• 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 is not a noble goal.

B

bricklayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
907
Reaction score
166
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...

It attempts to equalize the power base that currently dispenses justice.
 
Don't worry, there are plenty of Social Injustice Warriors out fighting the good fight.

:roll:
 
Mr Person said:
Don't worry, there are plenty of Social Injustice Warriors out fighting the good fight.

:roll:
Click to expand...

With people most disadvantaged by them, cheering them on and calling it “freedom”.

I will never understand how a person could go into a voting booth and vote for people who promise to make their lives harder for no reason other than to make sure a billionaire makes a a little bit more.

Every other industrialized nation can have healthcare except the United States because you’re the... Greatest country in the world.

Weird world view.
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...



It's your OP. You're the one laying the brick. You tell us which is the social v group v individual v justice brick in your opinion and quit being so coy, throwing flowers as you lead us down the garden path/rabbit hole. Or, say you're not sure and you want our input. Be honest and forthright. Two bricks short of a load.
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...

The only "justice" you want is called "might makes right" and history has shown that to always be a disaster for the people.
 
Social "Justice" is usually implemented by breaking a number of laws, and almost always in un-Constitutional, in that it blatantly violates the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" Clause!

Social "Justice" is based on the concept that there is Birth-Guilt, in which a person inherits the onus of a crime done by a previous generation. Which is a direct violation of one of the most fundamental precepts of western law. As an individual, you cannot inherit guilt, or civil/criminal liability.

Additionally, as an individual, or member of a group, you cannot inherit civil/criminal victim-hood.

Social Justice is not just ignoble, it is Illegal, and EVIL.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
Social "Justice" is usually implemented by breaking a number of laws, and almost always in un-Constitutional, in that it blatantly violates the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" Clause!

Social "Justice" is based on the concept that there is Birth-Guilt, in which a person inherits the onus of a crime done by a previous generation. Which is a direct violation of one of the most fundamental precepts of western law. As an individual, you cannot inherit guilt, or civil/criminal liability.

Additionally, as an individual, or member of a group, you cannot inherit civil/criminal victim-hood.

Social Justice is not just ignoble, it is Illegal, and EVIL.

-
Click to expand...

Women not being allowed to vote or work in various fields was an example a social injustice. Segregation in the South was an example of social injustice.

Are you saying it was evil to allow women to vote and to desegregate the South?
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...

If you're a privileged White male you may not experience any social injustice. But if you're a minority, gay, female you may see the world differently.

The Bible teaches us that society is fundamentally unjust. Sadly, American conservatism is fundamentally anti-Christian. American conservatism is about individualism and self-reliance. Christianity is about being one in the body of Christ, interdepedence and community. The Apostles lived together, shared wealth and possessions. They emphasized helping the poor and sick.
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...
That was quite a strawman army that you created by false equivocation.

Does this mean that you support slavery and the Klan but oppose the civil rights act, the voting rights act, rights for LGBT people and women voting? Social justice means that you fight for the rights of others who are usually minorities who lack equal rights.

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society, as measured by the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges.
Click to expand...

Social justice - Wikipedia
 
Kurmugeon said:
Social "Justice" is usually implemented by breaking a number of laws, and almost always in un-Constitutional, in that it blatantly violates the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" Clause!

Social "Justice" is based on the concept that there is Birth-Guilt, in which a person inherits the onus of a crime done by a previous generation. Which is a direct violation of one of the most fundamental precepts of western law. As an individual, you cannot inherit guilt, or civil/criminal liability.

Additionally, as an individual, or member of a group, you cannot inherit civil/criminal victim-hood.

Social Justice is not just ignoble, it is Illegal, and EVIL.

-
Click to expand...

Please explain how equal rights for a minority is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. This should be amusing.

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
Click to expand...

Equal Protection | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Are you saying it was evil to allow women to vote and to desegregate the South?
Click to expand...

Did it improve the quality of government? Has any expansion of suffrage ever improved the quality of government?
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...

It would be bad enough, if you right wingers only sought status quo, you want to revert. As made OBVIOUS by the fascist saying, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
 
AmNat said:
Did it improve the quality of government? Has any expansion of suffrage ever improved the quality of government?
Click to expand...

That is how right wingers gauge what is the right thing to do. Will it be better for ME?
 
Guyzilla said:
That is how right wingers gauge what is the right thing to do. Will it be better for ME?
Click to expand...

Did you quote the wrong post? It's not clear what your statement has to do with mine.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Women not being allowed to vote or work in various fields was an example a social injustice. Segregation in the South was an example of social injustice.

Are you saying it was evil to allow women to vote and to desegregate the South?
Click to expand...

When we expanded the Sovereign franchise to include women and blacks, it was NOT called 'Social Justice'. In the case of women's votes, it was called the suffrage movement.

It did not violate the 14th Amendment Equal protection clause, in enforced it, because it insisted we treat women and Blacks just like we treat and protect the rights of all other citizens.

For the people alive at the time those judgements were made, and policies (Not Laws) were changed, it changed how the voting laws were implemented, to make them enforced correctly, and universal across all the states, for all citizens. The laws and the Constitution, at the federal level, already stated that ALL citizens got the vote. An amendment already corrected the Constitution for the mistake of the 3/5 of a black person when it came to counting citizens for the sake of House seats distribution. It was not a change in the LAW, it was a change or clarification on how the already correctly stated LAW, should be enforced.

The Law Already stated Citizens could vote... ONCE!, and Blacks and Women were already Citizens in MOST other ways. Where implementation of the was done in a anti-minority fashion, in SOME areas, the amendments forced, at a federal level, the correct and uniform enforcement policies of those laws, by the language in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

The Constitution is not something that was ever, by design, supposed to stand on its own. The process for amending the Constitution, makes changes in the Constitution, and it should always be seen as the Constitution is not complete, unless you also include the amendments ratified at the time of the legal / Constitutional issue review.

The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865 ended this practice. From 1865 onward, when you say Constitution, you must include all the amendments, including the 13th, which means the 3/5 stuff is GONE!

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

But 3/5 stuff was NEVER used for basing whether or not a Black-American got to vote or not, it was used to determine which States had how many seats in the House of Representatives.

Blacks were given the right to vote in the 15th amendment, which was ratified in 1870.

From 1870 onward, the amended, complete Constitution gave Blacks the right to vote, or the sovereign franchise, often referred to as Black-Sufferage.

The 19th Amendment gave women the sovereign franchise in 1920, 100 years ago, this year!

-
 
Last edited:
AmNat said:
Did you quote the wrong post? It's not clear what your statement has to do with mine.
Click to expand...

Getting some kind of payoff, is beside the point. Doing the right thing is a proper end in itself.
Our constitution compels us to do the right thing.
 
Kurmugeon said:
When we expanded the Sovereign franchise to include women and blacks, it was NOT called 'Social Justice'. In the case of women's votes, it was called the suffrage movement.

It did not violate the 14th Amendment Equal protection clause, in enforced it, because it insisted we treat women and Blacks just like we treat and protect the rights of all other citizens.

The people alive at the time those judgements were made, and policies (Not Laws) were changed, it changed how the voting laws were implemented, to make them enforced correctly, and universal across all the states, for all citizens. The laws and the Constitution, at the federal level, already stated that ALL citizens got the vote. An amendment already corrected the Constitution for the mistake of the 3/5 of a black person when it came to counting citizens for the sake of House seats distribution.

The Constitution is not something that was ever, by design, supposed to stand on its own. The process for amending the Constitution, makes changes in the Constitution, and it should always be seen as the Constitution is not complete, unless you also include the amendments ratified at the time of the legal / Constitutional issue review.

The 13th Amendment, passed in 1865 ended this practice. From 1865 onward, when you say Constitution, you must include all the amendments, including the 13th, which means the 3/5 stuff is GONE!

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

But 3/5 stuff was NEVER used for basing whether or not a Black-American got to vote or not, it was used to determine which States had how many seat in the House of Representatives.

Blacks were given the right to vote in the 15th amendment, which was ratified in 1870.

From 1870 onward, the amended, complete Constitution gave Blacks the right to vote, or the sovereign franchise, often referred to as Black-Sufferage.

The 19th Amendment gave women the sovereign franchise in 1920, 100 years ago, this year!

-
Click to expand...

Fine, we can call SOCIAL JUSTICE, following the constitution. Good idea.
 
Guyzilla said:
Getting some kind of payoff, is beside the point. Doing the right thing is a proper end in itself.
Our constitution compels us to do the right thing.
Click to expand...

And what is the right thing?
 
bricklayer said:
Social justice is just another way of saying group justice as opposed to individual justice. Social (group) justice is directly opposed to individual justice.
Indeed, group justice is opposed to the individual.

To those who deny that social justice = group justice, I have one question, how is social justice different from justice?
Click to expand...

What a convoluted and confusing OP.

Justice is justice, whether it is for a group or an individual. What is right for one person is right for all and vice versa.

Please be sober the next time you put up an OP. This is about as bad an OP and can be thought.
 
Guyzilla said:
Fine, we can call SOCIAL JUSTICE, following the constitution. Good idea.
Click to expand...

What you are calling Social Justice, most of the time, post-obama, includes the concepts of inherited Criminal/civil Guilt, and inherited victim hood, which are Illegal, and Evil.

Call it what you want, Most Americans will not support it!

A child has no Birth-Guilt, based on their Skin-tone, or ancestry.

Good Gods, if a person (or Baby/Child) today has a superficial resemblance to Jesse James, should they arrested, and hung for Stage Coach Robbery!?

If a person today is a descendant of someone shot by Jesse James, should the home and property of the person hung for looking a bit like Jesse James, be Seized and given to the descendant of the person killed by Jesse James??
-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom