• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%

  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%

  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Total voters
    57
RGacky3 said:
Nonsense, social justice is a concept, not a specific system.
Click to expand...

I have been sitting here and I couldn't up with a definition of what the term social justice means to me. I like what you said.
 
cpwill said:
...no. My sources have mostly been shown to disagree with you in the interpretation of data, which you confuse with inaccuracy. Factually speaking, they are no more or less right than any other media source.
Click to expand...

Only in the sense I don't accept inaccurate information. I'm not the only one who has called you on that.

which does not keep that from being the Social Justice demand, and they can be discussed in the context of what those who are dedicated to it are pursuing. It would be rather disengenious, for example, to claim that the pro life movement does not wish (broadly) to use the coercive power of the state to radically restrict abortion simply because they have not succeeded in doing so.
Click to expand...

It would be equally as dose genius to act as if it had already happened. No one of any significance suggests the type of unfairness you speak of. What you are largely promoting is the misunderstanding, the perversion of the ideal.

Yeah, I like how you skip over affirmative action and the other hundreds of billions that we spend on "social justice" projects that take from some to give to others. :roll: Because nobody saw that.
Click to expand...

I didn't skip over AA. I pointed out clearly, for all to see, that there is no requirement in the law to take anything from anyone. Once I heard Buchanan called on this and his answer was of course there is no law, but because white males believe there is such, we should d away with the actual law. He didn't seem to understand how stupid that was. Your or anyone's misperception doesn't support your claim.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only in the sense I don't accept inaccurate information. I'm not the only one who has called you on that.
Click to expand...

People say I used biased sources. They are correct. Everyone in here uses biased sources for the simple enough reason that every source is biased. To date, people have had a fairly tough time (you included) translating that into "cpwill uses sources who make stuff up".

It would be equally as dose genius to act as if it had already happened. No one of any significance suggests the type of unfairness you speak of. What you are largely promoting is the misunderstanding, the perversion of the ideal.
Click to expand...

I am describing social justice as it's proponents wish it enacted. If you do not like the ugliness of that reality, perhaps you should reconsider your support for the term, or at least make clear your intention to capture it to serve another purpose of your own making.

I didn't skip over AA. I pointed out clearly, for all to see, that there is no requirement in the law to take anything from anyone. Once I heard Buchanan called on this and his answer was of course there is no law, but because white males believe there is such, we should d away with the actual law. He didn't seem to understand how stupid that was. Your or anyone's misperception doesn't support your claim.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, to give preference to someone for a limited resource (jobs, school slots, promotions) based on their race is indeed to hold others back based on their race. AA absolutely trods on Asian and White students, which is why they sue over the matter.
 
Surtr said:
Other: It sounds like nonsense.
Click to expand...

That is another excellent point - realistically it is nonsense. People are individuals, and have justice dispensed accordingly. You cannot dispense justice to groups by taking from or altering the conditions of other groups.
 
cpwill said:
People say I used biased sources. They are correct. Everyone in here uses biased sources for the simple enough reason that every source is biased. To date, people have had a fairly tough time (you included) translating that into "cpwill uses sources who make stuff up".
Click to expand...

They have also pointed out the inaccuracies, as have I. Bias doesn't concern me at all. Having the facts wrong does. And no one has had ltrouble showing that.

I am describing social justice as it's proponents wish it enacted. If you do not like the ugliness of that reality, perhaps you should reconsider your support for the term, or at least make clear your intention to capture it to serve another purpose of your own making.
Click to expand...

No, as you think they wish it and not what the term actually means. There is a real difference.


On the contrary, to give preference to someone for a limited resource (jobs, school slots, promotions) based on their race is indeed to hold others back based on their race. AA absolutely trods on Asian and White students, which is why they sue over the matter.
Click to expand...

No real preference can be given under the law. No quotas. No one not qualified. The law simply says you can't discriminate due to race and asks that you show you didn't. There is no evidence Asians or Whites are trod on (this is where you bring up another inaccurate source I'd guess ;) ).
 
Boo Radley said:
They have also pointed out the inaccuracies, as have I. Bias doesn't concern me at all. Having the facts wrong does. And no one has had ltrouble showing that.



No, as you think they wish it and not what the term actually means. There is a real difference.






No real preference can be given under the law. No quotas. No one not qualified. The law simply says you can't discriminate due to race and asks that you show you didn't. There is no evidence Asians or Whites are trod on (this is where you bring up another inaccurate source I'd guess ;) ).
Click to expand...
You sound like a lawyer
 
Canell said:
Hi

I was thinking about "social justice" and wondered what it means to you when you hear the term. Please, explain. :)
Click to expand...
It's a political buz-word frequently used by the Left and means revenge against whatever the speaker feels has wronged them, rather the speaker is actually correct or not.

RGacky3 said:
I don't think you can take the word away from it's religious roots ...
Click to expand...
I for one wasn't aware 'social justice' had any religious roots, or related to religion in any way. It's a purely political Leftist term used in modern propaganda, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
That is another excellent point - realistically it is nonsense. People are individuals, and have justice dispensed accordingly. You cannot dispense justice to groups by taking from or altering the conditions of other groups.
Click to expand...

It really just sounds like a buzzword used to segue into some illegible rant about societal collectivism by angry teenagers who just discovered Karl Marx. The ones who are so extreme to the maxxx that they don't eat meat, and they have 75 piercings in their face to prove to complete strangers that they don't give a ****.
 
Gawain said:
You sound like a lawyer
Click to expand...

well, as the old lawyers saw goes, when the law is against you, argue the facts. when the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.
 
Boo Radley said:
They have also pointed out the inaccuracies, as have I. Bias doesn't concern me at all. Having the facts wrong does. And no one has had ltrouble showing that.
Click to expand...

except, apparently, for you, as you remain either unable (most likely) or unwilling (less like) to do so.

No, as you think they wish it and not what the term actually means. There is a real difference.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that social justice is not how it is popularly used, but instead this fantastic vague warm and fuzzy meaning that you have dreamed up in your head? That all of the Social Justice organizations are built on a false self-definition?

....well.... it's an argument. It has the benefit (or loss) of being non-falsifiable, which makes it rather perfect for you...

No real preference can be given under the law. No quotas. No one not qualified. The law simply says you can't discriminate due to race and asks that you show you didn't. There is no evidence Asians or Whites are trod on (this is where you bring up another inaccurate source I'd guess ;) ).
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the law demands that you discriminate by race. It also demands that you not do so. It also allows you to do so, but in certain conditions. I have to run now, but it's not exactly as though this is news. If you wish for me to demonstrate that affirmative action is real and exists, and that employers are not allowed to engage in work-relevant testing that creates "disparate impact" on identity groups, it's a mere google search away.
 
i think the better word related to it is social justice. its the best one to identity socialism
 
Canell said:
However, this is not about wealth redistribution. Social justice is pretty much about that.

OK, how about that:



Does this seem like "social justice"?
Click to expand...

But that's Supply-Side Jesus talking! Jesus of Nazarene was the one who preached peace and love.
 
cpwill said:
except, apparently, for you, as you remain either unable (most likely) or unwilling (less like) to do so.
Click to expand...

Nope. I have a few times. You always disappear afterwards an pretend it didn't happen.

So your argument is that social justice is not how it is popularly used, but instead this fantastic vague warm and fuzzy meaning that you have dreamed up in your head? That all of the Social Justice organizations are built on a false self-definition?

....well.... it's an argument. It has the benefit (or loss) of being non-falsifiable, which makes it rather perfect for you...
Click to expand...

Again, no. I maintain that it has a real definition beyond what you wan to attach to it.


On the contrary, the law demands that you discriminate by race. It also demands that you not do so. It also allows you to do so, but in certain conditions. I have to run now, but it's not exactly as though this is news. If you wish for me to demonstrate that affirmative action is real and exists, and that employers are not allowed to engage in work-relevant testing that creates "disparate impact" on identity groups, it's a mere google search away.
Click to expand...

Ponce more, you are factually incorrect. The law only demands that you don't discriminate by race. You do understand that much of testing is arbitrary and not always absolute need. But that has to do with the validity of the test not discrimination. Some fear to argue the test and try to short cut by claiming they are being picked on.
 
Phys251 said:
But that's Supply-Side Jesus talking! Jesus of Nazarene was the one who preached peace and love.
Click to expand...

What do peace and love have to do with "social justice"? What does charity have to do with redistribution of wealth in one form or another, as frequently presented by socialist preachers?
Charity is charity - it's a product of one's free will. Unlike mandatory taxation.

I found a good definition of "social justice":

The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.

BusinessDictionary.com
Click to expand...

I agree with such a definition. "Social justice" is about justice (rights), not income.
 
cpwill said:
well, as the old lawyers saw goes, when the law is against you, argue the facts. when the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.
Click to expand...

Or do as you do, pretend there is a different law than there is. ;)
 
Canell said:
What do peace and love have to do with "social justice"? What does charity have to do with redistribution of wealth in one form or another, as frequently presented by socialist preachers?
Charity is charity - it's a product of one's free will. Unlike mandatory taxation.

I found a good definition of "social justice":



I agree with such a definition. "Social justice" is about justice (rights), not income.
Click to expand...

Really?

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." --Matthew 6:19-21
 
Phys251 said:
Really?

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." --Matthew 6:19-21
Click to expand...

Again, what does that have to do with "social justice"? :doh It's a prescription for happiness, a warning against thieves if you will.
If God intended us to be the same, He would have made us the same.
 
Boo Radley said:
Or do as you do, pretend there is a different law than there is. ;)
Click to expand...

yeah. woops? :roll:

...Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination ("disparate treatment") as well as unintentional discrimination that results from practices that, while not intended to discriminate, have a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a particular classification ("disparate impact")....
Click to expand...


I like how you've abandoned trying to defend Social Justice, though, and tried to strike out instead for the narrower claim that SJ's proponents have thus far merely failed to put their desires into law.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
I like how you've abandoned trying to defend Social Justice, though, and tried to strike out instead for the narrower claim that SJ's proponents have thus far merely failed to put their desires into law.
Click to expand...

No, I'm trying to point out that you have a skewed view influenced by the poor thinkers you read that misinforms you on what's is really the case. That the few wild voices we can find on any side of any issue do not represent the whole or define what any word or concept means. We have to actually dig into a concept, understand a little history, and Jude intent against reality. Sometimes this does call for modification of a law or ideology, but seldom the hyperbolic nonsense that political ideologues try to pass off.
 
Maybe this is the law student in me, but I always understood justice to be a social construct. Saying social justice us like saying wet water.

The money issues to me sound like financial justice.
 
Canell said:
Again, what does that have to do with "social justice"? :doh It's a prescription for happiness, a warning against thieves if you will.
If God intended us to be the same, He would have made us the same.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, the Romans 9:21 argument. But that was St. Paul, not Jesus. Consider the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society.

A socially just society is one based upon the principles of equality and solidarity; which pedagogy also maintains that a socially just society both understands and values human rights, as well as recognizing the dignity of every human being.[1][2]
Click to expand...
 
Phys251 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Click to expand...

OK, let me lay it out for you. :)

- "Social justice is justice exercised within a society" - fair enough, justice it should be;
- "particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society." - that simply means "no privileges for any class in society";
- "A socially just society is one based upon the principles of equality" - Please, note: "the principles of equality".

Why do leftist so often imply "wealth equality" instead of "rights equality"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom