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.

 

Social Justice Demands the Unequal Treatment of Individuals

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: olaru12





It's evident what direction this thread is heading.

adios...


There goes your comment about being for more dialog.

this thread isn't about dialog, it's about nitpicking and insults, as your post clearly indicates.



Yet you were talking to me, and I never insulted you, and neither did that poster......

How do you feel this poster insulted you?


Be honest...this thread is about ragging on anyone not conservative and a trump supporter. Not dialog! It's your established pattern.



You can lie to others all you like, but when you look into the mirror, you can't lie to that guy. At some point, you have to realize that you just aren't up to the challenge of debating intelligently. Perhaps with time and education, you can find a way to articulate ideas to others in a meaningful way. Till then, perhaps reading more, and typing less is the correct path?


Thanks for confirming my post. I'm open to rational dialog and I apologized to MBTM for my cynicism and derailment of his thread however as I predicted, despite MBtMs best efforts the thread morphed into a a typical ATS argumentative snipe fest and bickering squabble. Thanks for your contribution of a personal attack. I'm flattered by your stalking and interest in my life. But perhaps you should try living your own life and not vicariously thru ATS members.

Articulate enough for you?
edit on 26-11-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It's time to create the viable 3rd party.
2 -2 = US.
Are you a Democrat, a Republican or an American?
You can only pick one for your priorities.
Abandon your party and let's meet in the middle.
We do want the same things for ourselves, our families and our country.
Opposing each other is how nothing gets done and we end up mad at each other.
They designed it that way to keep rule over us.
I'm tired of arguing, tired of division, tired of feeling hopeless.
We the People can do so much better than any party.

Apologies to MBTM for restating what he said in a previous post.
It is proof that we do want much the same things regardless of political leanings.
edit on 26-11-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: olaru12





It's evident what direction this thread is heading.

adios...


There goes your comment about being for more dialog.

this thread isn't about dialog, it's about nitpicking and insults, as your post clearly indicates.



Yet you were talking to me, and I never insulted you, and neither did that poster......

How do you feel this poster insulted you?


Be honest...this thread is about ragging on anyone not conservative and a trump supporter. Not dialog! It's your established pattern.



You can lie to others all you like, but when you look into the mirror, you can't lie to that guy. At some point, you have to realize that you just aren't up to the challenge of debating intelligently. Perhaps with time and education, you can find a way to articulate ideas to others in a meaningful way. Till then, perhaps reading more, and typing less is the correct path?


Thanks for confirming my post. I'm open to rational dialog and I apologized to MBTM for my cynicism and derailment of his thread however as I predicted, despite MBtMs best efforts the thread morphed into a a typical ATS argumentative snipe fest and bickering squabble. Thanks for your contribution of a personal attack. I'm flattered by your stalking and interest in my life. But perhaps you should try living your own life and not vicariously thru ATS members.

Articulate enough for you?


much better. If you lead with this material, you would be in fine shape.



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Maybe it would be better to think of “social justice” more like “handicapping” in sports.

Link


Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning.

The word also applies to the various methods by which the advantage is calculated. In principle, a more experienced participant is disadvantaged, or a less experienced or capable participant is advantaged, in order to make it possible for the less experienced participant to win whilst maintaining fairness.


Inequality in an effort to “maintain fairness” is not an injustice in golf, but somehow it is in the “game of life?”

As it stands, if life is like a sport, let’s say a race, then you have a certain elite small group who gets to start off with such an advantageous position that even the mediocre runners among them will finish with one of the best times, while good runners from a disadvantaged group start so far behind them that, not only can they never catch up to the elite group, but they have to run with rocks in their shoes.

As a result, many of them don’t do well, or don’t finish.

When that happens, the elite group scorns them, claiming they themselves won the race because of hard work, good running skills and, why, if they’d been in the disadvantaged group of course they still would have won because they are simply better at running.

Is this fair??

Life isn’t fair, but if hard working runners from the disadvantaged group get put up closer to the front and are given good shoes, and they win handily, is it unfair? The group that gets to start at the front seems to think so...

edit on 26-11-2018 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Using that analogy, would you go so far as to handicap someone because he is of a certain race or sexuality?



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Can you imagine if team Y practiced more and was better so the league decided to handicap them when they played team X because team X? I would stop watching sports if they did that.

Can you imagine if in the Olympics they said certain teams had access to better training facilities and so needed to be penalized for it? Olympics would end.

Yet you seem to be ok with it.
edit on 26-11-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

so we should have never let Jessie Owens run a race?



posted on Nov, 26 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Are you saying the government should disadvantage some relative to others because of, lets say...race?



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The day will come that we will have to either be disposed of ourselves or dispose of the libtards. Hopefully we can delay that day many, many years by educating those poorly informed libtards.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
My bad I was being a super dick.
edit on 27-11-2018 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I see you all have taken things very seriously from my post.

I find that amazing.

As for the handicapping, I said nothing of race or gender or any other qualifiers other than economic disparity, but hey, call it however you see it. What is good among relative equals at the club cannot be applied to society at large because, in spite of “all men are created equal,” we Americans certainly don’t see each other that way.

And without that sense of inherent equality, that notion of friendship and gentlemanly rivalry as is found in sport among equals, the notion that someone would willingly give up an overt advantage to someone else in order to create a more level playing field is horribly offensive.

Anyway, thanks for taking a lighthearted analogy overly seriously.

Obviously I’m not suggesting that Big Brother come and take things away from you or “the elites” to give to some unworthy, unequal individual. My post wasn’t sarcasm, but it wasn’t a policy suggestion either. It was merely food for thought.

Life isn’t fair and it will never be truly equal. Social engineering to make it so is very tricky territory. I’m guessing those with golden toilets would certainly not consent to willingly give up their shiny recepticals to grant some plebeians a leg up into the rarified climes of their rose-scented effluvium. Do you? I mean, how could they see anyone outside their own circles as equal enough to warrant the bestowal?

(Hint. I’m being facetious.)


Cheers.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Put jack nicklaus up against me. Even if our final score showed similar results, anyone who watched the round would know I was not anywhere near the better golfer, not even in the same league. See, this is the problem with the whole idea of handicapping high achievers (which the left has been doing for a looooong time, see the progressive income tax for reference). You can't sit me next to the crappy guy and tell me he is worth just as much to the company as I am. If that's true, I'll up and go elsewhere, where my talents are appreciated appropriately. Nor should you sit me next to those who outperform me and tell me that I'm worth as much to the company as they are. It's asinine.
edit on 27-11-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I hear you.

All of this speaks to fairness, no?

Your assumption is that the crappy guy would get something he doesn’t deserve in a win-lose scenario.

The breakdown of the analogy, it’s biggest fault, in my opinion, is the idea that only one person or team can win if opportunity is extended to make the playing field open to all in a fair way.

Again, I don’t think this is a perfect analogy. I do think it’s what conservatives believe will happen, that crappy “undeserving “ people will swoop in and “win,” and “deserving “ people will thereby lose. And who wouldn’t be angry if they perceived this happening to them?

But what if it’s a different scenario all together? What if the guy or gal being helped by access to, say, a higher education which they otherwise could not have afforded, turns out to be way above average in the end? What if he’s the guy that cures cancer, or the gal that ends up as the next Poet Lauret and Nobel Prize winner in literature, or simply goes back and makes a better life for his/her children and Community? What if that extra help given to one disadvantaged person pays off for all of humanity?

I see poverty and lack of education and opportunity as being a huge freaking waste of human potential.

Opportunity is the key word here.

Industry must meet opportunity or it will be justly lost.

But it seems people don’t want opportunity extended? Or am I wrong in this?

Predictably and understandably, people here saw it only as creating unfairness rather than an extension of opportunity, without taking away the opportunity of others. While part of the fault is with the analogy itself setting up winners and losers in a game, it speaks to why there is such a gaping cavernous void between liberal and conservative thought. (Or rather what conservatives think liberals want versus what many are actually saying.)

If we are talking about making unfairness a game rule, then people will rightfully reject it. If we are talking about offering opportunity and creating fairness where there was disadvantage, then people may see something positive.

In the first case, there is taking away earned benefit and giving it to a “loser.” This is what people thought I wanted to do. And honestly, if opportunity is limited, and only a few may receive a scholarship or enrollment, it could be seen as “unfair” from the point of view of a person who didn’t get a slot and felt they deserved it more. This is where offering opportunity can seem unfair in its effort to create fairness. It’s a sticky wicket to be sure, and generates grievances. It it might also be considered that a University or company might choose someone for more than a test score or resume - there is a sense of who fits best not just as a number but as a person with unique life experience.

In the second case, there is recognition of a lack of opportunity and an effort made to create fairness, but the seizing of the opportunity and the benefit it provides will prove whether or not the offer was made to a deserving person. In this case, opportunity is not specific to one placement or job or single competitive situation, but a broader removal of disadvantage in favor of equal opportunity + equal effort = equal benefit.

I was poking the bear a bit, I admit, knowing that the moment I put the analogy out there the “unfairness” reaction and the automatic assumption of only winners and losers would kick in so hard that a more subtle point would not be seen at all. And to be fair, the analogy pushed it in the direction that could allow for it to be interpreted that way.





posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

yes yes treat everyone equally with a huge dose of " psilocybin" so we can all drop our egos long enough to realise
we are all full of # and no one really gives a # about identity politics and that we are all humans all individual yet the exact same thing !

End this EGO world we live in once and for all !



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard


Again, I don’t think this is a perfect analogy. I do think it’s what conservatives believe will happen, that crappy “undeserving “ people will swoop in and “win,” and “deserving “ people will thereby lose. And who wouldn’t be angry if they perceived this happening to them?


Yes, that's what will happen. Of course not in the terms you're using here. What will happen is person A will see person B getting praised and rewarded the same as person A despite person A's superior talent and ability. Therefore person A will stop performing exceptionally. This is why socialism has a 100% failure rate.



But what if it’s a different scenario all together? What if the guy or gal being helped by access to, say, a higher education which they otherwise could not have afforded, turns out to be way above average in the end? What if he’s the guy that cures cancer, or the gal that ends up as the next Poet Lauret and Nobel Prize winner in literature, or simply goes back and makes a better life for his/her children and Community? What if that extra help given to one disadvantaged person pays off for all of humanity?


You're denying human nature and proposing hypothetical exceptions to cover it up. What if he turns into a unicorn then big foot? What then?



I see poverty and lack of education and opportunity as being a huge freaking waste of human potential.


Generational poverty is learned and practiced. It's really that simple. Now there may be a sob story here or there that defies it but there's also a contrasting story of the guy who gets out of the ghetto and makes something of himself. Sadly, poor people are poor because they have poor ways. If they don't, they don't remain poor for very long.


Opportunity is the key word here.

Industry must meet opportunity or it will be justly lost.

But it seems people don’t want opportunity extended? Or am I wrong in this?


You're wrong, but not for the reasons you likely believe you could be wrong. You're wrong because you're completely forgetting about scarcity and human nature. If we could all just be yale educated imagine how great we would be.



Predictably and understandably, people here saw it only as creating unfairness rather than an extension of opportunity, without taking away the opportunity of others.


Because to a large extent, opportunity is a zero sum game. A meritocracy allows the cream to rise to the top a lot better than some arbitrary system where it is decided from on high who will have opportunity. There's a reason a large number of the best engineers/doctors/chemists/surgeons/scientists/etc are from the US.



In the first case, there is taking away earned benefit and giving it to a “loser.” This is what people thought I wanted to do. And honestly, if opportunity is limited, and only a few may receive a scholarship or enrollment, it could be seen as “unfair” from the point of view of a person who didn’t get a slot and felt they deserved it more. This is where offering opportunity can seem unfair in its effort to create fairness. It’s a sticky wicket to be sure, and generates grievances. It it might also be considered that a University or company might choose someone for more than a test score or resume - there is a sense of who fits best not just as a number but as a person with unique life experience.


Ahhhh, there it is, you realize scarcity creates a massive problem for your scenario. Also, there's actually a ton of research into the affects of affirmative action on the people that were given opportunities they shouldn't have (because they didn't meet the standards that their peers did, but they had a nice life story so...) and it is overwhelmingly negative for everyone involved.



equal opportunity + equal effort = equal benefit.


And there's where you go wrong. If I put in 100 hours a week (equal effort) and am given the chance to play professional basketball (equal opportunity) there is not an equal benefit. I am just not as gifted physically or athletically as a professional basketball player. So the spectators lose, the team mates lose, the only person that gets an "equal benefit" is me. But then that's not equal, is it. You can say the same for just about every occupation.

In a fairytale everyone who goes to work and tries their hardest becomes the greatest at what they do. In the real world that just doesn't work and pretending that it does (by rewarding as though it does, with equal outcomes) will never ever ever ever ever ever work. It never has yet and never will.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I believe we are all equal but not the same. We have different skills.



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

That's why you find what you are good at. More money = / = better person.
edit on 27-11-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: olaru12

The day will come that we will have to either be disposed of ourselves or dispose of the libtards. Hopefully we can delay that day many, many years by educating those poorly informed libtards.


When can we start the disposal of the Libtards; And how...ovens?

I don't want my tax dollars going for reeducation camps!!



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Bill Burr suggests sinking cruise ships!



posted on Nov, 27 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Never go full retard.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join