@feddit.de 10 months ago
I really don’t mean to be contrarian but I simply don’t understand how a leaning tree can be assistance in panel 1 but not in panel 2.
SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The kid can literally walk 3 meters to the other side doe
VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 10 months ago
Do you know what an analogy is?
SaakoPaahtaa@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yes and I can even see if theyre any good or not. This one is pretty weak analogy since the kid can walk to the other side. Its not the trees fault its a bit askew