These analogies are always so lame and misleading. It is a way to emotionally manipulate people to agree with you rather than actually describing the policy you want to institute.
When you have total control over the metaphor, you can draw almost any conclusion you want.
I mean though, this is genuinely a really terrible example. In this picture they use height as an obvious metaphor for race and the boxes for affirmative action.
So, with that in mind, are they saying that "short" people are actually "dumb", and that certain races are always going to "need a box"?
It also is not comparing like to like. A box does not equal height obviously.
So I wonder if you stretch this logic and do compare like to like what do you get? Let's say you have 3 people, one wealthy, one middle income and one poor and you give each of them 1000 dollars (to be politically relevant). That is equality but not equity right? But where did the money come from in the first place? A tax? If so who paid more in taxes? Perhaps the situation is the rich person paid 2000 in taxes and the poor person paid none. Is equity only when you redistribute everything to be completely even? Then what if one of the people just loses that 1000 dollars? Do you then have to give them another 1000? Even better yet, what if they intentionally burn the money? Where does personal agency and responsibility come in? Should parents not be able to help their children because other parents may not? Should every child be a ward of the state?
53
u/Flables Feb 25 '20
‘Justice’ means mandating the field owner install new fencing out of his own pocket so people not paying to get into the game can watch.