Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
name the specific fallacy.
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia
Because MOST people value social justice.
Upvote
0
name the specific fallacy.
Because MOST people value social justice.
Except I didn't use an argumentum ad populum, per se.
Probably because I didn't define anything I merely noted that most people prefer justice.
I merely noted that most people prefer justice. Do you disagree with this characterization? Do you not prefer justice?
No. You asserted that I was somehow "wrong" for not agreeing with social justice because "most people do".
Are we talking about individual justice or social justice?
Do you like justice in general?
Both. Either.
I guess you can now tell me a particular social justice item you disagree with.
This criticism found on Wikipedia
So, fundamentally I agree that the idea primarily carries these features...
1. People who are suffering are not responsible for their suffering but victims of immoral oppressors.
3. Since the social systems in place are responsible for their suffering they should be removed or destroyed.
4. Those suffering deserve the power to recreate social systems because their position as those suffering is equal to a virtue (though why is impossible to explain).
Go on and explain why you're a fan of social justice. It's a super vague concept so start with an explanation of what you think it means.
I knew you'd delve down to find an obscure critique and you zeroed in on Hayak. But you prefer Hayak as opposed to the OTHER philosophers mentioned who find SJ to be a reasonable concept.
Start with what you think social justice is.
I don't want an analogue....give me an explanation.
Unable to generalize? OK.
Social Justice is equal rights and equitable opportunities for all members of society.
Rights are already guaranteed by law.
Opportunities are a bit more vague....you're going to need to elaborate on what you mean by that.
Edit- if you're struggling....consider that my career as a physicist ended at AP calculus 2 which I struggled with. I lacked talent and ability to pursue whatever opportunity there was....much the same thing can be said for my career in the NBA. This doesn't even consider possible opportunities that I simply didn't take that I did or didn't realize were available to me for whatever reason.
So explain what you mean by opportunity.
You didn't have opportunities in physics. Not because the great universities that taught physics kept you out because you were an atheist. NOT because you are weird looking. NOT because you dress like a slob. NOT because of your skin color...but because you couldn't do physics.
If you had been barred from becoming a physicist because you were a white guy with bad breath and one arm longer than the other it would have been unjust. If you were barred from becoming a physicist because you didn't do physics well that's perfectly just.
Is that clear enough?
Right.
So the important thing here is merit?
No, the important thing is that if you have the ability you should not be barred from doing it.
That's merit...
so you have no problem with social justice now?
I don't have a problem with meritocracy.
I'm glad I could clarify the concept in a nice succinct fashion for you such that you are OK with social justice now.
Social justice isn't meritocracy.
In fact, they hate a meritocracy.
So let me get this straight. You asked for a definition of Social Justice.
I gave you one and part of it comports with "meritocracy" (in other words if one merits a position one should not have synthetic bars to keep them out of that position) and now you are...
I'm not talking about the thread. I'm talking the post he quoted from you. I have no idea how mentioning a thread was deleted was some sort of admission that you were the one who reported it. The two are not connected at all.It’s gone...it showeth up not.
He’s a foil, willing to take on “unpopular” views for argument’s sake, and, as such, is a fine addition to the forums. Yes, he often takes it too for, but tenacity is its own reward, I guess.Yeah, I'm starting to figure that out. It's the last time I'll waste too much time answering his non-stop questions. If he's just going to bounce around to random topics rather than deal with the answers he DEMANDS it's a waste of time. (But it figures...)
I allow other posters to use their own logicks to come to whatever conclusions that they need to reach regarding my motivations here.I'm not talking about the thread. I'm talking the post he quoted from you. I have no idea how mentioning a thread was deleted was some sort of admission that you were the one who reported it. The two are not connected at all.