Social Justice Warriors to Believers in Truth: Drop Dead

_{Barry Arrington
February 6, 2019

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

H: Truth is not equal to the contents of a belief system. Truth is aptly summed up by Aristotle in Metaphysics 1011b: that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. Where, absolute truth on a matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Further, one of our prime known duties and laws of our nature is to truth, including to humility in the face of truth. Those who deny the reality of truth, knowable truth, certainly knowable truth [a restricted set], self-evident truth [even more restricted] end in self-referential incoherence. KFkairosfocus_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PST}

Brother Brian said:
If I had the power to do so, absolutely.
Why? Meaning, what is your reasoning and justification for using force to make oppressors stop their oppression?
Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you force a stop to honor killings, female circumcision, vaginal narrowing, not allowing women to go out alone without a male family member, the death penalty for blasphemy, etc. ? Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth. Or would you allow them to continue because the people doing these things believe that they are protected by religions freedom?
I think we should work our way through one view at a time. I'll be happy to revisit this after we explore your perspective, if that's okay with you.William J Murray_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PST}

WJM's question went over their heads I think. To put it as simply as possible, when defined as it has been throughout these comments, the interlocutors seem to think that using OPRESSION to stop what they personally deem as OPPRESSION based on personal preference is just fine. By their own definition: Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must. And their solution is to move the oppression to the less popular group: If I had the power to do so, absolutely. Wouldn’t you? And all this based on personal preference. It is textbook might makes right. Without absolute truth, how do you get to a point where you can say anything other than "I FEEL like my oppression is better than your oppression."? You have nothing to ground your argument other than "I think that is icky or repulsive to me, so even though it is normal to you, you shouldn't do it because it upsets me." I am not defending these practices at all, they are against my belief system and absolutely abhorrent to me, but I am seriously curious as to how this incoherence in responses can continue here. The arguments need to be based on what should be some universal constant or it devolves into a battle of opinion between two oppressors. The why is more important here than the what, otherwise there is no hope for actually explaining or making a coherent argument for or against the position. SJW's in general seem to have this problem. It all just seems hypocritical to me. Fascists claiming to fight fascism, SJW's using oppression to fight oppression. It is very silly.mjoels_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PST}

Whatever, Brian. You couldn't form a coherent argument if you life depended on it.ET_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PST}

WJM
If you could force everyone to stop oppressing women, would you?
If I had the power to do so, absolutely. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you force a stop to honor killings, female circumcision, vaginal narrowing, not allowing women to go out alone without a male family member, the death penalty for blasphemy, etc. ? Or would you continue to allow these because the people who do this believe in absolute truth. Or would you allow them to continue because the people doing these things believe that they are protected by religions freedom? ET
Do any of our opponents know how to form a coherent argument? It seems that they do not.
Your irony always makes me smile. :)Brother Brian_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PST}

Brother Brian:
Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must.
So parenting is oppression? Really?
And it is an absolute truth that some of these oppressions are Imposed by people who believe in absolute truth.
Question-begging. Do any of our opponents know how to form a coherent argument? It seems that they do not...ET_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PST}

Brother Brian said:
Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do. Women and men have different biologies and, as a result, have different limitations. Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must.
I don't know where you got that definition from, but let's just accept it as the definition of the term arguendo and see where it goes.
It is an absolute truth that some women are oppressed. Menstrual isolation. Female circumcision. Forced marriage. Career limitations. Lower salaries. And hundreds of other examples. And it is an absolute truth that some of these oppressions are Imposed by people who believe in absolute truth. And many women accept this oppression because they also believe in absolute truth.
For the time being, let's just accept all of what you say above without any sorting out or challenge and see if you will answer the following question: If you could force everyone to stop oppressing women, would you?William J Murray_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST}

Mike1962 - I'm with you on that. It's an example of the observation that committees are where good ideas go to die. They get drowned in guff like the sentence Barry quoted.Bob O'H_{February 7, 2019
February
02
Feb
7
07
2019
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PST}

WJM@23, Ed obviously is not willing to wallow in the sewer with the rats, but I worked in a sewage plant for over ten years so the stench doesn’t bother me. :)
I guess that depends on how one defines “oppressed”. If by “oppressed” you mean “forced to do something”, then we’re all oppressed, because there are things we are all forced to do or else face the consequences others would impose on us. What would be the principle you are using to discriminate a case of “oppression” from other cases where we are forced to do things we may not want to?
Oppressed is being forced to do something that everyone else is not forced to do. Women and men have different biologies and, as a result, have different limitations. Oppression is when an identifiable group is forced to do something because another identifiable group says they must. Ed is correct. It is an absolute truth that some women are oppressed. Menstrual isolation. Female circumcision. Forced marriage. Career limitations. Lower salaries. And hundreds of other examples. And it is an absolute truth that some of these oppressions are Imposed by people who believe in absolute truth. And many women accept this oppression because they also believe in absolute truth. I had a recent conversation with KF where I argued that it was a good thing that we confront discrimination (and oppression) that is justified by religious freedom. He argued that doing this is leading to the downfall of civilization. But I doubt very much that he would defend female circumcision, honour killings, polygamy and other things that are justified by religious freedom. But he doesn’t question the discriminations that his flavor of religion justifies. If WJM can’t accept the fact that two people can’t believe in absolute truth yet disagree in what that truth is then his problem is not with Ed or Hazel, it is with reality.Brother Brian_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PST}

Ed and Hazel, distracted by their own irrelevant side stories, abandoned the thread without even addressing the point of the post: Social justice warriors (SJW's) want nothing to do with social justice defenders (SJD's) who believe in social justice principles (SJP's). In other words, SJW's, the political partisans in question, demand justice only for themselves and their allies - defined as their personal self interest - ignoring the point that social justice means giving to *all* people what is due to them.StephenB_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PST}

As an aside, having skimmed through the Social Justice in an Open World The Role of the United Nations publication (2016 revision), I have to say that 1) it's written by the dullest of committee types, who seem who have little grasp of the economic dirt realities of nations. And 2) if someone compelled me to sit around and listen to such a committee yammer on, I would undoubtedly feel compelled to shoot myself in the head.mike1962_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PST}

My bad, vivid. It was vhumana that mentioned fighting. But I'm still leaving, and my post at 28 stands.hazel_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST}

Hazel “Vivd, I didn’t even know we were fighting about anything. I think I’ll retire from this conversation” What a strange comment,I’m not fighting with anyone certainly not you. I just found your response very odd and disingenuous. I will let the readers decide for themselves. To paraphrase “Vivid I don’t understand your question but my answer to it is no” Furthermore my question in 7 seems pretty straight forward and hard to misunderstand. Vividvividbleau_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PST}

If there are no absolute truths, why is oppressing women (or gays, blacks, Jews, you name it) a bad thing? I mean, you may not like it, but so what?anthropic_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PST}

It seems the UN, being the ultimate arbiters of 'social justice' that they fancy themselves to be, have a fairly uneven method of detecting human rights violations.
UN to condemn Israel 9 times, rest of the world 0 https://www.unwatch.org/un-condemn-israel-9-times-rest-world-0/ Hatred of Israel prompts a UN official to discuss action against the Jewish state - 2019 If Lynk’s denunciation of Israel was just the sentiment of one hate-filled U.N. official that would be bad enough. But in truth, Lynk’s threat of international action to possibly suspend or even expel Israel from the U.N., isolate it, and cut off trade and investment is just one in a long list of examples of how the U.N. has targeted Israel for decades with hatred, discrimination, prejudice and absurd lies. This is truly bullying of a small nation on an international scale. U.N. officials have not threatened to suspend or revoke membership of North Korea, which imprisons people in slave-labor camps. They have not tried to boot out Syria, where a ruthless dictator has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a civil war in the past seven years. Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine and Georgia and annexed Crimea, but remains a member of the powerful U.N. Security Council. Iran – which deprives its citizens of basic human rights, supports terrorism, sends fighters to wage war in neighboring countries, and would love to get nuclear weapons – does not face threats of being kicked out of the U.N. But Israel is targeted for more condemnation than any other country. This is despite the fact that Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East, governed by an elected prime minister and parliament; a country with an independent court system, free expression and other human rights that are guaranteed to all; and – not coincidentally – the only Jewish nation on Earth. And Israel – a country where Jews have lived for 3,000 years – is absurdly branded the “occupier” of the ancient homeland of the Jewish people. Israel is a tiny country one-twentieth the size of California. It faces 200,000 rockets and terrorist attacks from Hezbollah in the north and from Hamas in the south. And it hears daily threats from the fanatic rulers of Iran to wipe the Jewish state off the map – and the Iranians are serious about this murderous goal. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hatred-of-israel-prompts-a-un-official-to-discuss-action-against-the-jewish-state
Perhaps such blatant hypocrisy by the UN is why so many people in the US want America to stop supporting the UN?bornagain77_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PST}

Ed and Hazel pull their typical stunt. When they are hopelessly outclassed, they pretend they are above it all and leave. Ed
When people argue that forcing menstruating women to move to a small shack is not oppression
Who argued that Ed. Certainly not WJM. Does everyone want to know the real reason Ed is leaving the discussion? I will tell you. WJM asked him:
If you could force those who are forcing the women into that action to stop forcing them into that action, would you?
Ed's argument above was that it is wrong to force other people to conform to your beliefs. So if he answers yes, he has to contradict himself. And if he answers no he has to concede that he would not stop "oppression" if he could. Ed has decided it is better to slink out the door with his tail between his legs.Barry Arrington_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PST}

Ed George said:
When people argue that forcing menstruating women to move to a small shack is not oppression I know that it is time to leave.
Nobody argued that it wasn't oppression. You were asked to define your terms and clarify your position.William J Murray_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PST}

Hazel
I think I’ll retire from this conversation.
Please hold the door for me. When people argue that forcing menstruating women to move to a small shack is not oppression I know that it is time to leave.Ed George_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PST}

Vivd, I didn't even know we were fighting about anything. I think I'll retire from this conversation.hazel_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

Well, you didn't answer my question, Ed. However, I will answer yours: Ed George said,
It is absolutely true that the Nepalese woman was oppressed.
I guess that depends on how one defines "oppressed". If by "oppressed" you mean "forced to do something", then we're all oppressed, because there are things we are all forced to do or else face the consequences others would impose on us. What would be the principle you are using to discriminate a case of "oppression" from other cases where we are forced to do things we may not want to?
Or do you think that forcing women to isolate themselves from everyone else during menstruation because they are unclean is not oppression?
Again, you haven't clearly defined the distinction (if any) between "oppression" and every other case of people being forced to do things they may not want to do.
And there is little doubt that the people requiring her to isolate herself do so out of what they believe to be absolutely true.
If you could force those who are forcing the women into that action to stop forcing them into that action, would you?
Believing in absolute truth does not mean that what you believe is the absolute truth.
I don't think anyone here has made or even tried to make that case. Clearly, belief in something doesn't make that something true. Are you aware you are asserting a trivial point that is universally accepted?
There are still people alive today who believe that it is the absolute truth that black people are inferior to white people. Because they believe that this is an absolute truth, does that mean that it must be true. Of course not.
Perhaps you should move beyond stating commonplace, trivial facts as if they are profound arguments and address the big issue. Without an absolute truth to guide us, how is "what we prefer" any different in principle from "what they prefer"?William J Murray_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

Ed George:
And there is little doubt that the people requiring her to isolate herself do so out of what they believe to be absolutely true.
Oh my. Is that really your argument?ET_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PST}

Well, I was gonna make a comment, but there seem to be LOTS of other people who want to fight about this stuff without my help.vmahuna_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST}

WJM
Since you admit you believe in an absolute truth, then I take it that you oppress women? Or did you leave out a significant qualifier or two?
The question was
Is it absolutely true that women are oppressed by those that believe in absolute truth?
It is absolutely true that the Nepalese woman was oppressed. Or do you think that forcing women to isolate themselves from everyone else during menstruation because they are unclean is not oppression? And there is little doubt that the people requiring her to isolate herself do so out of what they believe to be absolutely true. Believing in absolute truth does not mean that what you believe is the absolute truth. There are still people alive today who believe that it is the absolute truth that black people are inferior to white people. Because they believe that this is an absolute truth, does that mean that it must be true. Of course not.Ed George_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PST}

If there is no absolute truth one way or another about how women or blasphemers should be treated, why should social justice reforms be pursued?William J Murray_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PST}

Hazel “No. But I’m really not sure what you are asking” Hmmm your not sure what I am asking but the answer is no, priceless. Vividvividbleau_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Michael Jackson Popcorn GIFs https://tenor.com/search/michael-jackson-popcorn-gifsbornagain77_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PST}

No. But I'm really not sure what you are asking. Many people who believe in absolute truth about some things don't believe in oppressing women,hazel_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PST}

Hazel Before we all have a Kumbaya moment could you answer my question in 7 ? Vividvividbleau_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PST}

I think we have some confusion here, which I started. There are fundamentalist Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and others who believe it is absolutely true that women should be oppressed, and that in some cases members of other religions should be violently oppressed. I disagree with those positions. I certainly don't think people should be executed for blasphemy, as happens in some cases, and I assume everyone here would agree about that. However, it would be hard to help reform those countries if the people doing the executing believed that it was absolutely true that those blasphemers should be executed. So in this case the believers in absolute truth would be a hindrance to a social reform that I think we would all like to see. Is there anything about this summary that we all don't agree with?hazel_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PST}

WJM My point exactly. Thanks Vividvividbleau_{February 6, 2019
February
02
Feb
6
06
2019
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PST}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply