What Does Social Justice Actually Mean?

jwoodie

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2012
19,276
8,040
940
We are all aware of the disadvantages of being born into a poor, uneducated single parent family, but what is the prescription for addressing this widespread problem? One view is to provide educational and other opportunities to escape this environment and, hopefully, end this repetitive cycle. Unfortunately, this approach seems to have had limited success.

Another view, seemingly espoused in the President's Social Justice agenda, is to remove the trappings of poverty by subsidizing these families into a middle class standard of living. The obvious risk to this approach is that it removes incentives for self-improvement, both for the individuals directly involved and for other individuals who then see the relative value of their own efforts diminished.

Which is the better approach? At an individual and even societal level, it probably depends on one's personal philosophical beliefs. However, these approaches also involve divergent economic premises: The Individual Opportunity approach depends on an ever-expanding private sector job market, while the Social Justice approach depends on ever-increasing government revenues.

At this point, neither approach looks very promising. What is your prescription?
 
It means they are going to take the money away from the people who earned it and they are going to give it to the ones who didn't. It's a makers give to takers kinda thing.


 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)
 
Last edited:
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)

Really good point. Our founding fathers knew that to create this nation and then to hold it together required compromise. If either side gets too entrenched in making sure the U.S. reflects their definition of social equally while ignoring the definition of others, the nation will falter.

They knew that social justice, liberty, freedom, equally ... the American dream ... belongs to every American.
 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)



1. "In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,..."
If I get your drift....you are slandering the most generous people in the world.

For your edification:

"We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week.

Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01



2. "...that health is more important than profits,..."
Great bumper-sticker.
You've burnished your Liberal credentials!

This might interest you, as well:

"Pharmaceutical companies are among the most philanthropic: measured by both cash and products given away, drug companies were 6 of the top 10 in 2009. “Pharmaceutical companies dominate the list of corporations that gave the most in 2009. Pfizer ( PFE - news - people ) ranked No. 1 in total cash and product giving. The New York-based company gave $2.3 billion, which equals 24.2% of its 2008 profits. Pfizer also holds the top spot on the list of the most generous companies in America, which were measured by comparing total giving in cash and products during 2009 to total profits from 2008. The pharmaceutical giantsMerck ( MRK - news - people ),Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ -news - people ), Abbott, Eli Lilly (LLY - news - people ) andBristol-Myers Squibb ( BMY -news - people ) took 5 of the top 10 spots on the list of companies that gave the most. Merck gave $923.2 million in cash and products, a 12.4% jump from the previous year. Abbott gave 26% more in 2009 than 2008….”
America's Most Generous Companies - Forbes.com
 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)

It has nothing to do with people being 'more important than money'...

And 'refusal to share' is nothing more than a bullshit way of saying 'what is yours is ours' in liberal speak.. you have no right to the property of others, but each person has the right or freedom to give voluntarily as much as they wish to help others.... your idea of social justice is when you think others don't do enough for your agenda, they should be forced to do what you deem as enough
 
It means "spreading the wealth", i.e. taking from hard working successful people and giving to worthless crap people so they'll continue to vote Democrat.
 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)



1. "In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,..."
If I get your drift....you are slandering the most generous people in the world.

For your edification:

"We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week.

Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01



2. "...that health is more important than profits,..."
Great bumper-sticker.
You've burnished your Liberal credentials!

This might interest you, as well:

"Pharmaceutical companies are among the most philanthropic: measured by both cash and products given away, drug companies were 6 of the top 10 in 2009. “Pharmaceutical companies dominate the list of corporations that gave the most in 2009. Pfizer ( PFE - news - people ) ranked No. 1 in total cash and product giving. The New York-based company gave $2.3 billion, which equals 24.2% of its 2008 profits. Pfizer also holds the top spot on the list of the most generous companies in America, which were measured by comparing total giving in cash and products during 2009 to total profits from 2008. The pharmaceutical giantsMerck ( MRK - news - people ),Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ -news - people ), Abbott, Eli Lilly (LLY - news - people ) andBristol-Myers Squibb ( BMY -news - people ) took 5 of the top 10 spots on the list of companies that gave the most. Merck gave $923.2 million in cash and products, a 12.4% jump from the previous year. Abbott gave 26% more in 2009 than 2008….”
America's Most Generous Companies - Forbes.com

You do not get my drift.
 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)



1. "In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money,..."
If I get your drift....you are slandering the most generous people in the world.

For your edification:

"We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week.

Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01



2. "...that health is more important than profits,..."
Great bumper-sticker.
You've burnished your Liberal credentials!

This might interest you, as well:

"Pharmaceutical companies are among the most philanthropic: measured by both cash and products given away, drug companies were 6 of the top 10 in 2009. “Pharmaceutical companies dominate the list of corporations that gave the most in 2009. Pfizer ( PFE - news - people ) ranked No. 1 in total cash and product giving. The New York-based company gave $2.3 billion, which equals 24.2% of its 2008 profits. Pfizer also holds the top spot on the list of the most generous companies in America, which were measured by comparing total giving in cash and products during 2009 to total profits from 2008. The pharmaceutical giantsMerck ( MRK - news - people ),Johnson & Johnson ( JNJ -news - people ), Abbott, Eli Lilly (LLY - news - people ) andBristol-Myers Squibb ( BMY -news - people ) took 5 of the top 10 spots on the list of companies that gave the most. Merck gave $923.2 million in cash and products, a 12.4% jump from the previous year. Abbott gave 26% more in 2009 than 2008….”
America's Most Generous Companies - Forbes.com

I think you are drifting away .......
 
Social justice depends, as every other word or phrase, on what people choose for it to mean.

In some societies, people feel that citizens are more important than money, that health is more important than profits, that a good life for all is better than extremes where a tiny few reign over a large minority.

In other societies, limited egos refuse to share, wishing instead to dominate others.

In between are various mixes.

(I sure hope that pisses off the cat in the hat.)

It has nothing to do with people being 'more important than money'...

And 'refusal to share' is nothing more than a bullshit way of saying 'what is yours is ours' in liberal speak.. you have no right to the property of others, but each person has the right or freedom to give voluntarily as much as they wish to help others.... your idea of social justice is when you think others don't do enough for your agenda, they should be forced to do what you deem as enough

As usual, this individual has understood what was in his/her mind and not the original post.

Nothing more can be expected from someone whose head is hard as a diamond.
 
Moderator: Please remove this thread to the Clean Debate Zone. It is obviously beyond the intellectual capabilities of this forum.
 
"social justice" is just a code word for socialism....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op23h_bAURc]The Injustice of Social Justice - YouTube[/ame]
 
It means "spreading the wealth", i.e. taking from hard working successful people and giving to worthless crap people so they'll continue to vote Democrat.

That's how you define social justice? Really?

I have to disagree.

It's what it means in practical terms.

Just like "shared sacrifice" means higher income people paying more in taxes while lower income people get more benefits.
Or "gun control" means sticking it to gun owners while doing nothing about any actual problem.
You have to know the context.
 
It means "spreading the wealth", i.e. taking from hard working successful people and giving to worthless crap people so they'll continue to vote Democrat.

That's how you define social justice? Really?

I have to disagree.

It's what it means in practical terms.

Just like "shared sacrifice" means higher income people paying more in taxes while lower income people get more benefits.
Or "gun control" means sticking it to gun owners while doing nothing about any actual problem.
You have to know the context.

you mean you have to know who is doing the spinning?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top