Equal Opportunity

Meta-IssuesPro has revised his initial conception of success as now one hindering solely on "motivation and drive." In other words, personal effort. This brings us to the issue of possibility vs probability. Pro just picks a definition that vaguely fits his own agenda. Dictionary.com defines prospects as: a. an apparent probability of advancement,success, profit b. the outlook for the future [1] Pro likely finds this definition (in terms of our debate) too deterministic, so we have essentially two playing fields: The one of probability and that of possibility. However, a focus purely on possibility is flagrantly disingenous. Take, for instance, the question of survival of those in Auschwitz during WWII and Greek civilians. A focus on possibility could stress the fact that, out of the 1.3 million sent to Auschwitz, 144 were able to escape under extraordinary circumstances [2] - thus, Pro could claim that both Auschwitz prisoners and Greek civilians had "equal opportunity" for survival given that it is possible to escape Auschwitz, in some abstract sense for some of its inhabitants. Of course, Auschwitz is not the American economy but this example still exposes shortcomings in a focus purely on possibility. High School DiplomaPro has a habit of focusing extensively on personal experience, and he does so again in this topic. It would be absurd to believe that everyone with a GED/HS diploma is on an equal playing field, as some of us who graduate do so with honors while others do so with D's and Fs. This isn't even to mention the wide disparity of qualities of High Schools across the US. Pro can't cogently argue that intelligence is not important in today's economy, and I don't believe he has made that argument. I take this point as established. Also note the wide variance of colleges with some with acceptance rates of nearly 100% (implying a lower level of academic quality) to the Ivy Leagues. One would have to be deluded to believe the education quality - not to mention name recognition to employers - makes an equal playing field. Gang PressureMuch of Pro's argument is predicated on maintaining this conception of an atomistic individual only held back by his own lack of motivation. Pro spends much of his time in this response describing the social forces behind gang activity which is not directly relevant to the argument. Pro does not directly address the main point of my argument here that intimidation and protection are main reasons for gang membership. Pro has not adequately addressed this, instead dropping back to his original point reiterating the power of free will. Just as it would do no good for a Jewish intellectual in Nazi Germany in the late thirties to have unlimited amounts of "motivation and drive" to succeed economically and utterly neglect the circumstances he is subject to, repeated studies of gangs have confirmed that coercive factors are present. Ignoring gang pressure - which is more than simple peer pressure - may result in violence to oneself or one's family. Simply put, the drive to succeed economically is one of many aspects of living well and Pro's narrow view on that subject does not account for coercive circumstances. One may not be joined to force a gang, but the consequences for abstaining may be very severe and unpredictable. Economic and Cultural DifferencesMy first criticism is not addressed. This was criticism is closely tied in with my second criticism, but revolved more around "missed opportunities" in the form of recognizing talents. The second criticism is not answered adequately. Pro simply resorts back to rags-to-riches stories that does not contradict anything I have already said. My point here is that if two identical individuals - say, both extremely talented in the violin yet average in all other aspects - yet if one is denied the allocation of income needed to pursue that talent there is an uneven playing field. One of those individuals, with his extraordinary talents, has a leg up on the other individual who is relegated to relying on his average abilities. Third criticism: Socio-cultural classes do emphasize different values, which will inevitably relate to socio-economic class. Not everyone is imbued with the same values from birth stressing the importance of becoming wealthy along with the value of education. Different cultures will imbue their inhabitants with different conceptions of goodness that will inevitably vary in their treatment of success. Take, for instance, an Amish family vs a wealthy conservative one. How could it be reasonable to expect a child born in each of these familes to advance social classes? The Amish Church has around an 80% retention rate [3] which bolsters the claim of the strength of the Amish culture in capturing the "hearts and minds" of its young. Even if the Amish child leaves the settlement he is at a clear disadvantage skill-wise. Employment/College AdmissionsIt may be illegal to deny someone purely because of a disability, but this again is a red herring. The questioning of hiring an employee is reducible to whether that employee can fulfill his/her proper function in the workplace. I'm fine with Tourettes example used by Pro (Tourettes has no impact on intelligence) but the Kyle Maynard one is interesting. Has Pro implied that an athlete with no arms or legs is in MMA? Well, yes and no. Maynard is 0-1 in amateur MMA and his MMA career is currently on hold. To state the obvious, there is no way that an athlete with no arms or legs could ever become a professional MMA fighter, or participate in most sports for that matter. Here, we can even use Pro's focus on possibility to state that a man with no arms or legs has a 0% possibility of making it to the professionals in most sports. Pro may counter that such certainty in unwarranted, but remember we're speaking in the realm of practicality and under that concept I believe the 0% label is justified. Objective boundaries exist in the athletic sphere when one is without arms or legs. It's a blatant fact that Maynard will never become a professional high jumper.Even if MR individuals do attend college at an equal rate I'll go on to cover this in the next section. The issue is not crucial, and for now take note of Pro dodging the question of whether a child with MR and Kobe/Shaq have the same chance of advancing social class. Pro weakly appeals to the semantic point that I did not specify that the MR child is not extremely gifted in anything. MR/Natural Abilities So much of Pro's argument is speaking from theory and potentiality, that he clearly avoids the concept that this argument is centered around the substantial, real-life issues facing those with MR. Let's clearly state what those with MR are dealing with:Those with mild MR have a mental age of 5-8. Academic skills are potentially at a 6th grade level, but usually at a third grade level [4]. In chalking down success to motivation, Pro implies that the only reason those with MR cannot become astrophysists are because they are unmotivated. This is clearly absurd. It gets worse, those with moderate mental retardation have a mental age of 1 to 5 and are unlikely to progress beyond a second grade level [5]. In preserving his vision, Pro must again chalk down the position that those with a permanent mental age of 5 cannot become astrophysisists due to laziness. It's apparent that certain job opportunities are immediately out of reach for those with MR. I requested in R3 that Pro cite names of individuals with MR at the peaks of their field. This has not been done thus far.ConclusionThe BoP is simply Pro defending the claim that everyone has "equal opportunity" - thus allowing me to compare people with a permanent mental age of 2 and Einstein. I applaud Pro for his effort, but our discourse exposed several charges that Pro either ignored or refuted poorly. I urge a Con vote. Sources in comments.