4 ms·
The social justic argument is that this is explicitly not true and reforms are neccesary to make it more true: “most people are equal before the law, do have eq
by germinalphrase 5y ago
The social justic argument is that this is explicitly not true and reforms are neccesary to make it more true: “most people are equal before the law, do have equal chances, do get equal treatment”.
- inglor_cz 5y agoBut this argument often rests on inequality of observable outcomes.
- germinalphrase 5y agoWhich would be logical evidence if - for instance - laws were selectively enforced.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThis evidence is far from iron-clad, though. Especially its real meaning. It is like seeing a red spot on a table. Is it strawberry jam? Is it blood? Is it result of someone injecting insulin? Is it the only evidence of a murder?
- dcow 5y agoYes you are echoing the GP not contesting it.
- germinalphrase 5y agoI’m not addressing the GP. The parent comment asserts that social equality has been achieved and the social justice movement (as a monolithic group) wants more than equality in opportunity, they want equality in outcomes. I’m merely saying that the initial assumption the parent makes is believed to be incorrect by the social justice movement (that equality of opportunity has been achieved). But all opinions under the sun are available at our fingertips, so if we judge those who disagree with us by the most extreme of their similars, we’re not going to throw much light on these issues.