And aside from the semantics, do you think the Pope has a left-wing agenda? I'm expecting you might say yes, so my second question, do you think Prager would say the Pope has a left-wing agenda? I doubt it.
crusky, don't you think Prager's point about the word structure isn't as profound as it might have appeared at first, before thinking about it?
Don't you think the way he describes the word structure is actually just a compound word, and that people of all political persuasions do it, I just gave Bush as an example, but don't you think it's common all throughout conservatism? Doesn't everyone string words together into phrases?
Prager is not telling the truth about social justice. The term is actually quite mainstream. Pope Benedict for example uses the term.
Benedict has also used the term "distributive justice". GASP! Which exposes the lie, yes the lie, that the idea of redistribution means Communism. That simply isn't true. I'm sure Prager would not call the Pope a Communist.
@mukome I don't believe that he states that social justice isn't mainstream. He is talking about the addition of words to terms like justice being an indication of an agenda. That has nothing to do with with whether social justice is mainstream. Your criticism is therefore irrelevant.
@crusky No, I wasn't talking about Prager's semantic argument. Obviously people who talk about social justice have an agenda. Their agenda is social justice. And yes, there is an element of equality there. That's not even a meaningful assertion, it's just semantics, it's the definition of the term.
The part I'm disputing is Prager's suggestion that equality is a controversial goal. The suggestion that equality means TOTAL equality. Not true. Social justice means MORE equality, not TOTAL.
@mukome You misunderstanding my objection. Your original comment addresses a point that Prager never made. You also seem to miss greater point that the "agenda" that says adding adjectives indicates is a left wing agenda. For example, the term social justice is simply a nicer veneer to a leftist agenda. You may agree with that agenda, but why the need to obfuscate it. That's what Prager is talking about.
@crusky oh yes another brilliant aphorism that holds up until you think about it for about 3 seconds. I guess compassionate conservatism "indicated" that Bush had a left-wing agenda.
@mukome Bush's compassionate conservatism wasn't conservative and the fact that he tried to obfuscate his agenda with a nice sounding word is not conservative either. The need to hide or re-brand an agenda is the domain of the left not the right. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. Also, you still need to address the wider issue of the need to hide an agenda behind a veneer.
"There are "cars", but there are not "sports cars" or "red cars". The adjectives "sports" and "red" are agenda-driven. "Red cars" have nothing to do with cars, and distorts the automotive ideal that motivates car-lovers."
You obviously did not listen very carefully; the adjective "red" or "sports" is not being placed in front of a value based noun, unless you care to demonstrate how "car" is valus based....
There are "cars", but there are not "sports cars" or "red cars". The adjectives "sports" and "red" are agenda-driven. "Red cars" have nothing to do with cars, and distorts the automotive ideal that motivates car-lovers.
You can't see how the term "social justice" taken as a whole, means exactly the opposite of "regular justice"? This is Orwellian Double-speak, using our own language and words against us.
@eagleeye1975 I am serious. How is a theory of justice that includes equal access, equal opportunity and (at least somewhat) equal distribution of wealth somehow NOT a type of justice?
@the1000man Equal opportunity and equal distribution of wealth are mutually exclusive ideals.
If you have equal opportunity, and do well, only to have to give your excess to those who did not do as well with their own equal opportunity, you don't truly have an equal opportunity. To take from those who have earned it subverts the equality of opportunity, and is subversive to justice. Thus "social justice" is exactly opposite of "justice"
@the1000man That's actually quite funny, seeing as how I am not only certified to teach secondary Social Science, I have also received the endorsement of two different Ph.D. professors at my local university. They both believe I should be going for my Ph.D. to teach as one of their colleagues.
See, I know my own credentials on this subject. You do not know my credentials. You just stuck your foot in your own mouth.
he is brilliant guy without a doubt
MadMax82043 1 day ago
I was unaware justice had so many different,politicaly derived, interpretations.
Pomiferous 1 week ago
And aside from the semantics, do you think the Pope has a left-wing agenda? I'm expecting you might say yes, so my second question, do you think Prager would say the Pope has a left-wing agenda? I doubt it.
mukome 2 months ago
crusky, don't you think Prager's point about the word structure isn't as profound as it might have appeared at first, before thinking about it?
Don't you think the way he describes the word structure is actually just a compound word, and that people of all political persuasions do it, I just gave Bush as an example, but don't you think it's common all throughout conservatism? Doesn't everyone string words together into phrases?
mukome 2 months ago
Prager is not telling the truth about social justice. The term is actually quite mainstream. Pope Benedict for example uses the term.
Benedict has also used the term "distributive justice". GASP! Which exposes the lie, yes the lie, that the idea of redistribution means Communism. That simply isn't true. I'm sure Prager would not call the Pope a Communist.
mukome 3 months ago
@mukome I don't believe that he states that social justice isn't mainstream. He is talking about the addition of words to terms like justice being an indication of an agenda. That has nothing to do with with whether social justice is mainstream. Your criticism is therefore irrelevant.
crusky 2 months ago
@crusky No, I wasn't talking about Prager's semantic argument. Obviously people who talk about social justice have an agenda. Their agenda is social justice. And yes, there is an element of equality there. That's not even a meaningful assertion, it's just semantics, it's the definition of the term.
The part I'm disputing is Prager's suggestion that equality is a controversial goal. The suggestion that equality means TOTAL equality. Not true. Social justice means MORE equality, not TOTAL.
mukome 2 months ago
@mukome You misunderstanding my objection. Your original comment addresses a point that Prager never made. You also seem to miss greater point that the "agenda" that says adding adjectives indicates is a left wing agenda. For example, the term social justice is simply a nicer veneer to a leftist agenda. You may agree with that agenda, but why the need to obfuscate it. That's what Prager is talking about.
crusky 2 months ago
@crusky oh yes another brilliant aphorism that holds up until you think about it for about 3 seconds. I guess compassionate conservatism "indicated" that Bush had a left-wing agenda.
mukome 2 months ago
@mukome Bush's compassionate conservatism wasn't conservative and the fact that he tried to obfuscate his agenda with a nice sounding word is not conservative either. The need to hide or re-brand an agenda is the domain of the left not the right. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. Also, you still need to address the wider issue of the need to hide an agenda behind a veneer.
crusky 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"There are "cars", but there are not "sports cars" or "red cars". The adjectives "sports" and "red" are agenda-driven. "Red cars" have nothing to do with cars, and distorts the automotive ideal that motivates car-lovers."
You obviously did not listen very carefully; the adjective "red" or "sports" is not being placed in front of a value based noun, unless you care to demonstrate how "car" is valus based....
100bare 3 months ago
There are "cars", but there are not "sports cars" or "red cars". The adjectives "sports" and "red" are agenda-driven. "Red cars" have nothing to do with cars, and distorts the automotive ideal that motivates car-lovers.
the1000man 3 months ago
@the1000man Wow, seriously?
You can't see how the term "social justice" taken as a whole, means exactly the opposite of "regular justice"? This is Orwellian Double-speak, using our own language and words against us.
eagleeye1975 3 months ago
@eagleeye1975 I am serious. How is a theory of justice that includes equal access, equal opportunity and (at least somewhat) equal distribution of wealth somehow NOT a type of justice?
the1000man 3 months ago
@the1000man Equal opportunity and equal distribution of wealth are mutually exclusive ideals.
If you have equal opportunity, and do well, only to have to give your excess to those who did not do as well with their own equal opportunity, you don't truly have an equal opportunity. To take from those who have earned it subverts the equality of opportunity, and is subversive to justice. Thus "social justice" is exactly opposite of "justice"
eagleeye1975 3 months ago
@eagleeye1975 I dare you to actually read a book on justice, whether it's a law book or a philosophy book or a political book.
the1000man 3 months ago
@the1000man That's actually quite funny, seeing as how I am not only certified to teach secondary Social Science, I have also received the endorsement of two different Ph.D. professors at my local university. They both believe I should be going for my Ph.D. to teach as one of their colleagues.
See, I know my own credentials on this subject. You do not know my credentials. You just stuck your foot in your own mouth.
eagleeye1975 3 months ago