Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington

February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Those of us who believe in truth, virtue and “justice” (unadorned with the modifier “social”) are inimical to the “social justice” movement. So says this UN report:

“Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations, The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, Division for Social Policy and Development, The International Forum for Social Development, 2006, 2-3

Comments

KF @ 192: Excellent analysis... as usual.Truth Will Set You Free_{March 14, 2019
March
03
Mar
14
14
2019
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

ES58, cell clumping under predatory pressure is now a multicellular organism? That sounds a tad desperate. KFkairosfocus_{February 24, 2019
February
02
Feb
24
24
2019
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

OT: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-witnessed-in-real-time-a-single-celled-algae-evolve-into-a-multicellular-organismes58_{February 24, 2019
February
02
Feb
24
24
2019
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

BB, I suspect that, rather, the culture was one of if I can take it, I will. Where, you have to guard and defend, leading to the culture of feuds and inter-tribal warfare that is massively reported. What happened is, diseases that were hitherto unknown spread far and wide, creating devastation, and you had settlements by a fresh set of "tribes." Tribes that had superior mobility, firepower and the manpower to back that. In North America three distinct patterns emerged: the Hispanic, the Anglo and the Canadian. KF PS: Cf. 210 above ff.kairosfocus_{February 24, 2019
February
02
Feb
24
24
2019
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

For the record- I brought up reality. The Europeans did NOT have any property rights in the Americas. What they took they took by force and enforced with more force. Their "rights" were in their might, an no more.ET_{February 24, 2019
February
02
Feb
24
24
2019
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

KF@245, it was ET who brought up land grabs, not me. When the Europeans invaded, they often punished the native americans for violating propert rights (eg. Stealing) , propert rights that they had no concept of.Brother Brian_{February 23, 2019
February
02
Feb
23
23
2019
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian is nothing more than a quote-mining troll.ET_{February 23, 2019
February
02
Feb
23
23
2019
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

BB, pardon but largely unresponsive -- especially given the exchanges that orbited around the Amerindians and land in what became and now is the USA (which has First Nations in it as effectively associated states). I have shown why legitimate ownership is a key rights principle, antecedent to the state. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2019
February
02
Feb
23
23
2019
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

KF
BB, I am not talking about landed property,...
Neither was I.Brother Brian_{February 23, 2019
February
02
Feb
23
23
2019
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

BB, I am not talking about landed property, but about the principle of legitimate ownership -- mine vs thine, in which context theft arises as unjustly depriving the legitimate owner of his or her rights in what is owned by force, fraud or stealth. My food, my toothbrush, my pencil, my bow and arrows, my flint knife, my innocent reputation even. We can even see murder as robbing someone of their life. Rape, similarly, can be seen as a theft. Seduction, under certain circumstances is much the same. So, legitimate ownership, property is at core a right at the level of right to life. And, it is antecedent to the state and its laws however passed into effect. In the context of land, in putting on the table that native americans were robbed by whites, that implies that they had a legitimate property in the land they roamed or occupied collectively. This is the context of many deals whereby land was purchased (where disputes on justice of the price given the there-then status raise the same questions). Where, too, in a context of de facto micro-states holding implicit property by not just first settlement and the time immemorial claim but by conquest, that another stronger party enters that system changes the status. And where there were atrocities targetting especially women and children, that multiplied the complexity as violation of such persons triggers the natural conflict of clans known as feuds. So, we have now got a history of many lands globally held by settlement and by conquest, some bought, some brought under protection by stronger powers. Then, after two world wars we have had to refound the international order on principles of peace not conquest and power. Going back on targetted cases without examining the wider system then becomes, too often, the agit-prop of delegitimisation. KFkairosfocus_{February 23, 2019
February
02
Feb
23
23
2019
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

ET
No, you obviously do not understand what he is saying.
That is quite possible. Enlighten me.Brother Brian_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
He is obviosly wring about property rights being anywhere close to being a fundamental inherent human right.
No, you obviously do not understand what he is saying.ET_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

I only opened the discussion on property right because KF listed this as one of the core human rights that are inherent in our humanness. He is obviosly wring about property rights being anywhere close to being a fundamental inherent human right. How is he certain that he is not wrong about any of the others. The one that jumps to mind is the right of innocent reputation. Obviously none of us wants our reputation to be marred. But surely a reputation is something that is earned, not something that is granted as a right simply because you are human.Brother Brian_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

H, the theme is relevant and cases that come up should be tied to it. KFkairosfocus_{February 22, 2019
February
02
Feb
22
22
2019
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT}

For the record, after 237 posts, very few threads are still on topic. As far as I can tell, the thread got into abortion about post 100, and you first mentioned property rights in 210.hazel_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Contrast Canada, and note New Zealand. But all of this is so tangential it isn't funny. The main point is very valid, from the OP.kairosfocus_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray:
It was essentially a might makes right system. If we can steal your property, kill you or run you off your land and take it, and we decide to, that’s how inter-tribal property rights were adjudicated.
Excuse me but you just described the European model for colonization. Heck, Rome did. The Persians and Greeks before them. It was "the way" to spread the righteous views of your society and make those other people better. It is therefore ironic, that to get to "the better legally binding argument" they had to "steal your property, kill you or run you off your land and take it". Genocide for the "better way". End times, indeed...ET_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Guns, horses and then sheer numbers. Yes, absolutely the natives did not grasp land ownership the way the Europeans did. But the only reason the Europeans got away with pushing their concepts onto the natives is because the natives only choice was to fight back. Which they did. But they were, guess what? Outgunned.ET_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Being indigenous to an area grants one inherent property rights? How big an area? If it is not embedded in contractual law, how exactly were those rights adjudicated in relationship to other tribes? Ohhhh.... that's right. It was essentially a might makes right system. If we can steal your property, kill you or run you off your land and take it, and we decide to, that's how inter-tribal property rights were adjudicated. It seems to me that, based on the system that existed before they arrived, Europeans brought the better legally binding argument.William J Murray_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

Agree, ET: It was a brute force conquest. But the fact that Europeans believed they had the right to lay claim to specific tracts of lands, which was a concept foreign to the Native Americans, was part of the situation.hazel_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

hazel, If the Europeans didn't have guns they would not have been able to take the land, let alone keep it. Guns led to the conquest of AmericaET_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Hmmm, Ed. Naive Americans had no concept of "owning the land". Europeans believed in land ownership, and had no problem in claiming ownership of land and then claiming the right to keep the Native Americans of it. It does seem to me that differences in beliefs about property rights was a factor in the European conquest of North America.hazel_{February 21, 2019
February
02
Feb
21
21
2019
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

ET, I agree with you. Property rights had nothing to do with it.Ed George_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

ET, we are dealing with the era of the distorting media and linked failure of sound worldviews thought for generations. We know a lot less than we imagine, and have a lot to unlearn before we can learn. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

LoL! @ Brother Brian- Their concepts of property rights had NOTHING to do with the Europeans taking the land for themselves. And you lied about "stand your ground". Support what you say. I don't have the patience to correct your every post. But I will keep doing so if required.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Touché- to kairosfocus @225ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

ET
Brother Brian, May I suggest you shut up or make a valid point.
I made my point quite clearly. If you want to do a little research to understand the concept of property rights that the indigenous peoples had, or you can continue to throw insults. But don’t expect me to spoon feed you. I don’t have the patience.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

BB, core rights may be violated, but they are not taken away. That is, the injustice precisely is the violation of the right. KFkairosfocus_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian, May I suggest you shut up or make a valid point.ET_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

ET
Property rights are useless if there isn’t any way to enforce them.
And they mean even less when those you are buying/negotiating propert from don’t have the same concept of propert ownership as you do. Again, may I suggest that you do some reading before you respond.Brother Brian_{February 20, 2019
February
02
Feb
20
20
2019
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply