It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why do we hate social justice?

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

You know sometimes I just don't get it.

I love history and I do also believe times are progressively getting better but at the same time I look at the state of things and cannot fathom why things are so bad.

It's an ongoing joke.

We have the machines, knowhow and ability to feed, clothe and house every human on the planet. A quarry for instance can supply enough building materials to last a city more than a decade within a few months of work with the aid of machines. Rigs that can chew to depths in weeks that thousands of men would take months if not years to get to only 100 years ago. Machines assembling things in minutes that would normally take days and expertise by hand.

It cannot be due to money alone. I remember once reading about these "charity pillars" on Ottoman Turkey, a place where people left money and anyone in need would just take a few coins out of the top. Fairly anonymous and fairly successful. Something like that would be abused these days no doubt.

That video had a few home truths about it. I don't find it ironic that the little man or the public worker is to be blamed when things get bad, on the contrary it is those that should be first for the handouts for those are the ones living comfortable only in the good times. They are the ones who make society work, they are society.

I'm not a Christian, never felt welcome there. Partly because a good portion of them are hypocrites. You're right though socialism as a practiced idea is as old as civilization itself... But then again so is taxes, the weighing of the grain and preparing for the years ahead I could see as a very social event, one that has the idea of how far and how much grain can be shared... It also tells leaders just how much you can keep "tax" for yourself.




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Surely the law doesn't discriminate on the basis of wealth.

If a rich and starving man both stole an apple and both have to stand trial, then it should be a case of either:

A. Both parties recieve the penalties for theft regardless of reasoning.

B. Consideration of the crime is accounted, why it happened. The poor man was starving and thus stole an apple. The rich man was peckish and thought what is an apple but a near victimless crime. The poor man gets time for theft, the Rich man can pay his dues financially.

System B doesn't work so well, cost wise alone. Plus, and I know some won't like this opinion. The poor man would never have commited a crime if society had within it "failsafes" that guarantee that nobody starves.

I'm probably poorly making my point, the point being that the necessity to live isn't a crime. The crime is the fact the poor man had to steal or beg, the fact that even holding him before a judge is costing more than it would to feed him not to mention incarceration. So yes within society Mr Rich might very well get away with stealing apples and the poor man cannot pay to defend himself against a clear crime.

In the UK, the law states that everyone has a right to the ability to be housed and fed. Does the US not have similar laws to guarantee (in theory) nobody will be homeless or starve?

It extends to basic medical care and lifesaving treatment here too.

And the right to a legal defence...
edit on 17-11-2016 by RAY1990 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kalixi
I separate SJWs from the notion of social justice:

I'd hate to imagine a world without social justice. We'd still be stuck in the dark ages (not unlike many countries in the UAE) Where women can't vote nor drive, people are considered inferior due to the colour of their skin or their sexuality. There is still a long way to go in many respects.

SJWs on the other hand I see as extremists. They seek to intimidate, harass and torment anyone who doesn't agree with their narrowly defined ideal of what is acceptable. They often do this from behind a faceless computer screen. They claim to be anti-domestic violence and anti-guns etc but are quick to threaten violence against anyone who questions them. We saw how quickly some twitter feeds went from "Love Trumps Hate" to the same people calling for Trump to be assassinated or to 'kill/die for the cause'. There has been a few examples of feminists threatening rape to other women as an insult. They are quick to call for boycotts of companies or celebrities who support or voice support for things that differ from their ideals - that's why there were few celebs to voice support of Trump - they know it would be career suicide.

I personally believe that any idea, whether it be political, religious or social should not be above debate. If you can be respectful and use facts to convey your thoughts I think anything should be up for discussion. The problem with SJWs is that they are unwilling to debate they only want to force their opinions on everyone else and will threaten or use violence to do it


This is an EXCELLENT post!!! And your message bears repeating!

Well done! I totally agree.

I especially agree with the last paragraph.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: VengefulGhost
Because dont need a bunch of clueless whiners telling me how to live my life to fit their narrowminded oppressive views .

Under the constitution of the united states all have equal rights under the law .


You're literally whining right now. No one is forcing you to care about other humans. Accept different views exist besides your own and learn how to stand your ground in this world instead of requiring a safe space where everyone you're surrounded by coddles your fragile beliefs.




top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join