• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The Republican Party has latched on to 'awoke' — because it has nothing else

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by SummerMadness, May 6, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
  2. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    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. That is not an argumentum ad populum. If I was trying to "prove" that gravity is real by simply saying "everyone believes in gravity" that might be correct to call it out. But since I only noted that most people prefer justice it was not an attempt to define or otherwise prove the legitimacy of social justice.

    I merely noted that most people prefer justice. Do you disagree with this characterization? Do you not prefer justice?
     
  3. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You did. I quoted you.

    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?
     
  4. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    Do you like justice in general?

    Both. Either.

    I guess you can now tell me a particular social justice item you disagree with.
     
  5. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Yes.

    This criticism found on Wikipedia but I can go into greater detail about is probably closest to my own position on social justice.

    Social justice - Wikipedia

    You can see some rather vaguely defined explanations there. It falls apart immediately upon examination. Under criticisms...

    There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term 'a moral stone'.

    Hayek goes on to explain...

    Hayek argued that proponents of social justice often present it as a moral virtue but most of their descriptions pertain to impersonal states of affairs (e.g. income inequality, poverty), which are cited as "social injustice." Hayek argued that social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can only be ascribed to the actions of individuals. However, most who use the term ascribe it to social systems, so "social justice" in fact describes a regulative principle of order; they are interested not in virtue but power.[88] For Hayek, this notion of social justices presupposes that people are guided by specific external directions rather than internal, personal rules of just conduct. It further presupposes that one can never be held accountable for ones own behaviour, as this would be "blaming the victim." According to Hayek, the function of social justice is to blame someone else, often attributed to "the system" or those who are supposed, mythically, to control it. Thus it is based on the appealing idea of "you suffer; your suffering is caused by powerful others; these oppressors must be destroyed.

    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.

    2. Such people cannot be held responsible for their own behavior.

    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).

    Enough about me though...

    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.
     
  6. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    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.

    This happens. There are COUNTLESS examples in American history alone (not even counting the earth in general). What do you think about the Robber Barrons in the Gilded Age? What about workers in the cities that worked 6-7 days a week, children working etc. All for peanuts. Do you think the fault lay in the workers? Or the SYSTEM which devalued human labor and didn't take care for the workers.

    Arguably YOUR CURRENT HAPPY STATE OF LIFE is due to that very thing happening during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century! Labor movements shifted the power to collective bargaining and those systems which devalued labor were set aside.

    Again, that sounds pretty much like the end of the Gilded Age to me.

    Vague it may be but reasonable. The example I gave of the Gilded Age was a very good analogue of my position.

    I would debate systemic racism with you but you don't see it unless it impacts white people so that's useless (You automatically discount the voices of millions of black Americans who tell you it is real but you are smarter and know it is imaginary).
     
  7. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Start with what you think social justice is.

    I don't want an analogue....give me an explanation.
     
  8. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    Unable to generalize? OK.

    Social Justice is equal rights and equitable opportunities for all members of society.

    That's pretty succinct. It is not perfectly exhaustive but it is a great place to start and a definition accepted by some philanthropies and human rights organizations.

    What part of that is problematic for you?
     
  9. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2021
  10. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    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?
     
  11. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Right.

    So the important thing here is merit?
     
  12. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    No, the important thing is that if you have the ability you should not be barred from doing it. It is equitable not equal.

    Not everyone can be a physicist. But for those who can there should be no synthetic bar to them being a physicist.

    Why is this so confusing to you?
     
  13. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    That's merit...
     
  14. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    OK, fine. Who cares? Is it a problem?
     
  15. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No.
     
  16. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    so you have no problem with social justice now? Excellent!
     
  17. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    I don't have a problem with meritocracy.
     
  18. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    I'm glad I could clarify the concept in a nice succinct fashion for you such that you are OK with social justice now.

    It's not as scary a concept as you may have feared. But if it's present we ALL benefit.
     
  19. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Social justice isn't meritocracy.

    In fact, they hate a meritocracy.
     
  20. Oneiric1975

    Oneiric1975 Well-Known Member

    974
    +623
    United States
    Seeker
    In Relationship
    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...

    wait...I see what you're doing.

    You decided to just go on a random gallop of concepts. Right?

    I gave you a definition and you want to nitpick it by ignoring the larger definition and then making up stuff about it that you imagine is a problem (but can't really prove).

    In point of fact merit is NOT hated by social justice. If anything it is embraced by it.

    But you aren't worth talking to if you can't even keep the thread of what you demanded.

    Sheesh. Does this pass for intellectual debate in your world?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  21. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +7,594
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Yup...you said equal rights and opportunities.

    It doesn't though. If we pursue merit, opportunities abound for those with merit.
     
  22. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +21,083
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    Because "the left" is a rather diverse umbrella, there are plenty of us on "the left" who see dumb things coming out of "the left"--we know it's there, and we think it's dumb. It's really a matter of priorities. Police killing innocent black people seems like a far more pressing concern and issue that needs to be talked about than, say, some stupid bad take by an internet rando.

    Dumb comments on the internet just don't seem quite as serious to me as actual systemic violence against human beings.

    "Cancel culture" isn't something I am concerned about, because it's not real; and cases where people are being stupid on the internet are likely not to have real world consequences. And, let's be clear, losing your job because you did something bad is not a consequence of "cancel culture", it's consequence for one's own words and actions.

    People actually dying, that I care about.

    This all makes sense to me, but then, I don't perceive empathy and compassion as wicked and evil, but as moral virtues that we are supposed to exhibit as human persons in relation with and toward other human persons.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • List
  23. morningstar2651

    morningstar2651 Senior Veteran

    +2,402
    Pagan
    Single
    US-Others
    I would never describe myself as "woke" but I know plenty of weirdos that would call me that.
     
  24. Kratzo

    Kratzo New Member

    36
    +42
    United States
    Skeptic
    Private
    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.
     
  25. Pommer

    Pommer Autodidact polymath

    +4,273
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    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.
     
  26. Pommer

    Pommer Autodidact polymath

    +4,273
    United States
    Deist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    I allow other posters to use their own logicks to come to whatever conclusions that they need to reach regarding my motivations here.
    But I do not report.
    Ever.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...