- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 7/21/26 at 5:11 am to 4cubbies
quote:It depends on the "justice" being promoted.
Preventing injustice and promoting justice aren’t mutually exclusive concepts.
E.g., A prevention of injustice might entail elimination of access barriers to places, goods, or services regardless of race. Whereas promotion of justice might entail affirmative action ... even at the expense of possible injustice to individuals displaced by the action.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 6:14 am to NC_Tigah
Access is justice. Wheelchair ramps are not merely the removal of an injustice— wheelchair ramps are a form of justice.
Likewise, proponents of Affirmative Action also view that as removing barriers/injustice.
Advocates of nearly every conception of justice believe they’re remedying an injustice. The disagreement isn’t between ‘promoting justice’ and ‘preventing injustice’; it’s over what justice actually entails.
Likewise, proponents of Affirmative Action also view that as removing barriers/injustice.
Advocates of nearly every conception of justice believe they’re remedying an injustice. The disagreement isn’t between ‘promoting justice’ and ‘preventing injustice’; it’s over what justice actually entails.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 6:24 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
It's just not driven by justice or social responsibility. It's driven by the inherent human need for community and the mutual self-interest afforded those who create it.
Community without social responsibility is Lord of the Flies.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 6:31 am to 4cubbies
quote:Right. That is the point. But in some instances promoting justice, and preventing injustice, can stand as contradistinct.
it’s over what justice actually entails.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 6:53 am to stuntman
quote:
We understand that voluntary cooperation is a fantastic thing for society. We are social beings, and the more that's allowed to flourish and not curtailed or disincentivized, the better off we'll be.
This may be true, but humans are irrational and self-interested. We can’t help but prioritize our own comfort and glory over the comfort or glory of anyone else. I think your framing of taxation exemplifies that.
quote:
Think about it like this; If you're right about how dystopian that kind of society would be, why would you want that very same society picking and choosing who gets to run the monopoly on force, which is government?
I hear you, but what is the alternative? Hoping your neighbor or some random person from the next neighborhood would help you fend off foreign invaders?
quote:would allowing an orphaned infant to starve be moral?
But if I rob my neighbor to pay for my nephew's lunch money, is that moral?
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 8:56 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 6:55 am to NC_Tigah
I think that only happens because there’s no consensus on what justice is. Or what purpose the pursuit of justice should serve
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 6:57 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 7:04 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Community without social responsibility is Lord of the Flies.
Tribal conflict, or human history, in other words.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 7:15 am to 4cubbies
The Framers would be marching for that clerk of court guy that was going to fund your program
Posted on 7/21/26 at 7:20 am to 4cubbies
So again, nothing?
Coward
Coward
Posted on 7/21/26 at 7:24 am to 4cubbies
quote:
would allowing an orphaned infant to starve be moral?
Would killing the same orphan in utero be moral?
When people make up their own morals, pretty much anything goes.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:21 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I’m curious what they would think justice is as it relates to pubic education
They would most certainly deem it unjust for the incompetent boobs in today’s teaching profession to receive paychecks.
quote:
or redistricting
No doubt, a district that slithers from Shreveport to Zoo Orleans like a Chinese dragon would be deemed unjust.
quote:
Citizens United.
Corporation are (juridical) people too, separate and distinct from their owners and employees. Thus, they have 1A rights, among others.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:35 am to 4cubbies
quote:Move to Utah and lose the URL for tigerdroppings. We all win and you will be happy, happy, happy! Now wait, is this just multiple wives or threesomes?
My dream!
Lmk when you’re ready to found a colony. I’ve been in the market for a sister wife since I got married.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:36 am to 4cubbies
quote:Again their thinking would vary.
I’m curious what they would think justice is as it relates to pubic education
I would suspect those in favor of public education would be appalled at lack of school choice, but that's just a guess
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:42 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
I would suspect those in favor of public education would be appalled at lack of school choice,
If we look at in historical context, school choice wouldn't be a possibility.
ETA due to limitations in transportation
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 8:44 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:50 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Tribal conflict, or human history, in other words.
Nailed it.
Rawls acknowledges that a just society depends on citizens operating with what he calls a willingness to be reasonable-- that citizens are prepared to propose and abide by fair terms of social cooperation, even while pursuing their own interests.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 8:52 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Would killing the same orphan in utero be moral?
Of course not, but that's not the same as a community or society allowing an infant to starve to death.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:03 am to beerJeep
quote:
So again, nothing? Coward
If everyone hasn't figured out her shtick, it's deflect, divert, and selectively ignore. That's why her threads go on for 40 plus pages.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 9:04 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:08 am to 4cubbies
quote:
How did the framers understand or define justice?
quote:
4cubbies
quote:
Obviously he wrote long after the framers lived. So how did they understand justice?
The equal application of the law.
quote:
In Thomas Jefferson's first inaugural address, he famously said “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political...”
What did he think justice is?
Equal application of the law. It's not hard.
quote:
What does America think justice is now?
Equal application of the law.
quote:
For as much as the word is thrown around in this country, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what it really means.
This may be true for this new breed of morally deranged Democrats. Our laws are based on Judea-Christian principles of morality. So a group of people who reject those principles, and who reject our established laws as well may have a hard time figuring out what "justice" means.
quote:
We mostly use it to describe our penal system, but shouldn't a moral society, including its institutions, be centered around justice?
What is your definition of justice?
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 9:09 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 9:10 am to McLemore
Lou Rawls?
Page 7 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News