Obama's amazing sense of humor
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm pretty sure that first example doesn't prove that Fox lies.
I won't bother with the second.
From my reading of the 'Social Justice As Excuse to Fling Poo' thread, it seems that there's a lot talking past each other that goes on here.
Heat of the moment, and all that when it comes to Political discussions, but you might catch more Foxes with sugar.
That may be your opinion, but your opinion is wrong. Your opinion is only reflective of the misleading rhetoric in favor of social justice.
As I have pointed out before; Milton Friedman famously championed helping the poor yet categorically rejected the notion of social justice. Under your flawed understanding of social justice, that would be impossible.
Social justice has a very specific meaning. There is no "alternative" meaning. To try and claim their is one is to inject a false premise; to equivocate and mislead.
Just because many people share your misunderstanding doesn't make that misunderstanding right.
Again, this has all been covered in this thread. The idea of social justice can be traced back to the 18th century.
Social justice rejects the notion of property rights and falsely equates "equality" with "justice" (bastardizing the idea of justice in the process). Anything that does NOT do those two things IS. NOT. SOCIAL. JUSTICE.
I'm pretty sure that first example doesn't prove that Fox lies.
How far did you read? She is perpetuating a lie about what I said and my actions throughout that entire thread. That fact is pointed out numerous times in the thread.
And that extends from different worldviews. The differences start at the most basic point; philosophical outlooks. Anything else is simply yelling past each other.
Unfortunately, foxpaws refuses to honestly discuss philosophical worldviews and instead focuses on mere rhetoric. The worldview is simply treated as unquestionable dogma. You cannot have an honest discussion with someone like that.
However, what social justice is and is not, doesn't extend so much from worldview. As I have pointed out, it is a very specific concept. There is a lot of rhetoric aimed at watering it down to sell it and misleading people (and that is all foxpaws knows of it), but it is a very specific concept.
the phrase ‘social justice’ is not, as most people probably feel, an innocent expression of good will towards the less fortunate, but . . it has become a dishonest insinuation that one ought to agree to a demand of some special interest which can give no real reason for it. If political discussion is to become honest it is necessary that people should recognize that the term is intellectually disreputable, the mark of demagogy or cheap journalism which responsible thinkers ought to be ashamed to use because, once its vacuity is recognized, its use is dishonest.
-F.A. Hayek
-F.A. Hayek
...but you might catch more Foxes with sugar.
Believe me, I have tried on numerous occasions with her. You don't know who you are dealing with yet...
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
There was a lot of 'noise' in that thread.
Right up above here, she defined social justice for me.
And I agree, in large part, with her definition.
So now I have a basis for discussing the political and philosophical differences that arise when my ideological views begin to diverge from hers.
I can respect his views without agreeing with him 100%.
Perhaps, we shall see.
Brevity can be in short supply around here
Shag has a studiously lawyerly approach to the rules of "honest" (his word) argument whereas some of us are a little more "liberal"
and freewheeling in the style of our retorts.Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
Brevity can be in short supply around here
Shag has a studiously lawyerly approach to the rules of "honest" (his word) argument whereas some of us are a little more "liberal"
Boy howdy!!
See?
We can agree on some things.
I would add that as a consequence of providing those opportunities, society instills a sense of personal responsiblity in the individual.
Which is where the Churches definition of Social Justice will diverge from that of the Socialist.
Yep - responsibility is important - sort of goes with my 4th paragraph...
You hope that by creating an environment that rises people out of poverty, that the aspect of self awareness also blossoms.
I realize it is a bit of rehashing of the old 'give them fish/teach them to fish' ideal. But, I think that with social justice also comes the idea that you need to go beyond tossing them a fishing pole. Education, and a time allotment where the individual can concentrate on improving him/herself, so things like a roof become part of the equation. And then some groups also include overthrowing a regime. I still think that is more the responsibility of the individuals/oppressed in that society, the end of that paragraph...without the interference of an outside government stepping in and creating a destiny in their own image...
subtly brought in my slight aversion to empire building...Oh, the drama.
I will admit that you'll get many more page views this way.....
So I hope you were adequately prepared Kstills, galoshes perhaps in this case... I did warn you.
Her "definition" is wrong.
That is not opinion that is objective fact. It is not rooted in a difference in viewpoint. Ask any philosopher or political scientist of any political persuasion and they will agree.
You should read A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles.
Have fun trying to engage her in an honest discussion of philosophical differences. I have beaten my head on that wall too many times. She will not discuss political philosophy honestly. She tries to turn it into a discussion of rhetoric. But rhetoric is a poor and deceptive substitute for a reasonable philosophical worldview.
There is a lot of dishonesty on the left concerning their own viewpoints. Most simply try to ignore philosophy; instead unquestioningly (and often unknowingly) accepting the axioms their views are based on as dogma as opposed to a reasonable conclusion. That is why people like fox misunderstand the core of of their own worldview; social justice. They are only familiar with the rhetorical trappings of the viewpoint and not the fundamental assumptions, why those assumptions are made and how principle and policy are derived from those assumptions.
The framers did not believe in "social justice" and in fact outside of the political left the idea of social justice is views as misleading sophistry at best, and a dangerous illusion at worst. Social justice is antithetical to Classical Liberalism in any form; including the unique form of Classical Liberalism this nation was founded on.
You have accepted her false premise of a "alternative" type of social justice. If you are an adherent to the Constitution you should know the difference between Classical Liberalism and modern "liberalism" and how the latter bastardizes and distorts the former. That is precisely what she is perpetuating with the term "social justice".
I can respect his views without agreeing with him 100%.
It is not a matter of weather or not you agree with him.
The definition of social justice is not open for debate. It is a very specific concept that has been misused and defined down since 20th century.
To contest the definition of social justice is like contesting the idea that 2+2=4.
Shag has a studiously lawyerly approach to the rules of "honest" (his word) argument whereas some of us are a little more "liberal"
Yes, expecting intellectual integrity and critical thought is absurd.
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
That very well may be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
A very brief read of that link indicates you may be correct.
However, for both Fox and myself, the definition is one of empowerment, not redistribution. While we may be in error in the academic sense, we share a common world view wrt to this issue.
Isn't that more important, for the purposes of exchanging views, then a dictionary definition of the term?
Conceding that definitions ultimately are important, of course.
I've spent two days here, and I already have common ground, philosophically, to begin an exploration of her and my political differences.
Among some on the left.
I feel that I was lied to by some on the right.
Should I dismiss all commentary now from those on the right?
Perhaps.
However, 'liberal' didn't used to be a curse word, either.
Meanings change, so I would not get too hung up on the academic definition. Listen to Fox, and see if there are areas you can agree on first.
See 'liberal' above.
If you wander down the Wiki page you will see Social justice from religious traditions. I think that 'traditional religious' view is much closer to what we are saying.
On a politically charged issue like this, wikipedia is at best a decent starting point. However, everything should be double checked. I can give you much better sources (many were mentioned in that other thread).
Then both of you are wrong.
If terms are allowed to be more loosely defined whenever it fits, more uncertainty is injected into the mix and potentially more distortion and deception. The whole logical fallacy of equivocation hinges on that fact.
When it comes to exchanging views and accurate understanding is most important. You don't simply go along to get along in this area. If there is a difference, that is where the debate starts. You don't simply gloss over it.
That same difference will come up in many other areas as well; equality (of results or of process), rights, economy (is poverty the norm and prosperity needing to be understood and preserved or vice versa), etc. That is where the debate starts.
If you simply start conceding definitions you allow the other side to frame the debate favorable to them. Unless you think you are dealing with an honest person in foxpaws (you aren't) you don't concede those things. You stand your ground and come to an agreement on it or the debate stalls there. Instead, you have already let her inject a false premise.
Doubt that.
More likely you simply concede ground on small things which allow her to dishonestly frame the debate in her favor and that seems like "common ground" to you.
She doesn't understand and is unwilling to explore the philosophical background of her own views, let alone others views. That is something she has proven countless times on this forum. As I said, she will simply try and shift the focus to rhetoric where there is a lot more gray area and where it is easier to deceive. As she has said before, she "needs" those gray areas.
Examples?
Where did I ever suggest the inverse of what you just said?
No, it's fact. Social justice is the opposite of what the framers set up.
Social justice necessitates collectivism which goes against individualism inherent in the founding of this nation.
Social justice rejects the idea of property rights, which is an integral part of the idea of Natural Rights and Natural Law upon which this nation was founded.
Collectivism (which is necessitated by Social Justice) is incompatible with the rule of law, another concept upon which this nation was founded. Social Justice necessitates the rule of man not of law.
Not as much as you think.
The "academic definition" is where the idea comes from. It is what drives leftist ideologies worldwide today. It is not simply some crazy notion from an ivory tower, it is an ideal for which millions have died; often against their will. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mousillini all were in the pursuit of social justice. It is VERY important to understand what the idea truly is and where it is being misrepresented and why.
Rhetoric aims to intentionally define down certain words to make the concept seem less radical. Calling socialism "liberalism" dishonestly equating charity with "social justice" the list goes on. Simply because a few elites can deceive a large number of people doesn't mean that the definition has changed; especially in how that idea is enacted.
If someone calls charity "social justice" that doesn't mean that the two concepts are the same. It simply means that the person is mistaken or lying. Getting more people to make the same mistake doesn't change that fact.
The "traditional religion" view is based in misrepresentation of the idea or of the religion. This has been true since 18th century with Godwin as I pointed out earlier:
The doctrine of the injustice of accumulated property has been the foundation of all religious morality. Its most energetic teachers have been irresistibly led to assert the precise truth in this respect. They have taught the rich, that they hold the wealth only as a trust, that they are strictly accountable for every atom of their expenditure, that they are merely administrators, and by no means proprietors in chief. But, while religion thus inculcated on mankind the pure principles of justice, the majority of its professors have been but too apt to treat the practice of justice, not as a debt, which it ought to be considered, but as an affair of spontaneous generosity and bounty.
The effect which is produced by this accommodating doctrine, is, to place the supply of our wants in the disposal of a few enabling them to make a show of generosity with what is not truly their own, and to purchase the submission of the poor by the payment of debt. Theirs is a system of clemency and charity, instead of a system of justice. It fills the rich with unreasonable pride, by the spurious denominations with which it decorates their acts; and the poor with servility, by leading them to regard the slender comforts they obtain, not as their incontrovertible due, but as the good pleasure and grace of their opulent neighbors.
The effect which is produced by this accommodating doctrine, is, to place the supply of our wants in the disposal of a few enabling them to make a show of generosity with what is not truly their own, and to purchase the submission of the poor by the payment of debt. Theirs is a system of clemency and charity, instead of a system of justice. It fills the rich with unreasonable pride, by the spurious denominations with which it decorates their acts; and the poor with servility, by leading them to regard the slender comforts they obtain, not as their incontrovertible due, but as the good pleasure and grace of their opulent neighbors.
The views of Taparelli (a Catholic who coined the term "social justice" in the 1840's) were consistent with Godwin's writings.
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
I asked Fox for her definition of SJ. It agrees with mine.
I believe that you would agree with the concept, even if you don't agree with the use of SJ as the descriptor.
So, for you, perhaps it would be best to start at: "I agree with you in principle, however imho, words are important, so can we use Social development to describe this concept"?
That way, you move on to more important concepts, and have begun to establish a meaningful dialogue.
You doubt that?
Ok...
I will reserve judgment on that.
The Iraq war won't cost 1 trillion dollars.
That's a start.....
In fact you did not...
Hamilton, Federal Papers #7:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed7.htm
I'm pretty sure he not using the same dictionary as you.
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
I would like to explore this a bit more.
By Fox and I agreeing on what the term Social Justice means, I have allowed her to frame the debate favorably to her point of view?
One which I am in agreement with?
And if I stood my ground, and Fox and I came to an agreement on the definition, would we then be able to move forward?
Finally, by agreeing on the definition, I've allowed her to inject a false premise?
So shag, I guess Hamilton missed the entry on Social Justice in foundingfatherpedia.com
So, how is finding 'common ground' conceding or agreeing to a false premise? We both find a starting point. Now, we can start a discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
What you are both agreeing is "social justice" is unquestionably not social justice. The fact that both of you agree on it doesn't change that. It simply means both of you are misguided; either through ignorance of the concept or dishonesty.
In Hamilton's time, the term "social justice" was referred to as "political justice". "Political" at that time was understood to refer to "organized society" (which is why Godwin called it "political" justice in his 1793 book Enquiry Concerning Political Justice). The term "social justice" as a unique conception of justice was not coined until the 1840's.
The context Hamilton's uses the term is, at best, unclear. All justice (even the traditional conception this nation was founded on) is inherently social. So social justice is simply redundant in that sense. That sense would seem to fit with his long winded style of writing and the style employed with the Federalist Papers in general.
Either way, the fact that he used the term (in whatever context) does not, in any way counter what I laid out:
You really should read Rawls. That would give you a better understanding of what social justice is and it's justification. Reading John Kekes or (to a lesser degree) Hayek would give you a good understanding of the critiques of social justice.
In political discourse there are hardly any concepts that are "more important" to understand accurately then social justice. It is arguably the fundamental difference between modern "liberalism" and all other worldviews. As has been pointed out before, millions in the past century alone have been killed in the pursuit of social justice. You would be a fool to simply "gloss over" the idea.
It could be argued that the differences in understanding concerning human nature may be more fundamental...
How is that being dishonest about the worldview that conservatism stems from?
You are agreeing out of ignorance of the term and it's history. To someone who doesn't know better, her "explanation" sounds plausible and even appealing. That is precisely what the dishonest rhetoric she is spouting is designed to do; deceive you into false understanding of the term "social justice". Never mind that it is a false premise and your entire "common ground" is a lie (equivocation) that she has injected.
In fact, she is subtly moving from her simply "explanation" to expanding it to cover social justice policies:
Those are policy issues that beyond simple charity. However, as usual, she only focuses on the intentionally deceptive rhetorical trappings concerning social justice as opposed to the reality of social justice and what it truly aims to do. Much in the same way that the recent healthcare legislation was sold, rhetorically, as a means to "cut costs" when the obvious intention of the legislation was to increase coverage (more "equal" coverage; social justice). Create the illusion of something pleasant that everyone can agree on while downplaying and superficially ignoring the true aim which most people would not agree to.
She is too ignorant of the core of the idea or it's lineage to realize the truth and too dishonest to admit the truth about the idea.
Others on this forum have initially given her the benefit of the doubt and eventually come to learn how dishonest and deceptive she truly is; myself included. She is shamelessly two-faced and utterly lacking in intellectual integrity. It is why I have no communication with her outside of publicly on these forums anymore. I prefer to associate with people of integrity; people I can trust.
In Hamilton's time, the term "social justice" was referred to as "political justice". "Political" at that time was understood to refer to "organized society" (which is why Godwin called it "political" justice in his 1793 book Enquiry Concerning Political Justice). The term "social justice" as a unique conception of justice was not coined until the 1840's.
The context Hamilton's uses the term is, at best, unclear. All justice (even the traditional conception this nation was founded on) is inherently social. So social justice is simply redundant in that sense. That sense would seem to fit with his long winded style of writing and the style employed with the Federalist Papers in general.
Either way, the fact that he used the term (in whatever context) does not, in any way counter what I laid out:
- Social justice necessitates collectivism which goes against individualism inherent in the founding of this nation
- Social justice rejects the idea of property rights, which is an integral part of the idea of Natural Rights and Natural Law upon which this nation was founded.
- Collectivism (which is necessitated by Social Justice) is incompatible with the rule of law, another concept upon which this nation was founded. Social Justice necessitates the rule of man not of law.
You really should read Rawls. That would give you a better understanding of what social justice is and it's justification. Reading John Kekes or (to a lesser degree) Hayek would give you a good understanding of the critiques of social justice.
In political discourse there are hardly any concepts that are "more important" to understand accurately then social justice. It is arguably the fundamental difference between modern "liberalism" and all other worldviews. As has been pointed out before, millions in the past century alone have been killed in the pursuit of social justice. You would be a fool to simply "gloss over" the idea.
It could be argued that the differences in understanding concerning human nature may be more fundamental...
The Iraq war won't cost 1 trillion dollars.
That's a start.....
How is that being dishonest about the worldview that conservatism stems from?
You are agreeing out of ignorance of the term and it's history. To someone who doesn't know better, her "explanation" sounds plausible and even appealing. That is precisely what the dishonest rhetoric she is spouting is designed to do; deceive you into false understanding of the term "social justice". Never mind that it is a false premise and your entire "common ground" is a lie (equivocation) that she has injected.
In fact, she is subtly moving from her simply "explanation" to expanding it to cover social justice policies:
Those are policy issues that beyond simple charity. However, as usual, she only focuses on the intentionally deceptive rhetorical trappings concerning social justice as opposed to the reality of social justice and what it truly aims to do. Much in the same way that the recent healthcare legislation was sold, rhetorically, as a means to "cut costs" when the obvious intention of the legislation was to increase coverage (more "equal" coverage; social justice). Create the illusion of something pleasant that everyone can agree on while downplaying and superficially ignoring the true aim which most people would not agree to.
She is too ignorant of the core of the idea or it's lineage to realize the truth and too dishonest to admit the truth about the idea.
Others on this forum have initially given her the benefit of the doubt and eventually come to learn how dishonest and deceptive she truly is; myself included. She is shamelessly two-faced and utterly lacking in intellectual integrity. It is why I have no communication with her outside of publicly on these forums anymore. I prefer to associate with people of integrity; people I can trust.
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
This is not a point worth belaboring.
I offered you Hamilton as an example, clearly Social Justice to him did not mean what it means to you.
I offered you 'liberal' as an example, clearly the meaning of that word has been perverted.
Definitions change.
Now, do you want to explore how a modified interpretation of Social Justice can be perverted by Fox to include HC reform, or not?
Rawls most famous work, A Theory Of Justice was written in 1971. While his conception of "social" (or "political") justice is not precisely the same as Godwin's 1793 work on the idea, it is very similar; an evolution of the idea. Those same core concepts of the idea (rejection of property rights, misconstruing justice as equality) are present to the same degree in both conceptions as well as later writings on the subject. It has not changed as much as you want to think it has.
What fox is pedaling is, as usual, a lie rooted in deceptive liberal rhetoric.
Now, do you want to explore how a modified interpretation of Social Justice can be perverted by Fox to include HC reform, or not?
Why explore? I watched it happen on this forum. I doubt she fully understands it though. All she does is regurgitate leftist talking points and works to defend them. She doesn't have a good understanding of anything outside of leftist rhetoric and lies.
This is not a point worth belaboring.
I offered you Hamilton as an example, clearly Social Justice to him did not mean what it means to you.
I offered you 'liberal' as an example, clearly the meaning of that word has been perverted.
Definitions change.
Now, do you want to explore how a modified interpretation of Social Justice can be perverted by Fox to include HC reform, or not?
So fellow dishonest traveler
...Did you note that in my list of things that were perhaps a part of social justice, the tools to empower, I left out health care?
And yes, isn't it sad that social justice was concept that was so positive that Hamilton embraced it, has been changed by others. Most people I think see social justice as you and I do Kstills... Ask almost anyone who is active in their church, and they will be rather proud that their church is part of a social justice movement somewhere, because they define it as we do, not as the academics do. And no doubt what their church is doing is giving farm tools to people in Africa so they can grow their own food, or computers so their children can take classes, even if they are miles and miles from a school. Nothing to do with a more 'modern' definition, but with Hamilton's take on the words.
Kstills
Dedicated LVC Member
So fellow dishonest traveler
Did you note that in my list of things that were perhaps a part of social justice, the tools to empower, I left out health care?
And yes, isn't it sad that social justice was concept that was so positive that Hamilton embraced it, has been changed by others. Most people I think see social justice as you and I do Kstills... Ask almost anyone who is active in their church, and they will be rather proud that their church is part of a social justice movement somewhere, because they define it as we do, not as the academics do. And no doubt what their church is doing is giving farm tools to people in Africa so they can grow their own food, or computers so their children can take classes, even if they are miles and miles from a school. Nothing to do with a more 'modern' definition, but with Hamilton's take on the words.
Yes, but I had assumed we (you) were working up towards why that was a good idea....
PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
So fellow dishonest traveler
Did you note that in my list of things that were perhaps a part of social justice, the tools to empower, I left out health care?
Are you claiming that this healthcare legislation was not aimed at achieving some greater degree of social justice?
Social justice does not empower. You can easily spin it's policies and approaches that way, but history shows otherwise. Just look at the high illegitimacy rates in the black community, or, more broadly, the failure of the LBJ's "Great Society". Or better yet, look at the U.S.S.R.
Policies rooted in social justice almost always foster a lack of responsibility; largely because it attempts to remove and/or minimize risk, resulting in moral hazard.
However, cheap rhetoric easily evades that truth.
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools
-Herbert Spencer
-Herbert Spencer
Kstills, you wanted to focus on differences, here is one of the biggest ones; conceptions of justice.
Conservatives, libertarians and the framers viewed justice as a process that treats everyone equally. Liberals view justice as equality of results. The two conceptions are utterly incompatible and entail completely different policy approaches.
"Social" justice necessitates collectivism, playing favorites and a rejection of the rule of law.
Traditional justice necessitates the rule of law and an impartial government.
Conservatives, libertarians and the framers viewed justice as a process that treats everyone equally. Liberals view justice as equality of results. The two conceptions are utterly incompatible and entail completely different policy approaches.
"Social" justice necessitates collectivism, playing favorites and a rejection of the rule of law.
Traditional justice necessitates the rule of law and an impartial government.