Love it!

the big kid would beat up the other kids and get all three boxes

After that, what then happens is left up to the individual.


Funny you should see it in the way you did.

I worked foe Head Start for 5 years.

It's my thing, I guess.

weren't they breaking the law?

"My god, man, slap yourself and think!"

In what way?

The pic showed people outside of a stadium, watching the game. Isn't that usually against the law?

I would assume that a magistrate would know (and follow) the law.

Fuck.

shouldn't be too hard for a magistrate to do...

You aren't getting a box. You don't need it.

okay...

I'm really starting to wonder about mixed definitions around here.

It could be fucking goddamn go-carts, it could be anything that is worth fucking goddamn spectating.

Fuck this is impossible.

the context is important...

If someone is going to use a cartoon, and one that could have multiple meaning attached, then they need to have a better description...

Change it to a light bulb or something (they're trying to change a fucking light bulb) and some idiot would come along and say why is a kid doing an adults job or some stupidity like that. It's always possible to nitpick trivialities and gloss over issues without addressing the main, and obvious point. Obvious to 99% of the respondents to this thread anyway. Jesus Fuck.

Context is everything...

One man's thief is another's folk hero.

I'm perfectly calm. It's clear your responses are purely trolling and not intended to address the subject matter.

LOL

For a person supposedly brighter than me, you seem to have trouble grasping ideas.

Is that your only view?

A good context for this cartoon is public education. The poster is a special education teacher, but the larger symbolism addresses society in general. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with baseball or being law abiding. Of course, about half the people are concrete thinkers and are not particularly capable of abstract thought, which generally requires a three digit IQ. Which are you?

typical...

but probably. In case I'm mistaken about that (I make mistakes), I apologize. The comment contributed nothing to the argument, but then neither does stereotyping.

That's why I asked if the caption was equating equality of outcomes.

I'm progressive (but NOT a socialist.*)

I thought your comment was interesting, and I look forward to further correspondence.

joshcryer, you made my day. That was tough to since I just proposed to my girlfriend last night.


She got me an autographed baseball signed by Yu Darvish. Love it!!

I'm excited!

Josh deserves an extra plate of Christmas cookies, today.

on the waterfront, where fans can watch three innings of a game through the wall's archways, free of charge, by intentional design of the club. I would assume, if it bothered me, that the cartoon is set at the Giant's, and thus they are all perfectly legal in peek sneaking.

As is everyone who attends a game at a stadium. Major Diversion fail.

...you'd have to pay for those "seats" too. They wouldn't care if you could see or not. Or if you have a place to sit.

that's kind of cheating, isn't it.

Everybody else paid for a ticket...

How so?

.

There's only one meaningful message to be gotten from that cartoon...

right...

How incredibly lame and predictable.

Do you have a point?

a fast one and got caught and everyone laughed at you. Anymore questions?

wow... so if you don't go along with the crowd, you get called lame and predictable...

Yup, not the Democratic party I knew.

sorry if that hurts. Maybe the next cartoon you will get lucky and not be laughed at so hard. Dunno only time will tell.

when are you going to talk context?

Critical thinking skills are important. Some need a little more help than others, hence the larger box.
make things a little more equal. This skill is not taught as properly as it should. Parental guidance
should take up the slack, yet, sadly in some cases that is not the case. Caring people in society offer to
take up that slack.

I have a real big box for you here to stand on and when you have thought this out, please share the box with those
less fortunate.

so if I don't agree with the context, I'm a slow learner.

Kind of short sighted on your part, isn't it?

So what they are right outside the fence. Everybody at a game is off the field. Major FAIL.

Last edited Fri May 3, 2013, 09:13 PM - Edit history (4)

they'd be looking THROUGH any cracks the in the fence, not OVER it where they could easily be seen by the cops.


rocktivity

but it's fatuous to pretend that there's such a thing as "equality of opportunity" when there are vast inequalities in socioeconomic background and quality of education among other things, as well. This is something that's been addressed to some extent by things like the GI Bill; the kids who join the military are overwhelmingly from lower middle class or poor backgrounds, and four years in the service is their ticket to a college education they'd never get otherwise...or, training in a marketable skill, etc. I don't really see a problem with advocating more equality of opportunity for everyone; the results are dependent on their own ability and willingness to do the work required, but leaving the door open is a good thing.

This is where things like affirmative action come in also, by to some extent addressing inherent, longstanding, and systemic biases that tend to deny equality of opportunity to large segments of the US population.

As I've said...

I'm for equality of opportunity, and always will be.

Equality of outcome doesn't seem to work.

The GI bill worked for my father.

it also includes things like: accommodations for the disabled in public places, for instance.

that's my take anyway; equal access (they can all see the game; if a home run gets knocked over the fence they can't all get the ball, though).

If I'm wrong, please correct me, someone.

were you trying to make a point?

ADA levels the playing field and provides equality of outcomes to a degree, as well as opportunity.

Progressives aren't trying to steal all the wealth and assets from the rich. We are simply trying to make the lives of the less well-off at least bearable.

Equality of outcomes isn't a totally bad thing, in some contexts.

If you disagree, then we have nothing further to discuss. My mind is made up. I sense yours is also.

Your rhetoric is showing...

That's about what I thought...

Geek won't get it, but thanks for tryiing.

So fuck him!!

I was merely asking that the context of hte cartoon be made explicit

According to John Rawls in order for a just society to exist the social and economic system must be set up so that they benefit the worst off of society.

You can't ever really have equality of opportunity without guaranteeing some equality of outcomes.

Imagine some people living in rat infested slums with others living in mansions surrounded by servants. Anyone can instantly say the people living in those two situations have no real equality of opportunity.

If you try to correct for it, let's say getting rid of the rats, you will find you are also fixing equality of outcome at the same time.

There is no sense that a person born as a millionaire can ever really have equal opportunity with a person born in poverty.

To really increase equal opportunity, we would have to do something to reduce the overall inequality in society, which means reducing inequalities of outcome.


So some degree equality of outcome is important.

... taking the other kids boxes the conservative will claim that the boxes belong to him (whereas the boxes probably are community property, not unlike the funds that build most stadiums and arenas). Then the conservative will offer to rent or sell the boxes to them until they are in his debt (not unlike the owner of a sport franchise).

Survival of the fittest, God's Will, all that bullshit, oh yea forgot free market

Perfect example. Thank you.

"Needs a third panel showing government taking the box from the big kid and giving it to the little kid."


They don't see that one can see without the box while the other has no chance. Or they don't care. I dunno.

We care, they don't. They only care about their small circle of people who share their own beliefs. Everyone else to conservatives are moochers who deserve their bad circumstances. Their own short kid would be deserving of the extra box because they are hard-working american patriots, its the kid that they don't know that they can easily construct a reason why he doesn't deserve the box.

because you know, he didn't work hard enough for it.

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 12:08 PM - Edit history (3)

showing where we are with the tall guy on 2 boxes and the little guy on the ground

to where the republicans think they should go. which would prove their philosophy still leaves out the average and below average guy.

i woulve also put the middle guy on an extra half

Those are liberal strengths!

One of the best graphics I have seen that demonstrates the difference.
I think even my conservative neighbors will understand this.
I am stealing it for wider distribution.

in portraying the differences

and to interfere with the will of god...well, everyone knows the drivel.

The way I understand it, living in a RW semi-rural area, they just don't believe in equality at all. You can say "we were all created equal", or that we should be all equal in dignity and rights, but they just fundamentally don't see it that way; the world is always an us vs them proposition, and the boundaries are drawn to suit whatever occasion.

It says so much so simply.
K&R!

equality is when everyone has shoes
equity is when everyone has shoes that fit

To grow and develop people to their fullest potential.

Thant was back in the 90s.

Then the managers figured out that it was easier to just give orders.

And the effort to keep salaries down and not recognize anyone for their accomplishments took over.

Now they have all the money and the middle class has very little to spend.

and the wealthy wonder why we aen't getting out of the recession faster....

Stupid hurts!

Thanks for your post!
A great example of careing for others.

The middle guy & the little guy would have no box.

Instead, they'd both have bootstraps to pull themselves up with to try and see.

Yup, the Pukes would be selling bootstraps.

K & R for the pic. Good OP.

A great pictorial analogy!

I stopped talking about equality, which allows for the everyone gets the same thing argument, a long time ago. I only talk about equity, which as you mention, gives individuals what they need to compete.

We stopped using that equality word a couple decades ago.

Both pictures require killing trees to build boxes; with liberal policies, everyone gets a view of the icebergs melting.

that is simply brilliant that makes so much sense it crystallizes everything. I am proud to be a liberal.

would have done just this move. to make sure everyone could see the game. this is a great picture of the difference between the libs and cons. just a little step helps the less fortunate and all have a great day. some will never see this-those are the cons. some will intuitively understand-those are the libs. it made me smile cause my boys are the ones who would freely give of themselves(their box) so others can enjoy.

have a gun, he could get what he needs.

if needed.

You left one out: Equality to a bagger.

For that, you'd have the two smaller guys laid out on the ground, and the big guy standing on all three boxes.

Now he has all the boxes, and has piled them atop the little corpses.

Serves 'em right for being lazy parasites.

Liberals just want to to watch the game for free.

Unsaid:

Only tall kids should be allowed to watch for free.

talk about nailing it....I forwarded it (hope you don't mind) to about 40 people and have already heard back THEY are sending it along. How great is that message!

Huge K&R