Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Logic: Mathematically, it's impossible to turn an inequality into an equality.....without a double standard. Say cookies are being distributed to two entities, A and B. Entity A, over a period of time, was given 2 cookies for every 1 cookie given to entity B. Eventually, at the end of that period of time entity A has 100 cookies and entity B has 50 cookies. Thus, A and B are economically unequal in cookie currency.
Question for the class: Going forward, can A and B ever reach cookie equality going forward without a DOUBLE STANDARD in the distribution of cookies? If so, how? If not, why not?
Extra Credit: What created the inequality of cookies? What would correct the inequality of cookies? Discuss double standards in the context of this scenario. What role does time frame play in determining if a standard is a double standard. If one includes ALL THE HISTORY of cookie distribution...is it actually a double standard to allow entity B to get more cookies than entity B going forward?
awaiting the answer from the "High IQ" students.
This doesn't explain how immigrants from the third world came here with 0 cookies, or maybe 2 cookies, in the last 20 years and now has 75 cookies. At some point one has to do what needs to be done to get or make more cookies rather than blame someone who is no longer alive for one's lack of cookies.
Here's the basic flaw in you assumption - nobody gave anybody any cookies. Everyone makes there own. If I made 100 cookies while you only made 50, the only way for your to catch up is to get off your lazy whatever and make your cookies faster. Try again.
First off.....it was not an assumption. It is a simple math story meant to demonstrate that an inequality cannot become an equality without applying double standards. There was NO assumptions in the story as everything was provided to do the logic.
Secondly, the LOGIC is not dependent upon whether entity A and B were GIVEN cookies. We can say that entity A was allowed access to all the ingredients, more so than entity B, which allowed entity A to produce 100 cookies and entity B to only 50. Assuming that they are both allowed equal access to the ingredients for cookies and both are working equally hard to make them.....can entity B ever reach cookie parity with entity A....without a cookie reparation or a double standard that allows entity B to accumulate more cookies than entity B until parity is reached?
This doesn't explain how immigrants from the third world came here with 0 cookies, or maybe 2 cookies, in the last 20 years and now has 75 cookies. At some point one has to do what needs to be done to get or make more cookies rather than blame someone who is no longer alive for one's lack of cookies.
You are obfuscating the logic. Would you do that if this was actually a question on a test that you were trying to pass? Take race, ethnicity, immigrants, religion, nationality out of this exercise. Just answer based upon what is given. Otherwise its a wrong answer. You know dam well you would not answer a real test question that way....as your goal would be to provide THE CORRECT ANSWER!. Right now your goal is not to have your narrative or belief threatened.
You are obfuscating the logic. Would you do that if this was actually a question on a test that you were trying to pass? Take race, ethnicity, immigrants, religion, nationality out of this exercise. Just answered based upon what is given. Otherwise its a wrong answer.
I am not obfuscating. I am challenging your attempt to simplify humans down to a math problem in order to portray your desired outcome.
Ah the ad hominem when our argument is challenged.
I think you inferred the ad hominem when you questioned my use of logic in explaining the human condition. I am just interested in just how one would explain things without the use of logic and since YOU disparaged the use of logic one can only conclude that you yourself would not be guilty of using logic in your arguments about the human condition. I just pointed that out....because that is what YOU said and that is the logical extension of what you said.....ergo....if you disparaged the use of logic for our conditions, then your personal reasoning must be void of it....lest you are being hypocritical.
I think you inferred the ad hominem when you questioned my use of logic in explaining the human condition. I am just interested in just how one would explain things without the use of logic and since YOU disparaged the use of logic one can only conclude that you yourself would not be guilty of using logic in your arguments about the human condition. I just pointed that out....because that is what YOU said and that is the logical extension of what you said.....ergo....if you disparaged the use of logic for our conditions, then your personal reasoning must be void of it....lest you are being hypocritical.
Your attempt to use only simple logic to explain, or blame, or excuse human condition is disingenuous and you are using it to get the answer you desire.
Explain the outliers I described that skew your math. Also explain all the humans here with 150 cookies who had none originally.
In response to your addendum, there are no outliers in the scenario because it is an exercise in pure logic. We can discuss the application of the logic to real life scenarios, but I am not going to do that if you can't or won't answer this based upon what was provided in the scenario ONLY. This about theory.....not application. We can talk application as soon as we finish with the theory.
Your attempt to use only simple logic to explain, or blame, or excuse human condition is disingenuous and you are using it to get the answer you desire.
Well....feel free to provide complex logic. Again, I am starting with a logical model about equality and the idea of "double standards" as it relates to goals of attaining equality of entities. The best way to defeat bad reasoning/logic is with good reasoning and logic. All you are trying to do is tear down my reasoning without offering the complex logic to my simple logic......in fact....you are not offering any logic at all.....but just anecdotes.
I am using logic to simply try to get the correct answer. The reason is because logic can be proven or disproved. Using anything besides logic just leads to endless debate because there is no way to prove anything. That way, regardless of how senseless and void of facts a persons argument is, it can stand forever because there is no way to prove or disprove it. That is the type of argument you desire and those like you.....you don't want your argument disproved....so it's all anecdotal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
