Dennis Prager - Social Justice

From the David Horowitz Retreat Weekend.
http://www.davidhorowitztv.com/retreat/2011

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Dennis
• Prager
• Social
• Justice

[mukome]

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]

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?

[crusky]

@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.

[mukome]

@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.

[crusky]

@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.

[mukome]

@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.

[crusky]

@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.

[mukome]

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.

[eagleeye1975]

@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.

[the1000man]

@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.