Is the Blockland Forums: more of a science guy or a history buff?

[ultimamax]

you work by any chance?

no not yet, moving out in 4 months though for college
ill try to start working then, and if not during the year, i will certainly be doing research or an internship in the summer

[Ad Bot]

[Cappytaino]

The reason I brought it up is that I think everyone, at least in my state, starts out fairly left-leaning. It's always exciting to get a first job, but when you get the first paycheck, there's always this WHAT THE forget moment when you see that 1/3 of your check is going to taxes/programs. This really changed how I personally feel because I work hard to earn the money I have, and I am not in favor of anything raising taxes for exactly that reason.

I think it also largely depends on how an individual defines the role of government in society and the responsibilities and limitations that should be placed upon it. I personally believe that the government was created to ensure the rights of the people shall not be infringed upon and will be protected, and anything outside of that is beyond their scope. Other people believe it is the responsibility of the government to act as a nanny-state and care for the citizens. It depends mostly on moral code, upbringing, and personal interpretations of the Constitution.

[otto-san]

I think it also largely depends on how an individual defines the role of government in society and the responsibilities and limitations that should be placed upon it. I personally believe that the government was created to ensure the rights of the people shall not be infringed upon and will be protected, and anything outside of that is beyond their scope. Other people believe it is the responsibility of the government to act as a nanny-state and care for the citizens. It depends mostly on moral code, upbringing, and personal interpretations of the Constitution.

this was pretty good to start but then you kinda just shoved off the 'other people' so i guess i'll explain a bit more

pretty much everyone would agree that government is created to protect the rights of people. this comes from the social contract theory which is pretty much the basis of the declaration of independence. this also includes the fact that, in order for government to exist, it necessarily also must take some rights of the people. e.g. government can't exist without funding, and it can't be effective unless it can at the very least punish those who break the social contract (of course, social contract theory also states that the people can punish government in the same way). the 'other people' as you've described them aren't simply lazy bums that want the government to take care of them. you're probably instead trying to describe the idea that, in order for a society to be successful and effective, equality must be promoted and protected. and because people naturally act in their own self-interest, it is necessary that government must act as a non-biased mediator for this purpose.

but really, at the end of it all, most people will probably agree with all of that. the fact is, it's just a matter of what people value more, not that people have completely different sets of values entirely. if you ask anyone if they believe in equality, freedom, individual responsibility, all that happy stuff, they'd almost certainly say "heck yeah america!!!" but that doesn't mean they express all those core values equally. america is pretty cohesive in that everyone typically believes that all of these things are important, but we disagree on when and how certain values matter more, and that's really what the left/right differences are

[Cappytaino]

this was pretty good to start but then you kinda just shoved off the 'other people' so i guess i'll explain a bit more

pretty much everyone would agree that government is created to protect the rights of people. this comes from the social contract theory which is pretty much the basis of the declaration of independence. this also includes the fact that, in order for government to exist, it necessarily also must take some rights of the people. e.g. government can't exist without funding, and it can't be effective unless it can at the very least punish those who break the social contract (of course, social contract theory also states that the people can punish government in the same way). the 'other people' as you've described them aren't simply lazy bums that want the government to take care of them. you're probably instead trying to describe the idea that, in order for a society to be successful and effective, equality must be promoted and protected. and because people naturally act in their own self-interest, it is necessary that government must act as a non-biased mediator for this purpose.

but really, at the end of it all, most people will probably agree with all of that. the fact is, it's just a matter of what people value more, not that people have completely different sets of values entirely. if you ask anyone if they believe in equality, freedom, individual responsibility, all that happy stuff, they'd almost certainly say "heck yeah america!!!" but that doesn't mean they express all those core values equally. america is pretty cohesive in that everyone typically believes that all of these things are important, but we disagree on when and how certain values matter more, and that's really what the left/right differences are

I agree with what you've said; I likely phrased it poorly initially.

For example, everybody agrees with equality being a guiding principal, but I think  that, at least where I live (Southwest New England), the majority of people I have spoken with that express strong opinions on the subject seem to lean more towards defining equality as equality of outcome, while I believe it to be equality of opportunity. There is no concrete right answer, and more than one distinct perspective, which makes it difficult to define words such as "liberty" and "rights"

[otto-san]

I agree with what you've said; I likely phrased it poorly initially.

For example, everybody agrees with equality being a guiding principal, but I think  that, at least where I live (Southwest New England), the majority of people I have spoken with that express strong opinions on the subject seem to lean more towards defining equality as equality of outcome, while I believe it to be equality of opportunity. There is no concrete right answer, and more than one distinct perspective, which makes it difficult to define words such as "liberty" and "rights"

equality of opportunity is what most people actually value. of course, an inequality of opportunity directly causes an inequality of outcome, which might be what becomes confusing, because the inequality in outcome is what we can actually observe and quantify. for example, if you're born into poverty, you're going to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to someone who was born into the middle class. you won't be able to afford a good education, you'll likely be in a poor neighborhood with poor public school performance, and you'll likely also have a fairly low morale and low expectations as a result. we can only really see that test scores are lower, or that income is lower, or that crime is higher, and it's very easy to assume that this is because of deliberate, poor decisions on the behalf of those people, but in reality, these are issues caused by major differences in living conditions which set them up to fail from the beginning. and i think this is a thought that a lot of people might not fully complete, and that may be why you get that impression.

[Cappytaino]

equality of opportunity is what most people actually value. of course, an inequality of opportunity directly causes an inequality of outcome, which might be what becomes confusing, because the inequality in outcome is what we can actually observe and quantify. for example, if you're born into poverty, you're going to be at an automatic disadvantage compared to someone who was born into the middle class. you won't be able to afford a good education, you'll likely be in a poor neighborhood with poor public school performance, and you'll likely also have a fairly low morale and low expectations as a result.

I agree that most people value the first definition more than the second, but where I live, I have heard much more vocal support of the second. It also depends on the area you're asking- NYC and San Antonio would have quite different answers.

[otto-san]

sorry, i edited the post while you were replying, idk if that'll change anything

also, has anyone actually explicitly expressed something along the lines of "equality of outcome?" because that's not really something i'd expect to hear outside of an argument for the whole 'nanny state' thing

[Cappytaino]

sorry, i edited the post while you were replying, idk if that'll change anything

also, has anyone actually explicitly expressed something along the lines of "equality of outcome?" because that's not really something i'd expect to hear outside of an argument for the whole 'nanny state' thing

yes. An issue where this is particularly visible is the college admissions process and positions on affirmative action. My state's schools have de-facto equality of outcome for admissions. The admissions counselor told me on a tour that they "build the class to be diverse" aka they have quotas. Now, you cannot with integrity get students that do not qualify for graduation to earn a degree, but the admissions process is incredibly biased towards minorities in my state.

I'm not saying this out of salt either. I have a friend with nearly identical credentials to mine, as we did similar extracurriculars and earned similar grades and took similar classes. The only substantial difference is that I'm an enrolled Creek and he isn't. He got into one of five state schools. I got into all five. His SATs were actually higher than mine, if I recall. In my mind I just pictured some admissions counselor jumping out of their chair to add another hundredth of a percent to the "American Indian/Alaska Native" column on the brochure they hand out on tours.

It's definitely ridiculous and while merit is not being given away, applying to college is the culmination of the prior 12 years of education and to deliberately lower the standards for certain groups of students is ridiculous in my opinion.

[otto-san]

quotas like that are actually supposed to be illegal https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

[Cappytaino]

They are certainly illegal, but they still exist. They just call it something ambiguous like "building a class" or something similar. With the way my admissions went, I would be shocked if quotas weren't still around. I barely attended school sophomore and junior years and got really awful grades for those years, but still passed. There's no way in hell I should be accepted to some schools i was accepted to on the basis of merit

[c]

STPP IIT

[Ipquarx]

STPP IIT

[WaterOre]

They are certainly illegal, but they still exist. They just call it something ambiguous like "building a class" or something similar. With the way my admissions went, I would be shocked if quotas weren't still around. I barely attended school sophomore and junior years and got really awful grades for those years, but still passed. There's no way in hell I should be accepted to some schools i was accepted to on the basis of merit

affirmative action is still very much allowed, just not on the basis of strict quotas.

quotas like that are actually supposed to be illegal https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/76-811 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke

fun fact: my APUSH teacher actually had her first child delivered by Dr. Bakke, and recognized him before he was able to give her the oxygen mask.

[Hansome duded]

[NEW TOPIC] Are you an optimist, pessimist, or realist? Just out of these 3, which one?

[otto-san]

if you're saying "i'm not an pessimist/optimist, i'm a realist" you're literally just saying that is reality, therefore that's what you are. i think realist would be more appropriate on an axis against something like "idealist"

positivity of expectations vs. rationality of expectations are two diff things