Social justice is absurd

CYDdharta

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

If you would like to claim that my points don't make sense or are as hominems, please back this up. Again you have just made unsupported claims.

In regards to your question, this relies on unsupported premise which you refuse to back up. There is no need for me to reply to points which rely on unproven claims.

I'll be nice and do you a favour though and walk you through the basics.

There is overall inequality between black and white people with white people doing better and black people doing worse, yes?

If we intervene and promote black people somewhat to better their chances, what does this do to the net level of of inequality? It decreases. White people still do better, but the overall inequality gap closes.

Unsupported claims?!?  I've only made one claim relevant to the discussion at hand, and you have just proven it to be true.  "If we intervene and promote black people" is just another way of saying "discriminate against non-black people".  Affirmative action is, quite simply, institutionalized discrimination, and we will never have racial equality as long as it is in place.

AlwaysCorrect

@Vaulk

Nothing worse than someone who relies on claims of logical fallacy when they don't know what they mean.

An additional hominem attack is where "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". That's as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

Now did I just call him a child as my rebuttal or did I explain WHY his argument was incorrect and childish? The latter as you already concede I made arguments which this "fallacy" supposedly detracts from and can easily be verified by viewing my posts.

To give you an example if I called you an now for misusing logical fallacies then you could say I was rude, but not that it was an ad hominem. I didn't rely on the insulting term to prove you wrong, which was done separately with my logic and evidence, rather it would be part of the conclusion to an argument based on logic and reason.

JuicyMelonTech

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Vaulk

Nothing worse than someone who relies on claims of logical fallacy when they don't know what they mean.

An additional hominem attack is where "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". That's as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

Now did I just call him a child as my rebuttal or did I explain WHY his argument was incorrect and childish? The latter as you already concede I made arguments which this "fallacy" supposedly detracts from and can easily be verified by viewing my posts.

To give you an example if I called you an now for misusing logical fallacies then you could say I was rude, but not that it was an ad hominem. I didn't rely on the insulting term to prove you wrong, which was done separately with my logic and evidence, rather it would be part of the conclusion to an argument based on logic and reason.

Can you please get this debate back on track here, stop using ad hominem attacks.

AlwaysCorrect

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

If you would like to claim that my points don't make sense or are as hominems, please back this up. Again you have just made unsupported claims.

In regards to your question, this relies on unsupported premise which you refuse to back up. There is no need for me to reply to points which rely on unproven claims.

I'll be nice and do you a favour though and walk you through the basics.

There is overall inequality between black and white people with white people doing better and black people doing worse, yes?

If we intervene and promote black people somewhat to better their chances, what does this do to the net level of of inequality? It decreases. White people still do better, but the overall inequality gap closes.

Unsupported claims?!?  I've only made one claim relevant to the discussion at hand, and you have just proven it to be true.  "If we intervene and promote black people" is just another way of saying "discriminate against non-black people".  Affirmative action is, quite simply, institutionalized discrimination, and we will never have racial equality as long as it is in place.

You have made several unsupported claims throughout this thread and to me specifically.

The most relevant is your claims is your assertion that "Since the action demanded is based on race and assumes guilt, affirmative action, by definition, is racist.". You have refused to back this up and engage in any kind of cogent analysis. for instance in my last reply, even though you have failed to support your point, I helped you out by respond to it anyway. In turn you completely ignore my point and question and just merely repeat yourself - just like you have been again and again and again.

There are other claims you have made other related claims, such as us only being able to have a discussion on the breadth of the topic at hand after your point is discussed. Again you have offered no logic or evidence for this and as far as I know there is no philosophical framework of debate which supports your premise. On the other hand the idea that someone should back up their claims and engage with the other person's debate is a core part of logical and honest arguments.

You have made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You have refused to and merely reiterate the claim. You are therefore failing to prove your argument. the onus is on you to meet the burden of proof of your claims.

JuicyMelonTech said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

@Vaulk

Nothing worse than someone who relies on claims of logical fallacy when they don't know what they mean.

An additional hominem attack is where "an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself". That's as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem.

Now did I just call him a child as my rebuttal or did I explain WHY his argument was incorrect and childish? The latter as you already concede I made arguments which this "fallacy" supposedly detracts from and can easily be verified by viewing my posts.

To give you an example if I called you an now for misusing logical fallacies then you could say I was rude, but not that it was an ad hominem. I didn't rely on the insulting term to prove you wrong, which was done separately with my logic and evidence, rather it would be part of the conclusion to an argument based on logic and reason.

Can you please get this debate back on track here, stop using ad hominem attacks.

Can you provide a reasoned explanation of why my explanation for it not being an ad hominem does not hold true? If not, then again - why does your post matter? Currently your claim is just another unsupported claim that meets exactly the same criticisms I have raised about other unsupported claims. Like others, you too are engaged in a very childish form of arguing that does not reach the standard of a real debate.

CYDdharta

AlwaysCorrect said:

CYDdharta said:

AlwaysCorrect said:

@CYDdharta

If you would like to claim that my points don't make sense or are as hominems, please back this up. Again you have just made unsupported claims.

In regards to your question, this relies on unsupported premise which you refuse to back up. There is no need for me to reply to points which rely on unproven claims.

I'll be nice and do you a favour though and walk you through the basics.

There is overall inequality between black and white people with white people doing better and black people doing worse, yes?

If we intervene and promote black people somewhat to better their chances, what does this do to the net level of of inequality? It decreases. White people still do better, but the overall inequality gap closes.

Unsupported claims?!?  I've only made one claim relevant to the discussion at hand, and you have just proven it to be true.  "If we intervene and promote black people" is just another way of saying "discriminate against non-black people".  Affirmative action is, quite simply, institutionalized discrimination, and we will never have racial equality as long as it is in place.

You have made several unsupported claims throughout this thread and to me specifically.

The most relevant is your claims is your assertion that "Since the action demanded is based on race and assumes guilt, affirmative action, by definition, is racist.". You have refused to back this up and engage in any kind of cogent analysis. for instance in my last reply, even though you have failed to support your point, I helped you out by respond to it anyway. In turn you completely ignore my point and question and just merely repeat yourself - just like you have been again and again and again.

There are other claims you have made other related claims, such as us only being able to have a discussion on the breadth of the topic at hand after your point is discussed. Again you have offered no logic or evidence for this and as far as I know there is no philosophical framework of debate which supports your premise. On the other hand the idea that someone should back up their claims and engage with the other person's debate is a core part of logical and honest arguments.

You have made a claim. I have asked you to back it up. You have refused to and merely reiterate the claim. You are therefore failing to prove your argument. the onus is on you to meet the burden of proof of your claims.

...as usual, I have provided proof; in fact, YOU have provided proof that affirmative action in institutionalized racial discrimination, you simply refused to admit it.  Once you admit you are wrong, maybe we can have an actual discussion about the issue.

SilverishGoldNova

I mean, if you want your kids to growing up whining about nonexistent oppression...

MayCaesar

I agree with the negative assessment of the concept of "social justice", but I disagree with your reasoning. You assume that social justice is based on splitting people into groups, and that is the problem - but splitting people into groups is something we always do. You yourself did it in your argument, by splitting people into "snowflakes" and non-"snowflakes", for example. This is not a property of social justice.

The concept of "justice" itself is very impractical. What is "justice"? It is the idea that a certain value can be attributed to every individual based on who they are, how they act and what they have - and that in the end that value should be equalized for everyone. For example, suppose that in Medieval Europe I kill a rabbit that belongs to the lord of the land. The lord decides to punish me and gives me 40 lashes. A group of knights arrives to investigate the occasion. They see that the lord has a lot of riches, so his justice score (in the modern language - privilege quantity) is high - but I am poor, so my justice score is low. Me killing the rabbit made the lord a bit less rich (lowering his justice score slightly), but him lashing me made me far more miserable (lowering my justice score significantly). They decide that justice demands that the lord is to be punished - so they take part of the lord's land and give it to me.

At the first glance, this does not seem too bad. However, there is a logical problem with this concept, and it is the fact that it supports action based on the past state of the world, instead of the current state of the world. What if the situation described above happened to my ancestors in medieval Poland 800 years ago, but the knights never arrived to give land to them? Justice has not been served, hence my ancestors still have the "justice debt" unpaid to them - and can start making demands of the current Polish government. The current Polish government has nothing to do with that lord from 800 years ago, and my family has nothing to do with our ancestors that have been skeletons for many centuries. What is the practical reasonability behind these demands? There is none.

Another problem is that justice directly depends on the related moral system, and morals are subjective. In some less developed parts of the world, they still have the concept of "blood revenge": if someone from your family has been murdered, you can murder someone from the murderer's family. It is also a form of justice, just based on a different moral system. 

---

For the society to be the most practical and efficient, people should focus on making the most out of the present, not on worrying about what happened centuries ago. It is also important to not mix large groups of people into one bag, holding the whole group responsible for the actions of some of its members. I may be a white male, and there may be discrimination in the country against non-white non-males - but I do not participate in this discrimination; "race" and "gender" are meaningless to me. Is it fair to consider me "more privileged", let alone demand that I "share" some of my "privilege" with black women? Maybe it is "fair" from some point of view, but it is definitely not practical, and certainly it will not lead to a strong unity in the society - unity the lack of which causes discrimination in the first place.

In simple terms, discrimination in response to discrimination does not solve the problem of discrimination. And this is exactly what justice leads to: perpetuation of problems by reversing them, rather than solution of problems by eliminating them.