Thread: Equality In Competiton Too?

sounds right to me..i know if i was going to hire someone to do a job why would i hire the person that did ok in school and not hire the guy that made the better grades..same as on the field i want the guy that runs that .001 sec faster than the other guy on my team

Originally Posted by BAMARACING8

sounds right to me..i know if i was going to hire someone to do a job why would i hire the person that did ok in school and not hire the guy that made the better grades..

Perhaps because you cannot afford to pay the person who did better in school?

possibly..but if you had the means which would your choice be

...Also because most educational institutions no longer function in such a way as to give an accurate assessment of a person's capability.

There's one for ya. A competition with flawed rules of engagement automatically makes the competition unfair - we try to avoid this in sports, but we're still happy to perpetuate it in schools. Probably because No Child Left Behind has put the fear of tenure into teachers who are no longer free to teach.

awesome point....didnt really think about how the school system got kinda flawed up there...but you still understand where im coming from right i want the person who cared enough to do good to work for me ebcause they will most likely do a better job and you end up with a higher quality product

Oh yeah, certainly. I'd never hire anyone for anything without knowing their history. But if it were me I'd judge them on stuff they'd done in the marketplace rather than how they may have done in school.

you get what im saying its more of just a refrence....kind of like who would you let work on your car the guy that his shop looks un organized and a mess or the guy that keep a same size shop neat and tools cleaned and put away at the end of the day and well organized kind of that first impression thing its always a biggie

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Well, you see it says it right there in black and white for all to see "all men are created equal". So of course if someone has a bad outcome it's his or her fault because he or she is not using the potential they have and at the same time because we are all created equal in order to succeed in life you must crush and destroy your competition or they will do it to you.

Right? Isn't that how it is?

Until some point that is true. Until some point that is also a part of the human nature. We are still naked monkeys. This would lead us deep into philosophy and maybe too far from the topic.
Luckily in a civilized societies there are laws and regulations to make limits to such behavior. To protect those who cannot protect themselves against the strong. To give everyone equal changes to start their competition, whatever that might be. Some societies have more rules than others and some have them too much.

Every time i hear someone yelling about freedoms and regulations i think they should go and check some ideal place like Somalia. Been there seen that. How it is to live (and die) with very weak government, no free public services and not too much regulations to limit those who are strong. Home of the strong and fittest. Looked more like a hell on earth to me.

Originally Posted by BAMARACING8

possibly..but if you had the means which would your choice be

I would do a cost to benefit analysis and combining that with my purely emotional biases I'll pick one or the other. Same way I do pretty much anything else.
But I am not an ideologue and I don't really care to be, or be perceived as one.

Originally Posted by Sailor

We have a saying that every advantage i enjoy in society is already paid by the generations of my parents and grandparents. The taxes i pay will benefit the generation of my children.

We do it opposite over here, our "benefits" are paid for by our children and their childrens, children.