• 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!

Is Social Justice legitimate?

Is Social Justice legitimate?

  • Yes, for equality of opportunity

    Votes: 11 47.8%
  • Yes, for equality of outcome

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, for wealth redistribution

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Yes, to reduce inequality

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • No, wealth redistribution is bad

    Votes: 9 39.1%
  • No, it extends the utilitarianism and social contracts in un-useful ways

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • Other...

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • Total voters
    23

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Especially the part about equality of outcome? This seems to be used for justification of wealth redistribution.
 
It is in cases where the health of the country is at stake, otherwise, no.

That's my take on it, at least.
 
Especially the part about equality of outcome? This seems to be used for justification of wealth redistribution.
 
It is in cases where the health of the country is at stake, otherwise, no.

We should use capitalism where possible and social institutions where necessary.

In terms of wealth distribution. It should not be use for justice as much as making sure everyone has enough opportunity that the potential Einsteins and Bill Gates of our society do not end up trapped in some ghetto, unable to make real social contributions which help everyone.

At least that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
I voted no, stealing to give to others who didn't earn it is wrong and so is discrimination
 
I voted no primarily because it restricts the ability of individuals to reach their full potential and creates a false sense of security and reality regarding what is required of individuals to live. Life ain't a free ride.
 
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, most peoples' definitions of "justice" correspond with what is most likely to benefit them.
 
No, of course not.

"Social justice" is nothing more than a term used by the Left to disguise their unjust theft of property and freedoms.
 
No, of course not.

"Social justice" is nothing more than a term used by the Left to disguise their unjust theft of property and freedoms.
 
Which of course is totally different from the unjust theft of property and freedoms favored by the Right, right? :lol:

Damn if I know.

I don't know of any unjust programs of theft promoted by libertarians.

How about if you stop building straw men and start discussing what is said?
 
"Social justice" as the term is currently used is based on the false premises that life is "fair" and that if someone does not have as much as someone else, society must provide the means to make up the differnece.

So, no.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged
 
Damn if I know.

I don't know of any unjust programs of theft promoted by libertarians.

How about if you stop building straw men and start discussing what is said?

That is because a Libertarian is like the angry 15 year old in the room who never has any ideas of his own but thinks everyone's ideas are ****ty. They're teens pretending to be grown ups and in some cases grown ups who have yet to realize they're not teens anymore. I guess it's just easier to talk a big game when you don't have any significant amount of constituents.
 
Last edited:
Especially the part about equality of outcome? This seems to be used for justification of wealth redistribution.
i don't know of any push for equality of outcome.
 
i believe that's equal opportunity. not quotas, necessarily, but opportunity.
Nope, AA is completely based on quotas. The EEOC(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is about anti-discrimination law enforcement. AA states that you must have representation of groups based on mandated ratios, regardless of merit, whereas the EEOC might recieve a complaint that a person was denied employment based on factors such as race, sex, age, marital status.....etc. etc.
 
That is because a Libertarian is like the angry 15 year old in the room who never has any ideas of his own but thinks everyone's ideas are ****ty. They're teens pretending to be grown ups and in some cases grown ups who have yet to realize they're not teens anymore. I guess it's just easier to talk a big game when you don't have any significant amount of constituents.

A socialist telling someone else they don't have original ideas...
 
Nope, AA is completely based on quotas. The EEOC(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) is about anti-discrimination law enforcement.
Except, of course, that when you have to have a certain number of a given race, it creates situations where you then must discrimintate against other people of a different race when choosing who to hire.

Supporters of AA necessarily accept the premise that you cannot discriminate against minorities, but everyone else is fair game.
 
i believe that's equal opportunity. not quotas, necessarily, but opportunity.

Equal opportunity? :rofl Is it equal opportunity when a Black or Hispanic gets an automatic 20 points on a Civil Service Exam?

Is it equal opportunity when all the Blacks fail the test, so the results are thrown out the window?

updated 2:36 p.m. PT, Mon., June 29, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared Monday that white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotion because of their race, ruling against minorities in a major reverse discrimination case that could affect bosses and workers nationwide. The justices threw out a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had endorsed as an appeals court judge.

In its last session until September, the court's conservative majority prevailed in a 5-4 ruling that faulted New Haven and the courts that had upheld the city's discarding of results of an exam in which no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted to lieutenant or captain.

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters - Supreme Court- msnbc.com

Yup, no quota there. :roll:
 
Except, of course, that when you have to have a certain number of a given race, it creates situations where you then must discrimintate against other people of a different race when choosing who to hire.

Supporters of AA necessarily accept the premise that you cannot discriminate against minorities, but everyone else is fair game.
Nailed it Goobie. My perspective is that no private business should be forced to hire based on quotas, but if you take government money in any form then you cannot discriminate according to those same criteria, private businesses should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't endanger public safety. The free market would ultimately pay bigots back in failure, something government fines can never accomplish in a larger degree than market forces. I think the EEOC is an overall good, but AA is a complete failure.
 
Back
Top Bottom