by TerryWalstrom 7 Replies latest jw friends
AGREE...or...DISAGREE
THREE QUESTIONS (Answer them in your own head)
1. Is it okay to punish people who have done nothing wrong?
2. Is it okay to reward people who have done nothing right?
And now, the third:
3. Can you see the two of those choices are flip-sides of the same thing?
The difference between JUSTICE
(getting what you deserve and not getting what you don't)
and SOCIAL JUSTICE
(everybody gets the same) is really a corollary.
What's a corollary? (Google it)
Social Justice is a joke. It is nothing but a new name for communism. And anyone with a brain that is not living in denial knows its never worked. We build walls here to keep people OUT. Why because its great here. Communism builds walls to keep them in. Why because it is a shit hole. AOC or occasional cortex wants to give people a pay check for NOT WORKING. If you don't see how stupid and folly this is now one can teach you. This is not directed at the OP but to anyone thinking Social Justice is a good thing or that socialism to the extent that Occasional cortex wants is insane.
I believe in the USA we do need some socialism. Military, police/fire first responders, postal service and we do need a universal health care system. And it should not be free. Every one pays in on their taxes. Medicare tax may be abolished and our taxes go up for a new system. And no one is exempt on their seven million dollar mark and above. Its a necessary evil. Put in co pays so the welfare queens don't camp out at the dr. office because their 57th bastard child sneezed. But to say we need to redistribute money because someone exists and does not want to get off their ass is stupid.
The problem is in various definitions or philosophies on what constitutes punishment and reward.
I am sure that many will say that "rewarding" someone with the same thing everyone else is rewarded with could be a "punishment" to them if they could have more (or different) without such social justice.
One of my antagonists on Facebook insists that, in the United States, "Medicare for all" is a ridiculous notion that we would all have to pay extreme amounts for, while receiving poor care. So he quickly sees it as a punishment that I see as a reward. (Well, truly- as a basic human right.) The answer would be to allow people to go beyond the "reward" given to them- allow them to buy better care than is provided for everyone. And of course, it would also be to improve the basic care given to everyone.
With justice, students get the grade they earned. It is injustice to give an "A" or an "F" to a "C" student. With social justice, we should not go so far as to reward all students with the same grade because that would punish many of them and reward some of them.
Birth defects and diseases are not rewards or punishments. They are typically misfortune. And nobody would suggest seriously that healthy people should be made to have similar defects if it cannot be removed from others. Instead, we strive to treat the handicapped with compassion and dignity. We can never level the playing field in ways that are totally "fair" to them, but we can be human. Broadly, this must apply to social justice and justice in other issues.
Whatever issue you are going to follow up with here, it would similarly have to be taken as its own issue instead of finding some broad philosophical view such as punishment and reward being a result of justice and social justice.
Hey, that kid was wearing a MAGA hat! He's GUILTY of sumptin' da's fer damm sure!
Hillary is MY PRESIDENT!
You can overthink it all you like, I'm just happy with my own observation that social justice crusaders are all freaks and cretins.
how is the difference a corollary?... I am missing a statement?
Justice doesn't need anything in front of it. It's either a thing or it isn't. Social Justice usually means some kind of injustice.
Same with Hate Crimes. There are just crimes and the reason someone was punched in the face doesn't alter the crime does it?
It's attempts by the left to create hierarchies for everything ... all the while they claim to be against them.
JUSTICE requires an understanding of Cause and Effect in a particular sense of individual responsibility.
The outcome can be bad or good for the individual causing an effect.
Examples:
1. You commit the crime--you must do the time.
2. You authored the screenplay--you deserve the credit.
3. You weren't present when the murder was committed--you're innocent
4. Those aren't your fingerprints on the murder weapon--you're excluded as a suspect
Justice means getting what you deserve
the corollary is "not getting" what you don't deserve.
ADDING the word "SOCIAL" in front of the word JUSTICE
tampers with the inherent balance of Cause and Effect and destroys the meaning instantly.
In effect, it carves out a suspension of the rules of responsibility
to apply special pleading.
Social Justice subverts Cause and Effect by reassigning responsibility to GROUPS rather than individuals.
Example:
Instead of saying: "Only those individuals who bought slaves and worked them on plantations are guilty of crimes against humanity"...
Social Justice would say: "Slave owners were White men and therefore all White people are guilty of crimes against humanity."
This places the retributive power of Justice in the hands of anybody who can get away with REDEFINING cause and effect successfully.
It also creates a ripple effect over large spans of time.
"If you belong to a racial group which was enslaved 200 years ago, you must automatically be viewed as though you too have suffered slavery."
This is sometimes referred to as THE SINS of the FATHERS.
There is a physiology in human beings which triggers the same startled fright at the sight of ANY snake regardless of whether it is venomous or not. (Better Safe than Sorry).
Applying that "natural instinct" to public policy is disastrous.
"The only good Indian is a dead Indian."
JUSTICE is the cornerstone of a well-maintained society.
Justice IS "social."
The introduction of the fallacy of Category Error only destroys that foundation.
