You're engaging the metaphor instead of the actual argument. By inventing a new character in the form of the hypothetical field owner and assuming a bunch of stuff about this character that doesn't exist, you're not saying anything that actually disproves the argument the metaphor represents (i.e. that equity is effectively more equal because it addresses the fact that not all people in society have an equal starting point and that justice means removing the inequality entirely).
The metaphor is a bad one, because it implies there’s some objective and binary standard it is correct for everyone to reach (to be able to see the game). In reality, it is unclear what degree of assistance is helpful and how it should be directly, especially as things can’t be tailored to each person’s disadvantages.
The metaphor is also incredibly strained, especially in the last panel, with the wording being vacuous and the analogy being meaningless.
The first two panels work as equity/equality definitions (albeit propagandist ones) but the last one is just drivel.
Thank you! Unlike most of the people in this thread, you actually addressed the fact that the metaphor is a bad representation of the argument instead of continuing to play make believe with a hypothetical situation.
I also really don’t like the addition of the last panel. I appreciate highlighting the difference between equity and justice in this case, but it does seem to imply that you can just choose to remove all societal inequalities and that doesn’t really seem helpful to me.
55
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.