Messages

False Dichotomy: you asked about socially unjust laws. The crime rate can fall through an unfair mechanism, and still be unjust.

Example: Jailing all the homeless people would result in homelessness being "solved".

That's totally true.

That's the problem. How to get the one without doing the other (and without all the emotional hand-wringing).

On the other hand, there are some who disagree who one might think have more advanced credentials.

http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2012/aug/03/steve-doell/has-measure-11-really-helped-halve-crime-rate-1995/

Not because I have any feeling for offenders.

It's wrong not only because of the justice issue, but more importantly, because it's ultimately not effective.

You should stop talking.

Are you presenting a utilitarian argument? Because if you are, I'd agree.

I'm not sure what's wrong with equal treatment under the law.

Nothing wrong with it. I wish some polity would try it one these days. But, as a matter of fact, the actual laws also matter, as kind people have been trying to explain to you.

Specifically, which statutes?

Measure 11
137.700

Those are the first two unjust laws that come to mind, but maybe you can think of others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_11_(1994)

After reading the reports on the measure, I'd have to agree.

Shifting the burden from judges to prosecutors and letting prosecutors use the threat of measure 11 to get plea bargains strikes me as unjust. More importantly, though it doesn't deal with the root issues driving various kinds of crimes.

I'm saying this from a purely practical stand-point. Not because I have any feeling for offenders.

It's wrong not only because of the justice issue, but more importantly, because it's ultimately not effective.

I'm not sure what's wrong with equal treatment under the law.

Nothing wrong with it. I wish some polity would try it one these days. But, as a matter of fact, the actual laws also matter, as kind people have been trying to explain to you.

Specifically, which statutes?

I'm not sure what's wrong with equal treatment under the law.

When I think of social justice, I think of it in the general sense. That all people should be allowed equal treatment under the law, whether these be considered "just laws" or "unjust laws". If all people are treated the same the the laws of the land, then in my view "social justice" has taken place.

Then you do not believe in social justice and are in fact a shitlord.

Is it a religion, that I have to believe?

I suppose a clarification would be in order. Certainly the use of the word "unjust" or "socially unjust" can and should go down the rabbit hole. First a person has to explain what it is they mean when they speak of justice and argue for that, after which they can argue how and and in which manner this applies to groups.

Define our terms.

When I think of social justice, I think of it in the general sense. That all people should be allowed equal treatment under the law, whether these be considered "just laws" or "unjust laws". If all people are treated the same the the laws of the land, then in my view "social justice" has taken place.

I don't think of social justice in terms of equal outcomes, because we are not equal in our capabilities, nor in our starting points.

So when I ask for examples of social injustice, I'm asking for examples where people are not treated equally under the law.

I know of none in my locality.

Do impossible thoughts exist or are they only imagined to exist such that we imagine the existence of an impossible thought and think we are thinking about it when we are in point of fact not thinking about it at all?

Define "exist".

Exist - Having the boundary condition of non-existence

Do impossible thoughts exist or are they only imagined to exist such that we imagine the existence of an impossible thought and think we are thinking about it when we are in point of fact not thinking about it at all?

Done wasting my time on you.  Good day.

Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.

Good way to make a first impression.

They are my people and I am their king.

Now I applaud that response. Please tell me that was a real sycophant, and not your left hand in another forum sock-puppet.

Done wasting my time on you.  Good day.

Like I suspected. You'd rather waste your time bloviating to sycophants, and I failed the sycophant test.

I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.

I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

That was a bunch of ass.

What's that supposed to mean?

First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in Manos, The Hands of Fate.

Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative."  Then I closed the tab.

So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.

Good to know.

Oh, you're RP.

What's "RP"?

I suspect that since what appears to be the demographic of those who virtue signal the most, namely those who come from affluent, sheltered backgrounds, this capitalistic enterprise of competition for "virtue" at the least cost in terms of actual action is rational.

I heard someone else refer to it as "oppression poker".

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

That was a bunch of ass.

What's that supposed to mean?

First I had to wait longer for anything to happen than I did in Manos, The Hands of Fate.

Then it was a bad cartoon, like something you'd find on "The Comical Conservative."  Then I closed the tab.

So you have a bad internet connection, you have an attention span of a flea and like so many these days, you lack an appreciation of spot-on satire.

Good to know.