The word "morality" is very dangerous.eace
Ok ... but if you're going to engage in almost ANY discussion about politics, or economics or anything, you're gonna run into value statements whether you like it or not, and and every political theory, political concept or political question necessarily deals with value statements and value judgements.
Well, didn't I tell you that it was a matter of authority? If I as a Libertarian prevail, flat tax will be right. If you as a Socialist prevail, progressive tax will be right. Please, listen to the podcast, those things are discussed there.
Ok, well if that is your position what is there to discuss?
Please, reread OP.
It wasn't an adhominem attack, it wasn't even an argument, it was an explination as to why I wasn't going to waste my time.
But go ahead, if you have a point to make, make it.
No. That's a misunderstanding. A talking point that promotes a superficial view. The effort is to be "just," and not trod on anyone.
That is sadly incorrect. Social Justice as expressed politically seems to be defined by the idea of trodding on those who are identified as the historical winners in order to raise up those who are identified as the historical losers.
On the surface, social justice is good for some, and bad for others. In reality, it's disastrous for everyone, it's just that some are used to worse all around them, so a little less worse becomes everything.Hi
I was thinking about "social justice" and wondered what it means to you when you hear the term. Please, explain.
From a religious point of view, I would say that "Social Justice" has come too much to mean the encouragement of others to break the 10th Commandment so that you may break the first by elevating yourself.
From a political point of view, much the same - it is the encouragement of resentment an greed in order to justify taking from some to give to others.
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
--Matthew 5:3-11
Not sure how much clearer Jesus could have been about his support for the oppressed and downtrodden.
Matthew 25:29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
You'll have to be more specific. I think you're just repeating the talking point rethoric of the uniformed.
Joe, what in our past decade plus of interaction makes you think that I am uninformed?
Social Justice broadly is used to help members identity groups that are selected for political favoritism at the expense of members of other identity groups. Whether it's pushing for "remittances" or racial preferences in hiring / school attendance, that result is the same - some are trodden on in the hope that by doing so you can lift up others.
The poor sources you often use.
I asked for specifics and not more tripe. "Remittances" as in affirmative action efforts, could only be done legally by court order, and then only in response to proven injustices, like monetary rewards given when harm is shown to occur. Then law never gave license to take from anyone to give to another. Many are completely ignorant if the law, believing the misinformation of their pundits over actual accurate reading of the law.
Ah, you wish to bring religion into this argument? Fair enough:
Not sure how much clearer Jesus could have been about his support for the oppressed and downtrodden.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of the Beatitudes: I might actually have an inkling of respect for the theocrats if they'd advocate for public display of the Beatitudes instead of the Ten Commandments.
The phrase 'social justice' has been tainted by those who feel justified in demanding from others what they have not earned for themselves.
What it USED TO mean, IMO, was voluntarily helping those who are desperately trying to improve their position by the sweat of their brow, and those who have found an inpenetrable wall in their path that they need help climbing over.
No, you have "disagrees with me" confused with "obviously therefore factually incorrect". I realize that for a member of the ivory tower, it may be difficult to distinguish between "conservative" and "obviously therefore factually incorrect", as it's not part of your training to differentiate between peoples' evidence and their conclusions when their conclusions challenge the zeitgeist, but you've been around these places long enough you should know better.
Affirmative action programs are indeed a specific example of "social justice" in the action of trodding on some hoping to lift up others (and, broadly, doing a horrible job at that). Remittances in social justice terminology are used often as payments to all the members of a politically preferred identity group, not individual direct victims of a crime; as an example, demands for remittances to American Indians for loss of territorial sovereignty, or african americans for slavery. Those who push "social justice" are also very much indeed active in seeking laws which take from some solely for the purpose of giving to others - in fact, this is now almost half of what the Federal Government does.
Social Justice="Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what can your country do for you." in the same way that 'gay' used to mean happy.
On the surface, social justice is good for some, and bad for others. In reality, it's disastrous for everyone, it's just that some are used to worse all around them, so a little less worse becomes everything.
No, I make no such mistake. Your sources have in fact been shown inaccurate.
Demands don't actually equal action. Nor is payment for lands taken equal to your charge.
As no such actual remittance has taken place, no law unfairly moving anyone over another, your charge is still baseless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?