Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!robinson From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <1167@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 16:39:45 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1167 Posted: Wed Jul 17 16:39:45 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 02:14:31 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 44 Summary: >>> : (peterr@utcsri) >> : Jim Robinson (robinson@ubc-cs) > : (Peter Rowley again) > >>>I use "equality of opportunity" with some trepidation. Does it mean that >>>if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles >>>that everyone else does? Or does it also mean that I should have the >>>same degree of *belief* that I can succeed at that something? >> >>I tend to think of the first part of the above when I think of "equality >>of opportunity". If that is fulfilled then it is just a matter of >>time before the second part will be fulfilled as well. > >If it were Jim Robinson that were disadvantaged for "just a matter of time" >(which may well be decades if not generation), then he might see the >situation as somewhat more urgent. I wrote that I consider "equality of opportunity" to mean that "if I decide to do something, that I will encounter only those obstacles that everyone else does." I also said that once this is achieved it will be just a matter of time before I (or whoever) actually *believes* this. Assuming my version of "equality of opportunity" is achieved I see no reason to believe that it will take "decades" for this fact to be discovered. The gov't has the best propaganda machine in the country and we all know that they don't mind blowing their own horn. Also, I am extremely hard pressed to define disadvantaged as: "someone who lives in a *truly* non-discriminatory society yet, for some reason, does not believe it". [Given the context in which he is using the term it would appear that that is the meaning that Peter Rowley is assigning to the word.] Sorry, as far as I am concerned, if nobody is discriminating against you then you are *not* "disadvantaged". In conclusion, if we are going to use Mr. Rowley's rather creative version of "disadvantaged" then he is very wrong. I would not see the situation as "somewhat more urgent" even if the so-called "disadvantaged" person did happen to be me. Attitude problems of people who *incorrectly* believe they are being discriminated against should not be the concern of the government. Jim Robinson