Equal Opportunity

Lets take a look at how Pro responded to my objections set forth in R2.Differences in Natural Abilities Pro intentionally tries to shift the focus away from probability of improvement to whether improvement in social class is possible. Pro has completely dropped the issue of vast differences in natural ability. Pro focuses on mental retardation for much of his response to my first objection, and in doing so neglects the main point of my objection: That there are vast differences in natural ability due to genetics and Pro mistakenly focuses on whether those who are less advantaged in this area can, regardless of probability, advance. Even the jobs cited as doable with MR are not, by and large, jobs of the top 10% casting doubt on a rise from the middle to upper class. Additionally, some of Con's points even seem to concede certain points to my case:"It is true that in the past, most colleges wouldn’t give people with Intellectual Disabilities a chance at admission. However largely due to the equal treatment guarantee of Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the number of MR adults who have been attending college has increased, and is continuing to increase. (5)"This is a positive development, but it never states that college admission levels are equal - nevermind the issue of how much ID students benefit from the college experience. This is not a question of whether ID individuals can succeed in the abstract, but what the probability of success is when compared to, say, a child Shaquille O'Neal or Kobe Bryant. I have to ask Con this directly since it was neglected last round: Does a mentally retarded child and a Shaquille O'Neal/Kobe Bryant (as a child) have the same chance of improving social class? Con essentially has to argue here that differences in natural ability are irrelevant, and to avoid this ridiculous concession he has skirted the question. In his last paragraph Pro sneaks in the concept that it may be possible for those suffering from mental retardation to succeed in sports, sculpting, and as musicians. Unfortunately, he never cites examples. I urge Pro to show me mentally retarded individuals at the peaks of their field who have become that through hard-work rather than the occasional "idiot savant" who has a strong natural ability. Pro cannot deny the inherently enormous natural abilities required to reach the level of professional sports, for instance. If certain job opportunities are immediately declined to individuals with certain difficulties than "equal opportunity" cannot possible be claimed. Differences in Economic and Cultural UpbringingThis entire relational argument that Pro brings up is a red herring. In spending so much time arguing against a thesis I never advanced Pro ignores most of my points so I will have to reiterate them to the listeners. In the end, Pro weakly reasserts "free will" despite my earlier argument. Pro never addresses the bulk of my second argument on economic differences and allocation of income within social classes. Restating arguments/points ignored by Pro:-The cello example brought forth at the end of the argument (differences in income allocation resulting in some talents remaining unrealized.)-Insufficient income allocation in a given household to pursue a talent that a child possesses. -Different conceptions of "goodness" advanced by different cultures implying different "good" outcomes. Moreover, lets revisit this "free will" position put forth by Pro in arguing against the importance of gang violence or cultural influences. I feel as if Pro needs to flush this out a little more, and I'm going to respond by proposing another scenario. Lets take two individuals with a given intelligence level (as in the last one, intelligent but not genius) in two environments. One is a private school that encourages intellectual development and is free of gangs, the other is heavily gang-infested where the boy is called upon to join a gang or suffer social, if not violent, consequences. If the two boys are moderately-resistant to gang pressure then pressure applied past the moderate level will result in succumbing to gang activity for only one of them. Of course, in Pro's world is simply a matter of free will and Pro conveniently forgets to address the question of what occurs when the gang becomes violent to him or his siblings due to refusal to join a gang. This is not pure theory, a study found "When asked about the perceptions of gang participation, 59% of youths identified as juvenile delinquents indicated that peer pressure and the absence of family bonding were the main factors of perpetuating gang participation. Most groups also surveyed gang participation as a way of seeking protection [1]." This protection clause is the most direct counter to espousals of "free will" in terms of gang participation. Additionally, the Violence Prevention Institute cites the general reasons for joining a gang as a form of identity, fellowship, protection, and intimidation [2]. The latter two have directly coercive elements casting serious doubt on the idea that if someone wants to be uninvolved that the decision will be carried through scot-free.High School DiplomaAgain, we see the focus on how it is possible that X, Y, and Z may occur without a decent High School education (although with a diploma.) We've repeatedly seen a focus on possibility over probability which seems to underly our dispute. If someone has learned nothing in High School how can we expect them to succeed in college level courses? An introductionary level physics course presupposes knowledge in algebra and trigometry. One must be able to write competently, at the very least, if one wants to pursue an English major with the hopes of becoming a writer. If trained professionals in the first 18 years of one's life do not teach adequately (or if the individual is subject to damaging external influences) then that individual will be severely limited in the job market. My focus here, which Pro seems to disregard the importance of, is acquiring the skills necessary to be competitive in the job market. Moreover, teaching oneself can be counter-productive granted if you misunderstand the concepts there is no one to correct you. Meta-IssuesIt's important to note some of these larger issues that have pervaded through this discussion. If I am correct, Dan seems to perceive the drive to succeed in terms of social class as a result of both intellect and drive. The latter is potentialy unlimited, as Pro believes, and simply a matter of the quality of the individual. The issue of intellect (which we both agree is highly genetic in nature) has not been sufficiently addressed. Much of Pro's argument rests on the possible as opposed to the issue of how probable a given outcome is. Despite his focus on this he has never demonstrated that those afflicted with MR can enter top-tier jobs such as CEOs of major corporations, corporate lawyers, or other professions that demand a high degree of intellectual ability. If some of the highest paying jobs are off limits to a certain types of people it's unjustified to claim equal opportunity for everyone. [1]http://myelsie.org...;[2]http://www.violencepreventioninstitute.com...;