Liberals, I have two thought experiments for you guys, answers?

Thought experiment 1

There are different body types and different people are more biologically adapted to certain strengths. For example there are people who are naturally fast and there are people who can lift heavier item. While larger muscles don’t directly equal more strength they are correlated.

In the nation of bench pressers how much you can bench press is what is rewarded/valued, we have a group people that are better adapted to running and another group of people more adapt to bench pressing (both are signs of physical strength), but due to the fact that bench pressing here is what is valued there is discrepancy in results, runners don’t bench press as well as bench pressers.

Is it fair to equalize the results or close the gap of bench pressing by adding more weight to bench pressers? Or is it better to just accept that there are different standards of success?

Thought Experiment 2

Person A is very charismatic, handsome, strong and is subjected to a lot of female attention (the poor guy), he spends a lot of time having fun. Person A makes about 20K a year

Person B is kind of a slob and a little out of shape. He is socially awkward which predisposed him away from social events but due to this finds work more attractive. Person B makes about 75K a year?

How do you close the gap and promote more equality here?


@ the peaceful

When liberals use results to measure opportunity the distinction no longer becomes quite as solid. Plus I never suggested perfect equality, I am asking what degree of equality is fair.

Update 2:

@ Lenny

I not the sarcasm but thank you anyways, the division between the two are differences between inherent attributes vs life styles and if that promoted different answers. If you use familiar real world examples than the automatic default answers spring up. In this case, the abstractness makes you think about how one defines fairness

Update 3:

@ Douglas

Interesting Concept, more of a live and let live backing. But I do have the difficulty following its application as is the fact that whatever the hell I believe society already has designated values what is encouraged or not that they had before I was born, thus there is always a value and reward system present.. Also a community is separated from just a group of people based on their commonality participatory agreed upon standards, this existed before government and laws were social constructs. The blank state you mention does not exist.

Update 4:

@man of steel

The point was to see differences in inherent vs lifestyle choices as mention earlier and what degree of equality is fair and see if there are any divergence here.

Since you only focused on the first scenario, You missed it by a little bit, instead of the old smart dumb, I do believe there are multiple types of thinking all of which do not necessarily have to conform to the one standard of success or happiness such as making a lot of money. Your distinction between rich and strong is not as accurate as I do believe a little more than half are democrats.and many often donate to such causes and weight lifters are also competitive and still want to be stronger than the others that they are lifting up.

11 Answers

  • Favorite Answer

    The conservative belief that liberals want wealth equality is a self-induced hallucination. Liberals want a true equality of opportunity.

    The conservative philosophy of government was best stated by President Coolidge: “The chief business of the American people is business.” He was wrong. The business of our nation is exactly and only that found in the preamble to our Constitution: “to... promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

    Times change but the Founding Liberals can’t change with them. They wrote what they wrote, and the most important word in the preamble to the Constitution is “Posterity”. The Founding Liberals understood why we are here on Earth: survival of the species is the motivating force of life.

    A nation without a thriving young generation faces its doom. Care of the young is the highest priority of all the creatures on earth - except Conservatives. Care of our young must not end at birth. Post-natal care must also be the highest priority of federal, state, and local government.

    Government must provide children with health care, education, and homes in a secure neighborhood. Children, from conception through university, must get all the health care, food, shelter, and play they need and as much education as they can absorb. Care of the young is a civilization’s wisest investment.

    A thriving young generation must include all children regardless of the wealth or poverty of their homes. Providing excellent care only for children of the rich will not produce enough brilliant leaders in technology, industry, and government. If you want all the cream, you have to milk all the cows. (Ninety-nine percent of all discoveries are found by one percent of all scientists.) A level playing field and equal opportunity from the moment of conception are the liberal’s core beliefs.

    The health, education, and shelter of the young are more important than the leisure activity of the rich. Tax the tax havens! Eliminate tax-free municipal bonds and loop-holes for hedge-fund managers and their money-changing brethren in the temple!

    Support for children by local taxes inevitably results in deprived areas, from Watts to Mississippi. To be equitably distributed, care of the young must be financed by progressive federal taxation. Commensurate with their means, all Americans, together as one, must share the load. Fairness and cooperation are the liberal’s core beliefs.

    Conservatives hold the opposite view. They believe children should be rewarded or punished depending on how well or how poorly they choose their parents. They want the care of the young to be financed by local taxes so that school quality varies with class and so that science education is stunted by fundamentalist school boards. Is it a wonder that, according to the National Academy of Sciences report, while half of GDP growth depends on technology, the US is rated 48th in science and math education?

    Instead of taxing wealthy estates, consisting mostly of untaxed capital gains and municipal bond interest, conservatives would endow the least productive segment of society: children of the rich. Since Congress can be bought, wealth is power and inherited wealth is inherited power, aristocracy, the exact opposite of democracy, the exact opposite of meritocracy. This is dishonesty and corruption. Conservatism is a crime against Nature.

  • 8 years ago

    I'm guessing your "parables" stem from the fiscal cliff and whether or not we should extend the tax cuts for the rich. Your argument is that some people are biologically smarter than others and because of this the normal humans with average to lower IQ will never ever be smarter than the people who have "smart". While your bench pressing analogy is quite amusing you leave out the fact that most people who bench press usually want other people who are weak to get stronger. I think we call them health fanatics. These strong folks like to help other people get stronger even though our genes reveal that the weaker guy will never become as strong as the biologically muscular guy. However you feel that since people will be rich and some people will be poor that the rich shouldn"t help the less fortunate out by paying taxes. This means that your stories don't line up really well with your core arument. Most of the rich don't want to pay more taxes even though that will benefit the "proles".

  • 8 years ago

    Answer to both:

    You don't take sides.

    You don't give benefits to bench pressers, you let them, and runners earn by their own merit, whatever their personal goals are. You don't step in on the side of bench pressers and provide them more weights, more machines, more gyms, more hormones, and more oils to rub on their overly sun-tanned and carcinogenic bodies

    You also don't hype stereotypes of what qualifies as good looking, handsome, strong, etc. Thus reinforcing the "I was born with it, now adjust to the wonder of me" meaningless lifestyle. You allow people who are looking for soul mates to discover them, by preaching diversity, whenever you can. Big is beautiful, small is beautiful, dark is beautiful, fair is beautiful, etc. and, by written policy, models hired and hyped to reflect that.

    Edit: Precisely correct, the blank state does not exist, but should.

    In fact, much work should go into making certain that is is created and then protected against erosion. In any other set of circumstance, the State or the culture is manipulated to support one thing or the other. An entire mythos is created exulting bench pressers. They are raised on high! Until, as inevitably happens in all things, the pendulum swings the other way.

    When that happens, who is responsible for the lost benefits which went to the bench pressers, at the expense of the runners.

    Who tells the anorexic model that curves are now in, or the mediterranean males that Nordic/Asian/African looks are all the rage?

    Only by society keeping firmly neutral on these matters, does society save itself the embarrassment of unwarranted adulation of the 'wrong' people, at the expense of the 'right" people. That should be its goal, if all are created to have equal opportunity under the law.

  • team
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    The person with less muscles should have less rewards for weight lifting. The person who likes to work should have more rewards than the other guy who spends more time having fun.

    Simple. Why can't liberals see this?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Thought experiments can be fun, but for something like politics it's better to make decisions based on real-life rather than some made-up hypothetical scenarios that couldn't possibly exist.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    A) It is better to just accept that there are different standards of success.

    B) You don't.

    You have some weird ideas about what 'liberals' think. "Liberals" is not a collective.

  • 8 years ago

    No liberal believes in equality of results, then they wouldn't be liberal they'd be communist.

    But every good liberal believes in equality of opportunity, have an equal playing field where the rich can't abuse the poor, let everyone have access to the ladder of achievement

  • 8 years ago

    1) It's better to accept the different results.

    2) You don't.

    I have to say, these are some of the lengthiest and most creative strawman arguments I've ever seen.

  • 8 years ago

    You marry who you love and do what God tells you to do.

    Source(s): Spin Master.
  • 8 years ago

    You thought that up by yourself and typed it all out huh? Man you must have no life at all.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.