How can you be so against these styles of systems? They just serve to benefit EVERYONE

How can you be so against these styles of systems? They just serve to benefit EVERYONE.

You don't have a ticket, you don't get to see the match.

Just build the fence higher.

and if it's true about chainlink fences at a baseball game, it MUST be a perfect social measure.

Give me one downside.

>People can see the match without tickets
>People stop buying tickets
>Attendances decline
>Club can no longer afford to pay best players
>Club declines, has to lay off staff members
>Now-unemployed staff cannot buy goods and services from non-ticket buying attendees.
>Everyone is poorer.

But surely the point of the image is about seeing the match? Not paying for it? For the sake of argument they have paid tickets but there is a wall in the way. What else would you propose so that everyone can see the match?

If the club can't run at a profit, soon there won't BE any matches, you cretin.

Yeah, so I am saying they have paid, but they are in the standing area and there is a fence in their zone. How would you propose a system so that everyone who paid for tickets can see the game. There's nothing wrong with anyone enjoying something to the same level dude.

W... What if they brought their own box?

If you offer equity to all, nobody bothers to try. In this analogy, they would see the midget with two boxes, and just...sit down, demanding boxes to sit on.

Not a bad system dude. Although I must admit it seems a bit better to have a system in place where boxes are not necessary in the first place.

breeds culture of people who are lazy and dont want to work hard. some tell me that kind of culture can fuck countries up. would you know anything about lazy, shitty cultures Sanchez?

What dude? This analogy is arguing for a wire fence, so that boxes are not necessary to begin with.

>serve to benefit EVERYONE

Aren't Hobbits' lives depicted as being one insanely long holiday?

It's a stupid analogy, in the first place. People with tickets wouldn't be behind a wire fence, anyway.

They still farm and work for a living. There are no government handouts or taxes in the shire.

Is the small child at the game by himself? Find his dad and have him hoist the little bastard on his shoulders.

If he's a midget, he can learn woodworking and build a pair of stilts or be put in a work camp where there's no baseball at all and he doesn't have to worry about it.

The first guy doesn't even need a crate to stand on. The second is still growing and will eventually see a baseball game unassisted.

I think the films show like 2 hobbits MAX in the field and everyone else is just chilling on lawns and in deck chairs. That's an insane unemployment ratio.

>For the sake of argument they have paid tickets but there is a wall in the way

Then the analogy would not make sense, because what you described is inherently retarded. What social situation or predicament are you even trying to compare to watching a game? If it's the wealth you are born into, then it's really a stretch to compare it to immutable physical attributes like height, wouldn't you say? Because you can't change your height, but you can change your financial situation by sacrificing some luxuries and managing your money responsibly (two things low-income adults don't seem to grasp).

If they didn't pay for tickets, then they haven't been given permission to view the game, the wall is there to prevent them from seeing in the first place. Is OPs image secretly about borders?

Are you just saying that because you can't think of any other flaws? Is this like being called a biggot by a tumblrina?

>For the sake of argument they have paid tickets but there is a wall in the way.
this is not the case for this example at all. they have been excluded, or more correctly not admitted, because they can't buy a ticket, so are seeking a means of watching the game illicitly.
it assumes that everyone is entitled to everything, even if they don't meet the requirements for entry (in this case a ticket).

>Although I must admit it seems a bit better to have a system in place where boxes are not necessary in the first place.

Why should the venue have to cater to a small minority of people? They should be able to take care of themselves.

subsistence farming really isnt that much work

Cretino...

But why don't you try to see it from this perspective? Its cool to admit you are/were wrong about something. You can change any analogy to fit what you want to say. Just look at the analogy as I said and tell me what's wrong with it dude.

The venue stands to make more money if they can include as many people as possible without limiting their original audience. Which is what the wire fence does.

>Building society around the lowest common denominator.

Affirmative action doesn't remove systemic barriers. It simply introduces new ones that don't even solve the problem. (eg. Most blacks that start college never graduate).

People aren't equal. Life sucks for everyone. Those who have the intelligence and determination to succeed will build their own opportunities. Those that don't were never going to be successful regardless of how much you try to help them.

Dismantling opportunities for high achievers in order to help low achievers reach mediocrity is literally a guide on how to destroy a society.

South African blacks had a thriving first-world country handed to them. The institutional barriers were removed. Did their quality of life improve? Did their safety and security improve?

Why are you assuming that just because they're relaxing they're unemployed? Who would be paying anyone in such a self sustaining village in the first place?

>Not living in culinary decadence
Oh, hai third world

But it's not building it around them, it's just including them.

>spain
>not third world

The wire fence allows for people to view the game without purchasing a ticket, which loses them money, and potentially loses additional customers. As for just making more money, there's still no reason to cater to such a small number of people, over customers who are going about things the right way.

They're already included. They're at the game. They just have to provide for their own needs/wants.

No because the fence is wire so they don't even need to being seats/boxes. No one does.

But you're changin the analogy to something else. This analogy has them in the arena with the wall behind them so only paying customers can benefit from seeing the game.

If there's no barrier most people would watch the game from behind the fence not bothering with buying tickets.

Literally people have only ever heard of you because three films were filmed on set there.

>so only paying customers can benefit from seeing the game.
Yes. Which is how it should be. If you don't pay, you're not entitled to view the game, and should not expect to be able to view it regardless.

Well of course your communist ass would do that.

Not an argument.

Yeah that's the analogy! It's just that once there everyone who paid can benefit from having a wire fence from which to view the game. Everyone who pays has the same experience regardless of other factors.

Mate! Have a little look in the thread and you can see my analogy in all of it's glory.

No, it's like trying to find flaws in a weak analogy specifically designed to be obtuse, no matter how poorly it represents the actual fact of the matter.

I can't argue my way around a five year old's everything-proof shield, either. Doesn't make it the world's greatest weapon.

But there would be no point in paying if you could just walk up to the fence and watch the game. If you're trying to say that the idea of the venue is to watch it from behind the fence AFTER paying, then why even build the stadium? That's a waste of money, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

No mate, the stadium is a normal stadium. However in the seating areas instead of having fences to protect the audience from stay balls, there is instead a wire fence. Thus, nones view is impaired and all the paying audience can see the game.

But that's how it is normally, isn't it? There's wire fencing between the seating and the field, so the paying customers don't get hit by stray balls. Try to be more clear in your inane arguments.

I would argue that you are being obtuse by not playing devils advocate and going along with the analogy. You can see that my analogy is good and doesn't fit your narrative and so instead of discussing it you instead try to dismantle the analogy to fit something you can argue with your already set narrative. If you cannot argue this analogy it is only because you refuse to see how a system can benefit everyone whilst disadvantaging noone.

> You can see that my analogy is good

It's a baseball stadium which has erected a fence in front of the game, has no seating for anyone and is too high for people to see over. Is that how things are done in Spain? Because in the real world, we have seating. Seems like you missed them out because it fucks up your "narrative".

Unless they're watching it without buying a ticket, in which case, fuck 'em. Tall people perks win the day then. makes up for being called a freak all other times.

I wouldn't know, we don't really have baseball here. I think it's an ok analogy. I suppose then that's good right? Because we can all see how this system benefits everyone and disadvantages no one. A perfect system. It's just worth thinking about. Obviously it become wayyyy more complex with public money and whatever, but it's just good to discuss I think.

>Because we can all see how this system benefits everyone and disadvantages no one
Yeah, as long as you ignore literally everything anyone in this thread has told you. Which is pretty classic for the sort of people who think this is an accurate analogy.

Yeah well I mean it's more to just make a point and provide definitions in an easy to understand way. You're being way to literal I think. But I mean of course they normally have wire fences, which proves the analogy nicely, systems benefit when everyone has a fair environment without other factors getting in the way.

Also
>no more baseball game ever again.

Jesus fucking christ why are people still responding to this guy? He's been btfo like 20 times already

>make everyone equal
>thus, everyone is shit

Good job!

And I guess you are ignoring everything I have said too. I mean, I have been addressing issues with the anaolgy. Trying to make it clear. Perhaps I did a bad job. But I do also think people were going out of their way to not "get" the message. I mean, most people assumed they were watching the game for free even after I told them to just go along with it. They couldn't accept that they had paid for their tickets even though the point of the picture is to describe the systems and has nothing to do with watching the game illegally.

It's got nothing to do with being equal, we can see they are all different sizes. The picture shows how there are no barriers to anyone.

I put up good arguments cleary.

You're just fixing the analogy to your own benefit even though it makes no sense. Fuck off

Okay, but if we're leaving the analogy behind somewhat, it's VERY hard to determine what "fairness" is. If you're applying "equity", then people are going to wonder why less determined, less hardworking people are being unfairly aided, and they're not.

What, in society, is the chain link fence supposed to symbolise? Because we can't just...get rid of strife and suffering.

Help me understand here, so basically, in this game, everyone who buys the tickets benefits in the first place because they can all see the game, correct? But then wouldn't that put a disadvantage on the people who didn't buy the tickets outside the stadium? I mean, there's a wall there where they can't see the game, but then again, they bought no tickets.

So these people bought tickets, they have a right to see the game. Sounds reasonable enough, but only if they bought the tickets to the game. Now, naturally, there will be other factors in seeing the game, but let's just ignore those so the point can be made without any complication.

So, several implications can be made from your post. That's how I think you wanted it to be, open, but not so much to promote a discussion, but rather to show off something. For the discussion to be truly open, all sides must be considered and reality must become the ground foundation rather than "what ifs", which is the opposite of what you're doing, is it not? If it is not, then you have become trapped and entangled in your own facade, you'll blame these others for not getting it, but they'll blame you the same, so it makes you look better to the audience, right? But it doesn't. You've failed your Rules for Radicals in the sole fact that you forgot about the audience. You're not trying to convince these people you're talking to, you're trying to convince the people watching, and in that, you have failed.

Oh I don't know. It's just good to talk about these things. I like the idea of everyone having the same e experience regardless of other factors. It seems like pol is pro kicking the little guy down and keeping him down which seems wrong on so many levels. They can be systems like this and it's a good thing to talk about them. Just because something benefits a minority doesn't mean it hurts the majority.

In this analogy, you are kicking down the little guys who don't have the money to afford to go into the game, kinda hypocritical isn't it? I guess you are just like us

I didn't read the thread, I just want to let you know Gibralter is British

10 FEET TALLER

It's totally unfair that retards don't get first class engineering degrees.

>pic related

I haven't said anything bad about people who didn't pay for tickets. Are you being serious? Is this "I know you are but what am I?"

I m British too dude! Yeah but in all seriousness it's pretty lame bragging about Gibraltar.

You haven't said anything bad about them, but you were completely oblivious to the fact that they were there

Just because it benefits a minority, doesn't mean it hurts the majority. Should we, instead of benefit the paying majority and building a wall so the non paying majority can't see, make it a chain link fence so both are equal? The only difference is how close you are to the field

The third image would open you up to lawsuits if a ball goes through the fence

Sanders then: What if you just didn't have any children?
Sanders now: What if you just didn't have to work?
Sanders next: What if you just didn't have to go to school?

Leading the country into ruin

So would splinters from a wooden fence.

So both are equally bad, yes?

lol im sure futbol is your sport of preference being a judeofascist cybershill but contrary to your retardation baseballs go into the stands all the time.

This image is trying to appeal to emotion. It portrays inequality as something that blocks you from viewing something we all want to see and we want to see it for free.

Now, if you put inequality in a realistic light, e.g. financial inequality barring the poor from purchasing a mercedes, you'll suddenly see things quite differently.
Building a mercedes costs more than building a volkswagen golf, fact. The mercedes brand has a reputation of class, class comes at a price too. Think about classy design (costs more money), classy interior materials (cost more). Heck, perhaps even the mercedes logo is more expensive to produce because it is made of solid metal instead of cheap plastic.

Now tell me, why in seven hells should these cars cost the same. Why in seven hells should poor people be supported so they can ride in an expensive car when they can't pay for it. Because they are being treated unfairly? Or because they are victims of some invisible system that prevents them from becoming rich?

If you want to get more money, work hard and don't spend on shit. If you want to buy an expensive car, then collect your money instead of buying weed and other things.

Inequality is not something to fight. When you're on the "wrong" side of inequality, then work yourself out of there instead of crying rape/misogyny/oppression/designated shitting areas.

Height is a shitty comparison because you can't do anything about it.

image 1
Everyone worked equally and they got what they deserved 1 got a nice view 2 barely sees anything 3 doesn't see anything.

image 2
guy 1 worked hard to get his crate to have nice view but society decided that if he can barely see even without it he should give his hard earned crate to the guy nr3 because he didn't work nearly hard enough for him to reach his goal so other people have to give up their work for him.

image 3
There shouldn't be any match going on because if people can just get what they want without doing anything(aka welfare) no one would buy tickets and the game would not happen.

But as I said height is shitty comparison because in real life no matter how poor you are if you are actually smart and get good grades in school you can get to a good school and earn well, you are not born with it its up to you what you do with your life.

...

>Arguing about the finer details of the analogy instead of the message it tries to present

>Comparing boxes with money

not an argument

Creating measures to accomodate everyone does not come free of costs.

Example:
There has been an otrage how medical facilities couldn't perform an MRI scan on an obese person, simply because they didn't fit inside.
Current state is the left side.
The right side, i.e. removing systemic barrier would be making only oversized machines which would be a financialdisaster from manufacturing to upkeep costs.

Or, since some people walk slower than others, the green lights should be changed so the slowest don't have to exert themselves trying to keep up.

But even then, you have to set up a set level like with how big MRI would be or how slow would the lights change. The wire fence solution does not exist in reality - instead it's just setting the fence lower.

There is a cost/benefit analysis with lower fence (accomodating more) being costlier to have (cost of accomodating) and it generally works quite right.