What is "Social Justice"?

[WelfareQueen]

Social justice is in the eye of the beholder....which makes it extremely dangerous.

Stalin's idea of social justice was to liquidate the landed gentry in Russia. Millions were exterminated.

Hitler's idea of social justice was the Final Solution.

Obama's idea of social justice is to "spread the wealth around." Which means allowing the Government to steal money from a group of people you don't like, and give that money to people you do like....with a course the Government being like the mafia and taking a big cut for themselves.

Social justice is a lie because all men are created unequal.

 

[Stephanie]

The more relevant and interesting question is why do some feel the need to couch their bias and bigotry in vague questions whose only purpose is dog whistles for the dogs who hear the whistle.

It's a very real question.
It would seem that "social justice" means "all things good" to those who think it's important. By extension if you oppose those groups you are opposed to social justice and ergo must be bad.

People opposed to Social Justice are bad little bunny. The idea is to know that life in unfair, and then try to be a decent moral person and do what you can about that instead of saying nah, that might be difficult or even cause me problems.

Well you're demonstratig part of my thesis, that people in favor of social justice view it as all good things so opposition must be from bad people.

Since conservatives are generally the ones actually doing stuff to help people, it would seem they believe in social justice, although they clearly dont.
Libs just want to raise taxes on other people and give the gov't more money and control.

Yep, they expect to FORCE everyone (the taxpayers/working people) to take care of others and claim how "caring" they are. But it's damn easy to be "caring" as long as it's with other peoples MONEY

 

[SwimExpert]

This thread is gold!!!

Don't some of these fake conservatives, like Rabbi, conjure images of angsty teenagers trying to rebel against authority, as if they knew something special that the whole world needs to figure out? Most especially, he reminds me of this kid in my HS algebra class all those years ago, who made a huge spectacle with the teacher about how "i" didn't actually exist because, ya know it's imaginary, and refused to learn the entire unit on imaginary and complex numbers. He took a zero on the test "on principle" that he would not allow himself to learn "false math." I can only assume that he got his act straight the following year when he repeated the class.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a debate. And you've lost by failing to defend your position in the face of my very real questions.

I disagree. I stated my opinion very well. If you disagree, so be it. I considered it a conversation, but call it what you will. By the way, are keeping score? Is this forum some sort of game to you?

No you didnt. You stated some platitudes that you cannot defend. Again, what does "equal justice" look like? Everyone gets the same penalty? It is nonsense.
Yes it is a game to me. To see how often libs default to slogans and deflection because they cannot defend their beliefs via rational argument.

Again, very funny, and cute as well. FYI - I'm NOT a Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. And, what exactly was there to defend. I stated my opinion, and I'm standing by it. Yes, I believe that we should have equal justice for equal crimes. Equal punishment for equal crimes. I do not believe that one gets a slap on the wrist, and the other gets 5 years of hard time behind bars. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. If you disagree, so be it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two people having different opinions. And, since it's game to you, please don't include me. I don't play games on forums. I discuss issues with those mature and civil enough to have conversation without childish nonsense, slurs, brow-beating, and personal attacks. Anytime you feel like having a conversation, in an adult and civil manner, I'll be more than glad to engage. I don't take part in name calling, personal attacks and forum games. Thanks.

So a guy with a history of beating up his girlfriend and multiple jail terms should be treated the same as the guyw ith no criminal record who happens to make a mistake in judgment? OK if you say so.

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

 

[The Rabbi]

This thread is gold!!!

Don't some of these fake conservatives, like Rabbi, conjure images of angsty teenagers trying to rebel against authority, as if they knew something special that the whole world needs to figure out? Most especially, he reminds me of this kid in my HS algebra class all those years ago, who made a huge spectacle with the teacher about how "i" didn't actually exist because, ya know it's imaginary, and refused to learn the entire unit on imaginary and complex numbers. He took a zero on the test "on principle" that he would not allow himself to learn "false math." I can only assume that he got his act straight the following year when he repeated the class.

I am certain that was interesting to someone.
You arent a conservative. Quit pretending.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I disagree. I stated my opinion very well. If you disagree, so be it. I considered it a conversation, but call it what you will. By the way, are keeping score? Is this forum some sort of game to you?

No you didnt. You stated some platitudes that you cannot defend. Again, what does "equal justice" look like? Everyone gets the same penalty? It is nonsense.
Yes it is a game to me. To see how often libs default to slogans and deflection because they cannot defend their beliefs via rational argument.

Again, very funny, and cute as well. FYI - I'm NOT a Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. And, what exactly was there to defend. I stated my opinion, and I'm standing by it. Yes, I believe that we should have equal justice for equal crimes. Equal punishment for equal crimes. I do not believe that one gets a slap on the wrist, and the other gets 5 years of hard time behind bars. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. If you disagree, so be it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two people having different opinions. And, since it's game to you, please don't include me. I don't play games on forums. I discuss issues with those mature and civil enough to have conversation without childish nonsense, slurs, brow-beating, and personal attacks. Anytime you feel like having a conversation, in an adult and civil manner, I'll be more than glad to engage. I don't take part in name calling, personal attacks and forum games. Thanks.

So a guy with a history of beating up his girlfriend and multiple jail terms should be treated the same as the guyw ith no criminal record who happens to make a mistake in judgment? OK if you say so.

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

 

[The Rabbi]

No you didnt. You stated some platitudes that you cannot defend. Again, what does "equal justice" look like? Everyone gets the same penalty? It is nonsense.
Yes it is a game to me. To see how often libs default to slogans and deflection because they cannot defend their beliefs via rational argument.

Again, very funny, and cute as well. FYI - I'm NOT a Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. And, what exactly was there to defend. I stated my opinion, and I'm standing by it. Yes, I believe that we should have equal justice for equal crimes. Equal punishment for equal crimes. I do not believe that one gets a slap on the wrist, and the other gets 5 years of hard time behind bars. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. If you disagree, so be it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two people having different opinions. And, since it's game to you, please don't include me. I don't play games on forums. I discuss issues with those mature and civil enough to have conversation without childish nonsense, slurs, brow-beating, and personal attacks. Anytime you feel like having a conversation, in an adult and civil manner, I'll be more than glad to engage. I don't take part in name calling, personal attacks and forum games. Thanks.

So a guy with a history of beating up his girlfriend and multiple jail terms should be treated the same as the guyw ith no criminal record who happens to make a mistake in judgment? OK if you say so.

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

 

[Contumacious]

Lots of orgs, from the ACLU to the SEIU to the KKK have "social justice" as part of their mission. But what is "social justice"?

Social Justice = that is the policy adopted by the welfare state in 1935 . It allows government bureaucrats to INTERVENE in economic and social matters by adopting
such programs as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which caused the 2008 mortgage meltdown. Typically "social justice" allows people with
badges and guns to threaten those who prosper through exchange.. Any one who opposes the interventionism will be labeled as an "anarchist" by such eminent
parasites as paintmyhouse, dadtofifteen and rightwinger.


.

 

[Stephanie]

Lots of orgs, from the ACLU to the SEIU to the KKK have "social justice" as part of their mission. But what is "social justice"?

Social Justice = that is the policy adopted by the welfare state in 1935 . It allows government bureaucrats to INTERVENE in economic and social matters by adopting
such programs as the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which caused the 2008 mortgage meltdown. Typically "social justice" allows people with
badges and guns to threaten those who prosper through exchange.. Any one who opposes the interventionism will be labeled as an "anarchist" by such eminent
parasites as paintmyhouse, dadtofifteen and rightwinger.


.

It's absolutely communism mixed with Fascism. that is why the people in this country better start, waking the hell up

so is globull warming AKA they now call Climate change.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Again, very funny, and cute as well. FYI - I'm NOT a Liberal, by any stretch of the imagination. And, what exactly was there to defend. I stated my opinion, and I'm standing by it. Yes, I believe that we should have equal justice for equal crimes. Equal punishment for equal crimes. I do not believe that one gets a slap on the wrist, and the other gets 5 years of hard time behind bars. That's my opinion, and I stand by it. If you disagree, so be it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with two people having different opinions. And, since it's game to you, please don't include me. I don't play games on forums. I discuss issues with those mature and civil enough to have conversation without childish nonsense, slurs, brow-beating, and personal attacks. Anytime you feel like having a conversation, in an adult and civil manner, I'll be more than glad to engage. I don't take part in name calling, personal attacks and forum games. Thanks.

So a guy with a history of beating up his girlfriend and multiple jail terms should be treated the same as the guyw ith no criminal record who happens to make a mistake in judgment? OK if you say so.

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

 

[koshergrl]

But here:

"Social justice is "justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society".[1] Classically, "justice" (especially corrective justice or distributive justice) referred to ensuring that individuals both fulfilled their societal roles,[2] and received what was due from society. "Social justice" is generally used to refer to a set of institutions which will enable people to lead a fulfilling life and be active contributors to their community."
Social justice - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order."

Communism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

They're different tags for the same things. Progressives like to use *social justice* the way they always use words to hide their true intent.

Dana's in another thread pretending that "fetus" and "embryo" are stages of pregnancy. This is what they do with words and meanings. They hide their intent, and they change the words so it looks like what they do isn't criminal and disgusting.

It doesn't work.

 

[The Rabbi]

So a guy with a history of beating up his girlfriend and multiple jail terms should be treated the same as the guyw ith no criminal record who happens to make a mistake in judgment? OK if you say so.

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

 

[Sonny Clark]

I'm saying, equal punishment for equal crimes. If two people, in different cities, both steal a vehicle, and get caught, both should be handed the same punishment. It shouldn't matter if one of them is the mayor's son or not. It shouldn't matter if one of them comes from a very well respected family that has influence and a ton of money. They both stole a vehicle, got caught, and both should be treated the same in a court of law. A rich daddy shouldn't be allowed to buy his son out of a jam. We see way too much favoritism in our judicial system. Laws should apply to everyone equally, and punishment should be meted out the same.

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

 

[bripat9643]

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

You can't argue with someone who is immune to logic.

 

[The Rabbi]

So one guy is a career criminal who steals cars as partr of a chop shop ring and the other guy gets angry at his girlfriend and takes her car and she reports it stolen and they should get exactly the same punishment? OK, if you say so.

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

That's a cop out. I show why giving the same sentence for the same crime is not justice at all. Rather the opposite. You respond merely we disagree.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Nope. You just added a lot more to the example than I presented. I said absolutely ZERO about either of them being a career criminal. I said, please listen carefully, try a little reading comprehension here please, BOTH steal a vehicle, BOTH get caught, BOTH should be meted the exact same punishment regardless of wealth, fame, social status, or community influence. And, for your benefit, lets say one had been caught shop lifting 8 years prior. The other one has a clean record. So, still, both should be treated equally. Now, remember, I said nothing about career criminals, past history of serious crimes, or one having already served time for another crime. I said, equal crimes, equal punishment. Now, you can twist that around to appear to be something that I didn't say, or something that you believe I intended. But, I clearly stated, as did the very time that I mentioned it, equal punishment for equal crimes.

Also, yes, there are a million different scenarios that we can come up with. There are a million different circumstances to any given crime. But, again, equal justice should be the rule, period. If two people have the same criminal record, both do an equal crime, they both should be punished the same.

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

That's a cop out. I show why giving the same sentence for the same crime is not justice at all. Rather the opposite. You respond merely we disagree.

What? Do you want to go over and over everything for hours? You've stated your case and your opinion, and I have done likewise. I'm not going to change my view and opinion, and obviously you're not going to change yours. Neither of us are going to agree with the other. We see this issue differently, which is fine. People are allowed to disagree. I see no point in going back and forth with the same answers on both sides. You're sticking to your opinion and view, and I'm sticking to mine. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this matter. So, what's the point in repeating everything for hours and hours? Can you give some reason why we should continue this conversation? Do see where continuing it will solve anything? If so, please inform me. Thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

What you propose is not equal justice at all because it fails to account for motives, history, and totality of circumstances. Why should a guy who is say, 18 years old and just out of the military and made a mistake in judgement be saddled with a felony for life when he could have a misdemeanor by plea bargaining? What is gained by sentencing him to the max? What is gained by not sentencing the career criminal to the max, where he will be off the streets and not committing crimes?
So your social justice becomes someone else's injustice

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

That's a cop out. I show why giving the same sentence for the same crime is not justice at all. Rather the opposite. You respond merely we disagree.

What? Do you want to go over and over everything for hours? You've stated your case and your opinion, and I have done likewise. I'm not going to change my view and opinion, and obviously you're not going to change yours. Neither of us are going to agree with the other. We see this issue differently, which is fine. People are allowed to disagree. I see no point in going back and forth with the same answers on both sides. You're sticking to your opinion and view, and I'm sticking to mine. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this matter. So, what's the point in repeating everything for hours and hours? Can you give some reason why we should continue this conversation? Do see where continuing it will solve anything? If so, please inform me. Thanks.

No, you are clearly unable to state your opinion and defend it against attacks. You have failed numerous times to do that and cop out. So you are correct there is no continuing here. You've lost the debate.
Teh sad part is you havent learned anything from it. What's the point in coming on this board, spouting an opinion and then buggering off?

 

[Sonny Clark]

If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as justice, real justice. We can throw justice out the window if we're going to excuse some and no others. We can just re-name the system and call it "chance in court". Why even set guidelines and have trials? Why not just look at face value and say, "ok, you get years probation, and you over there, you 3 years behind bars? Why not just skip court cost, save time, and let judges use their hearts to rule and hand out sentences? Let judges determine cases based on how they view the circumstances and prior records. Just skip the system and run everyone through the judge's chambers.

I fail to see where anyone could come close to calling something like that justice. Certainly, it couldn't be called fair. According to what you're saying, we could look at prior history, the circumstances surrounding the crime, and hand out punishment as we deem fit. That would certainly save taxpayers money, make things easy for lawyers, and allow some to get a slap on the wrist, while others serve time. Again, what kind of judicial system would that be?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

That's a cop out. I show why giving the same sentence for the same crime is not justice at all. Rather the opposite. You respond merely we disagree.

What? Do you want to go over and over everything for hours? You've stated your case and your opinion, and I have done likewise. I'm not going to change my view and opinion, and obviously you're not going to change yours. Neither of us are going to agree with the other. We see this issue differently, which is fine. People are allowed to disagree. I see no point in going back and forth with the same answers on both sides. You're sticking to your opinion and view, and I'm sticking to mine. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this matter. So, what's the point in repeating everything for hours and hours? Can you give some reason why we should continue this conversation? Do see where continuing it will solve anything? If so, please inform me. Thanks.

No, you are clearly unable to state your opinion and defend it against attacks. You have failed numerous times to do that and cop out. So you are correct there is no continuing here. You've lost the debate.
Teh sad part is you havent learned anything from it. What's the point in coming on this board, spouting an opinion and then buggering off?

Oh please. Really? I made my point. I stated my case, my opinion, and what I believe. FYI --- I wasn't trying to win anything. This wasn't a game, nor a contest, at least not to me. It was merely a discussion, a conversation. If you want to pat yourself on the back, raise victory flags, and dance in the street, be my guess. I lost nothing, not one single thing. We both stated our cases, expressed our views, and was totally in disagreement. I see nothing to gloat over. Not everyone agrees on everything. People do have different opinions. You believe that you're right, and I believe that I'm right. Is that a sin or crime? Hardly. I stated before that I don't play games on forums. Obviously, you consider a conversation a game where there's a winner and a loser. That's kind of silly to me. Every conversation doesn't have to be a game. Every conversation doesn't have a winner and a loser. Adults can chat, express opinions, and have differences without keeping score. This forum is for civil discussions, debates, and expressing one's views on a variety of topics. I have not read anywhere that states this forum is a game where we keep score and have winners and losers.

I am willing to discuss any subject matter, but I refuse to make a game of it, keep score, and declare winners and losers. To me, that's silly, immature, and totally unnecessary. If you would like to discuss any issue, I'll be more than glad to engage. But, I refuse to play a winner and loser game, keep score, and then gloat afterwards. I doubt that anyone is going to knock on your door and hand you a large cardboard check, pass out balloons, and have cameras rolling.

 

[FA_Q2]

The sad thing about social justice is that it is probably the easiest thing to achieve in the nation--costs us nothing--and we still cannot attain it.

'Social justice' is a utopian ideal that is far from 'easy' to achieve. It is actually impossible.

You cannot completely eliminate simple things like human error and favoritism from any system.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Different circumstances will result in different sentences. That is actually justice.

We're going around in circles here. You see it one way, and I see it another. Obviously, we're not going to agree.

That's a cop out. I show why giving the same sentence for the same crime is not justice at all. Rather the opposite. You respond merely we disagree.

What? Do you want to go over and over everything for hours? You've stated your case and your opinion, and I have done likewise. I'm not going to change my view and opinion, and obviously you're not going to change yours. Neither of us are going to agree with the other. We see this issue differently, which is fine. People are allowed to disagree. I see no point in going back and forth with the same answers on both sides. You're sticking to your opinion and view, and I'm sticking to mine. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind on this matter. So, what's the point in repeating everything for hours and hours? Can you give some reason why we should continue this conversation? Do see where continuing it will solve anything? If so, please inform me. Thanks.

No, you are clearly unable to state your opinion and defend it against attacks. You have failed numerous times to do that and cop out. So you are correct there is no continuing here. You've lost the debate.
Teh sad part is you havent learned anything from it. What's the point in coming on this board, spouting an opinion and then buggering off?

Oh please. Really? I made my point. I stated my case, my opinion, and what I believe. FYI --- I wasn't trying to win anything. This wasn't a game, nor a contest, at least not to me. It was merely a discussion, a conversation. If you want to pat yourself on the back, raise victory flags, and dance in the street, be my guess. I lost nothing, not one single thing. We both stated our cases, expressed our views, and was totally in disagreement. I see nothing to gloat over. Not everyone agrees on everything. People do have different opinions. You believe that you're right, and I believe that I'm right. Is that a sin or crime? Hardly. I stated before that I don't play games on forums. Obviously, you consider a conversation a game where there's a winner and a loser. That's kind of silly to me. Every conversation doesn't have to be a game. Every conversation doesn't have a winner and a loser. Adults can chat, express opinions, and have differences without keeping score. This forum is for civil discussions, debates, and expressing one's views on a variety of topics. I have not read anywhere that states this forum is a game where we keep score and have winners and losers.

I am willing to discuss any subject matter, but I refuse to make a game of it, keep score, and declare winners and losers. To me, that's silly, immature, and totally unnecessary. If you would like to discuss any issue, I'll be more than glad to engage. But, I refuse to play a winner and loser game, keep score, and then gloat afterwards. I doubt that anyone is going to knock on your door and hand you a large cardboard check, pass out balloons, and have cameras rolling.

I showed that your position was bunk and the opposite of what "social justice" ought to mean, if it should mean anything.