- 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 11:02 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Having an ASL interpreter at presidential addresses
Eh, maybe. I think forcing us to bend over for others has the unintended consequence of assimilation issues.
Take my wife for instance. She is Yugoslavian and came as a refugee in the 90's. Did not know a lick of English. She and all of her friends are very fluent and have assimilated very successfully. As a whole, these ex-refugees do not like it when immigrants do not assimilate. They know it leads to disaster for a nation. They see that we make it too easy for people not to assimilate.
Are they right? History would say lack of assimilation does in fact lead to the downfall of nations.
Also, think of how many interpreters we would need to cover every language represented here. I mean, yeah it would be very entertaining to watch, but very impractical.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:09 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Yes, you are right. We do want that. That is exactly freedom of association and high trust.
I don't know whether America is generally a high-trust society or whether I just happen to experience a lot of high-trust interactions. My own experiences have mostly been positive.
But I can think of so many examples of high trust society behaviors/occurrences. Like that neighbor's dog - I don't even know them. I think i spoke to her once in August at like 6:00 am. But I still returned her dog to her gated in porch with a bowl of water a couple of weeks ago.
Years ago, I was walking my dogs.. I was holding my son who was a baby at the time, and I dropped one of the leashes. The dog took off and got hit by a car. A man (perfect stranger) took of his shirt, picked up my dog, wrapped my dog in his shirt, and walked with me back to my house, holding the dog. He was a black man, too. I think he was an angel, really. I never saw him again, which is unusual for my neighborhood. Anyway, that's high trust society behavior, right?
Last weekend, I was outside and a kid was walking by. He asked me if we still used a bicycle that was in the alley next to our house. I told him we did, then I thought about it and asked my son if he still wanted his bike (that still has training wheels and he hadn't ridden in years). He said if someone else wanted it, they could have it. So I went back outside and hollered at the kid. He said he wanted to borrow the bike to ride to the pool to see if it was open. I got some tools to take off the training wheels and then my neighbor down the street came with is tools and we got the training wheels off and inflated the tires. I told the kid to just bring the bike later. He was a black 15 year old boy and he did bring the bike back.
But, my car was stolen from my driveway in 2023.
IDK, am I in a high-trust bubble in a low-trust society? Or do we actually have mostly a high-trust society with random bad occurrences? This is obviously a different direction from where the thread started, but still relevant.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:20 am to JimEverett
quote:Really? I haven't read anything like this. He isn't actually concerned with outcomes in anything I've read, only opportunities or advantages and disadvantages.
Rawls conception of economic justice focuses on the economic distribution of wealth at any given moment in time.
quote:That's like saying their would be an ideal distribution of beauty or intelligence. That's not how I've understood Rawls. I haven't read him as arguing for an ideal distribution of wealth or equal economic outcomes. In fact, his Difference Principle permits substantial inequality provided the inequalities work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. His concern seems to be with the fair distribution of opportunities and primary goods, not with everyone ending up equally wealthy.
Given this, there would be an ideal distribution of wealth - this is what justice demands.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:25 am to 4cubbies
quote:Yes.
do you think justice can ever justify differential treatment in order to achieve fair participation?
But "ever" is an awfully wide-ranging adverb.
The cautionary is our best intentions can produce untoward results.
A classic example occurs with affirmative action hurting Black students who attain a position on strict merit, yet getting perceived as DEI beneficiaries.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 11:27 am
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:43 am to UtahCajun
quote:
They see that we make it too easy for people not to assimilate.
We celebrate individual autonomy and "leave me alone" values, yet we also expect newcomers to adopt a shared American identity-- that they must pick up on their own because don't you dare expect ME (proverbial ME) to teach an immigrant anything about America.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:46 am to 4cubbies
quote:
yet we also expect newcomers to adopt a shared American identity
Correct.
If you don’t want to be American, don’t come to America.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 11:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:True. But people regularly also hold biased assumptions about qualified candidates regardless of policies.
The cautionary is our best intentions can produce untoward results.
A classic example occurs with affirmative action hurting Black students who attain a position on strict merit, yet getting perceived as DEI beneficiaries.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:01 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
he's been following me from thread to thread since April of last year because I lumped Trayvon Martin in with unjustified police killings. 15 months of his schtick and you're complaining about me.
Still haven’t said you were wrong. Still haven’t admitted you were wrong about Sandra bland. Still haven’t admitted that trying to use a 100 year old LA constitution to say why something that is legal under the current constitution is actually illegal.
All you have to do is say “I was wrong” why can’t you do that?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:06 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
wheelchair ramps are a form of justice
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:10 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Access is justice.
I demand justice. It is absolutely unjust that I don’t have access to yacht row at Monaco.
No justice no peace!
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:20 pm to 4cubbies
The argument is not that his conception of justice demands that evetyone be equal in outcomes, its that his conception of justice requires, as you say:
quote:. There is a pattern of distribution that justice requires. The Chamberlain example isnt litetal, its just a simple attack on that aspect of Rawls' concept of a distributive pattern being necessary for justice. I dont think the founders would agree either with a cettain pattern being necessary, given what I wrote earlier.
His concern seems to be with the fair distribution of . . . primary goods
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:22 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I view justice in a much broader sense than limiting it to our penal or legal system.
You shouldn't.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:27 pm to moneyg
quote:
wheelchair ramps are a form of justice
Repeal the 19th.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Access is justice. Wheelchair ramps are not merely the removal of an injustice— wheelchair ramps are a form of justice.
This reads like a textbook example of a social indoctrination narrative that people have learned to regurgitate.
It sounded good didn’t it?
Throughout human history becoming mobility impaired was a way of life that people adapted to as a form of overcoming it. The concept has been for individuals to capitalize on their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses.
Being mobility impaired has been a handicap, not a form of injustice. It hasn’t been until the last decade where social narratives have adjusted to influence outcomes by using the kind of linguistic gymnastics you just used to advance social outcomes.
The idea of justice has been bastardized to pursue a desire to correct so much perceived unfairness in society beyond wrongs caused by people against other people (traditional concepts of justice), but also different outcomes (“inequalities”) arising from circumstances like birth, talent, or family background.
To answer your original question, the framers identified justice very differently from how modern educational institutions attempt to define it. The framers identified it as a protection of rights through the rule of law, rather than pursuing the equalization of wealth or social outcomes (as you and modern educational institutions do).
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:34 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I dont think the founders would agree either with a cettain pattern being necessary, given what I wrote earlier.
Would you say the Founders' answer was that political advantages should be distributed democratically rather than inherited? They rejected monarchy precisely because birth shouldn't determine who governs. That seems like an attempt to distribute at least one kind of social advantage according to a principle of fairness rather than lineage.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:41 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:Can you explain this? You don't think anyone would come up with the idea that accessing opportunities is justice without a textbook indoctrinating them? Who would have indoctrinated the writer of the textbook?
This reads like a textbook example of a social indoctrination narrative that people have learned to regurgitate.
quote:The injustice isn't requiring a wheelchair. The injustice is not being able to vote, enter a courthouse, or attend school because the building cannot accommodate a wheelchair.
Being mobility impaired has been a handicap, not a form of injustice.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 12:53 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm more interested in whether the principles they articulated can be applied to circumstances they couldn't have anticipated
You're skirting around the question- do you believe the founders would have been in favor of spending government resources/redistributing wealth to make things more fair for perceived to be disadvantaged groups?
Posted on 7/21/26 at 1:14 pm to BuckeyeGoon
Probably not. Given their views on limited government and taxation, I doubt most of the framers would have supported the level of taxation or federal authority necessary for large-scale redistribution of wealth.
No one argued for that in this thread anyway.
No one argued for that in this thread anyway.
Posted on 7/21/26 at 1:23 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Or do we actually have mostly a high-trust society with random bad occurrences?
I would like to think that this is true. I would also like to think that it is not getting worse. The algorithm says it is getting worse no matter what side of whatever issue you are on. Good thing tigerdroppings is the only version of social media I am on. Even here though...lots of rage bait.
Really enjoyed the personal stories BTW. But yes, all are examples of high trust social interactions.
This post was edited on 7/21/26 at 1:25 pm
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News