A Complete Waste of Space

you are very wrong, although, in a modern society, that may be a necessity. In smaller societies, and earlier times, the patricians or noblemen(in more enlightened societies) oversaw social justice. You see, social justice is not the same thing as social levelling of classes. I think that may be where you are confused. Social justice means that everyone in a society, rich or poor, gets treated as fairly as possible. Why you are linking this with Marxist concepts is baffling, although, as I said, I suspect you are simply confused on your terms.

Barfly, definition link(apologies for a zillion ads, it's from a business website):
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... stice.html

edit--I see nothing Marxist about that definition, do you?

callmeslick wrote:you are very wrong, although, in a modern society, that may be a necessity. In smaller societies, and earlier times, the patricians or noblemen(in more enlightened societies) oversaw social justice. You see, social justice is not the same thing as social levelling of classes. I think that may be where you are confused. Social justice means that everyone in a society, rich or poor, gets treated as fairly as possible. Why you are linking this with Marxist concepts is baffling, although, as I said, I suspect you are simply confused on your terms.

Who and or What defines "as fairly as possible"?
That's the problem with your "theories"...they lack definition and enforceable, accountable rules. Lacking that definition, they are only "your" social justice dream.
It's a particularly tough sell to the educated, who know better.

Pudfark wrote:Who and or What defines "as fairly as possible"?

anyone capable of reading English. The limits are set within the bounds of the nature of the society in question, beyond that, the words are self-explanatory.

That's the problem with your "theories"...they lack definition and enforceable, accountable rules. Lacking that definition, they are only "your" social justice dream.
It's a particularly tough sell to the educated, who know better.

pointless blabber, no real response needed.

Here's another valuable definition, for those of you who like to throw this around:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... rxism.html

note the prerequisite for immediate revolution as opposed to evolutionary, incremental change.

Your definition of Social Justice:
The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... z2MbpX8Ud3

Definition of natural law:
A philosophical explanation of the origins of law, grounding it in purported external facts (such as biology, religious conceptions of right and wrong, and so on) rather than in human custom or practice.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/natural-law

Just thought you might wanna know...what you're talking about Slick.
Having googled both words extensively, there's a dozen different definitions
of both words above. None of them are legally recognized. An exception to that
would be if they are defined as "terms" and included with the document/contract.
You should know that, especially with yer purported degree.

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:Who and or What defines "as fairly as possible"?

anyone capable of reading English. The limits are set within the bounds of the nature of the society in question, beyond that, the words are self-explanatory.

That's the problem with your "theories"...they lack definition and enforceable, accountable rules. Lacking that definition, they are only "your" social justice dream.
It's a particularly tough sell to the educated, who know better.

pointless blabber, no real response needed.

Here's another valuable definition, for those of you who like to throw this around:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... rxism.html

note the prerequisite for immediate revolution as opposed to evolutionary, incremental change.

If you're unable to define or account for your blabber, you're right, no response needed. Glad ya don't hold yerself out as an educator....you'd suck.

the concept of social justice is pretty clear, and definitions of it don't vary much. My point is that the Constitution embodied what the contemporaries saw as a just society. They also forsaw progress and change over time, so provided a neat little framework to evolve the government and nation over time. Thus, people have pursued all manner of social justice, be it civil rights, gay rights, workers rights, poor people's rights, etc, etc. And, all those changes and fine-tuning took place within the basic Constitutional framework. Most of them we take for granted, and accept as perfectly logical. Nothing about either striving for those changes, when working within the laws of the land, is anything approaching radical. Natural law is not radical. Nothing about accepting progress or the fine-tuning of the justice within a society is anything for anyone to denigrate or portray as subversive. Glad to see you are reading, though. Learning at any age is good.

by the way, Pud, do you want to link to the various 'definitions' of the term Social Justice, so we can all see how different the meanings are?


also, it just occurred to me that my signature refers to a fellow who had social justice on his mnd.

callmeslick wrote:the concept of social justice is pretty clear, and definitions of it don't vary much. My point is that the Constitution embodied what the contemporaries saw as a just society. They also forsaw progress and change over time, so provided a neat little framework to evolve the government and nation over time. Thus, people have pursued all manner of social justice, be it civil rights, gay rights, workers rights, poor people's rights, etc, etc. And, all those changes and fine-tuning took place within the basic Constitutional framework. Most of them we take for granted, and accept as perfectly logical. Nothing about either striving for those changes, when working within the laws of the land, is anything approaching radical. Natural law is not radical. Nothing about accepting progress or the fine-tuning of the justice within a society is anything for anyone to denigrate or portray as subversive. Glad to see you are reading, though. Learning at any age is good.

"The idea of a "just society" first gained modern attention when philosophers such as John Stuart Mill asked the question, "What is a 'just society'?" Their writings covered several different perspectives including allowing individuals to live their lives as long as they didn't infringe on the rights to others, to the idea that the resources of society should be distributed to all, including those most deserving first."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_society

If you don't espouse rapid change like a Marxist as you say, but slow change to the same end, then what are you?

by all means...go ahead and link it Slick.
You used the word, it's your responsibility.