The Next World Order and Social Justice

[2ndRateMind]

29 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Pilgrims have a destination in mind.  If you haven't got a map, you won't find it.

So do I. The global eradication of absolute poverty. After that, climate change, species extinction, weapons proliferation, and then other, more secondary, objectives. As for heaven and hell, I'm more than happy for God to dispose of my soul as God sees fit. Either way, according to what is just and fair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

So do I. The global eradication of absolute poverty. After that, climate change, species extinction, and then other, more secondary, objectives. As for heaven and hell, I'm more than happy for God to dispose of my soul as God sees fit. Either way, according to what is just and fair.

And your definition of "just and fair?"  If you're going to keep using those terms without a definition, then all of that is just a daydream.

[2ndRateMind]

I'm not going to get into a debate on semantics. I will just say that you and I probably have different ideas concerning what is just and fair, and our ideas are probably different again to those of God, who is perfectly, infinitely just and fair. And so I trust in that, and have no existential anxieties, for either of us, at all.

Best wishes, and good night until tomorrow, 2RM.

Edited December 18, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not going to get into a debate on semantics. I will just say that you and I probably have different ideas concerning what is just and fair, and our ideas are probably different again to those of God, who is perfectly, infinitely just and fair. And so I trust in that, and have no existential anxieties, for either of us, at all.

Of course we do.  That's what I've been saying.  

And it's not about semantics.  How can you expect people to get on board with your vision when you can't even provide answers to the simplest, most basic questions about what exactly you mean when you call for fairness?  That isn't a semantic argument.  If your view of fairness is 'X' and mine is 'Y' that isn't a semantic difference.  That's a matter of real world application.  

This is why you'll never make any headway pushing your views here.  Most of the folks here are conservative.  Conservative thinkers, in general, like concrete goals and solutions.  If you can't show why your way is measurably better than ours, we just aren't interested, however eloquent you may be.  

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Best wishes, and good night until tomorrow, 2RM.

Sleep well.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

What makes you think I'm not?

You're spending time trying to convince others to support government programs that remove the ability to choose.

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And what makes you think I want to take away your agency?

You advocate government programs that would take away the the individual's choice as to whether they take care of the poor or not.

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

On the contrary, I would advocate [force] it's expression, to the fullest extent of your compassion.

Isn't this more accurate?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

So then, when in the history of mankind has repentance and baptism been forced?

I think you've confusing my idea with someone else's. Better re-read and then, just for the fun of it, go jump in a lake.

 

[2ndRateMind]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You're spending time trying to convince others to support government programs that remove the ability to choose.

You advocate government programs that would take away the the individual's choice as to whether they take care of the poor or not.

Isn't this more accurate?

Just popped by, to see how you're all doing. So I thought I would respond to this:

If there is a need, isn't it better (fairer) that everyone should contribute to meeting it, and so reduce each individual burden to the minimum, than that only those whose consciences are aroused by that need are forced to bear the burden alone?

And, I still do not see why a reasonably balanced, justly inclined, relatively well-intentioned individual should not want to contribute to the succour of the poor. And if s(he) can do that, secure in the knowledge that their contribution is replicated by all, proportionately according to the extent of each individual's means, and that the amount they contribute is therefore the minimum necessary, why should that not be 'A Good Thing'?

Now, I really am headed for bed.

Sweet dreams, all. 2RM.

[unixknight]

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Just popped by, to see how you're all doing. So I thought I would respond to this:

If there is a need, isn't it better (fairer) that everyone should contribute to meeting it, and so reduce each individual burden to the minimum, than that only those whose consciences are aroused by that need are forced to bear the burden alone?

And, I still do not see why a reasonably balanced, justly inclined, relatively well-intentioned individual should not want to contribute to the succour of the poor. And if s(he) can do that, secure in the knowledge that their contribution is replicated by all, proportionately according to the extent of each individual's means, and that the amount they contribute is therefore the minimum necessary, why should that not be 'A Good Thing'?

Because once you set a precedent that whoever is in power gets to decide that it's morally justified to take from some to give to others, you set the stage for some of the most catastrophic violations of human rights and well being in history.  

[anatess2]

Yoohoo @2ndRateMind, these remain unanswered.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by anatess2

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm. Actually, seeing as you ask, I believe God is ultimate, infinite justice, and therefore ultimate, infinite fairness. But I think it the case that He has left it to us to implement that justice and fairness in this mortal realm, to give us something meaningful to do with our lives, and by which we might develop our virtues and character, in service to, and in collaboration with, others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Do you realize how many logical contradictions are in this post above?

I am going to ask you a few question.  Please think about each one carefully.  They are not intended to be "trick" questions but they are very tricky.

#1.  Is it fair or just to do something for someone that they can do for themselves?  This may seem easy but this question has frustrated many with good intentions. 

#2. Is it fair or just to do something for someone that will not benefit them in the long run?  Be very careful not to confuse short time benefits with long term benefits (which is the dilemma and failure of a drug or other such addiction.)

#3. Is it fair or just to do something, regardless of its potential benefit, for someone that is in opposition to their will and intention?

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I thought I answered this, but it's gone. Either I didn't save it or it got removed. I don't think I said anything that would have had it removed for offense...so...here goes again:

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

If there is a need, isn't it better (fairer) that everyone should contribute to meeting it, and so reduce each individual burden to the minimum, than that only those whose consciences are aroused by that need are forced to bear the burden alone?

No.

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And, I still do not see why a reasonably balanced, justly inclined, relatively well-intentioned individual should not want to contribute to the succour of the poor.

Then why do you require a government program for it?

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And if s(he) can do that, secure in the knowledge that their contribution is replicated by all, proportionately according to the extent of each individual's means, and that the amount they contribute is therefore the minimum necessary, why should that not be 'A Good Thing'?

Because of the myriad of reasons already explained to you ad nauseum.

[wenglund]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

#1.  Is it fair or just to do something for someone that they can do for themselves?  This may seem easy but this question has frustrated many with good intentions. 

Great question. However, It contains what the Left would view as two false presupposition.

First, the Left thinks in terms of collectives or groups rather than individuals. Individuals are merely a representation of the collective. So, asking a question about "someone" would not compute.

Second, since the Left views things through the binary prism of victim vs victimizer/oppressor-- meaning that  if someone is poor or disadvantages, it is because they have been victimized, and victim status is something beyond the victims control, thus necessitating state intervention, then in terms of poverty, they can't do for themselves.

Quote

#2. Is it fair or just to do something for someone that will not benefit them in the long run?  Be very careful not to confuse short time benefits with long term benefits (which is the dilemma and failure of a drug or other such addiction.)

Again, great question. However, the question is result-oriented, and results are irrelevant to the Left (with one exception--see below), and this because, as you pointed out in your previous post, and as I have also pointed out, were they to focus on results it would invariably subvert their political philosophy. Note the conspicuous absence in any of @2ndRateMind's post of results--with the possible exception of a presumed dream of a Utopian society that will someday mysteriously come into being through state intervention.

So, instead, they focus on the "unfairness" and "injustice" and "inequality" of cherry-picked situations, and simply presume these things are sufficient justification for state intervention, whether it works or not..

Quote

#3. Is it fair or just to do something, regardless of its potential benefit, for someone that is in opposition to their will and intention?

Great question as well. However, as several of @2ndRateMind's post attest,  your question is inconceivable to the Left. To them, what they are about is the very essence of good and fairness and what is equitable vs. the evil of those who oppose them. So, their response to such questions will invariably be something along the lines of: "Why wouldn't people want to do good or have good done for them, or who wouldn't want to be fair and equitable? Surely people wouldn't wish to be evil, and if they did, that is justification for state intervention.

It has taken me years to understand this, and even nowadays I forget and get caught in the counter-productive illusion of reasoned back and forth. 

The point being, the Left only cares about the poor and the environment and equality and so forth to the extent that it advances their power, since power is ultimately, if not only, what matters to them. That, alone, is the result they care about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited December 19, 2018 by wenglund

[2ndRateMind]

14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yoohoo @2ndRateMind, these remain unanswered.

I will answer, in due course. But tomorrow I am away for the week, for the Christmas festivities. And so, I beg your indulgence until I return.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Guest]

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

Great question. However, It contains what the Left would view as two false presupposition.

Wade,

You may benefit from my method for separating a quote.  Click on "Carborendum replied to a topic".  It should take you directly to the post.  Look at the second paragraph.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Guest

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So do I. The global eradication of absolute poverty. After that, climate change,

Question - even though you never answer.  Are there any other planets in our solar system experiencing climate change?  Is the sun experiencing climate change?

There are things in our atmosphere that are harmful but carbon dioxide is not one of them - not at the level we are seeing.  Seldom (never) does carbon dioxide make up more than 2% of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and plant life requires it as much as you need oxygen. 

Perhaps life's greatest disappointments (to me) is encountering individuals that say they want to do good things and yet everything they support is deeply embedded into a culture of misdirection (lies).  Slavery is the only way man can eradicate absolute poverty - and G-d controls the climate.

So here is a little tid-bit even though you are inclined to ignore real things of real importance.  Antarctica is experiencing the greatest climate change on the planet - what has been discovered but deliberately ignored is that the change there is cause by geothermal activity.   Deep below 3 miles of ice is the second largest volcano on earth (next to Yellowstone) and it is about to erupt.  But in geothermal time, eminent means sometime in the next 500 years.  When this eruption takes place it will melt the antarctic ice which will raise the ocean levels 40 - to 60 feet that will displace 80 of the world human population along with a similar percentage of the animal population.  This threat is greater than any projections for global warming over the same time period - but there is no mention of this threat in any news outlet - any college course (that I am aware of) or any political narrative but even more of a bewilderment is that all funding for geothermal research in Antarctica has dried up?  How do I know this? - because for over 50 years volcanoes has been a hobby of mine.

 

The Traveler

[estradling75]

Since this thread is in the LDS Gospel Discussion lets make it a Gospel Discussion on the issue.

For any attempt to do anything we need to understand what the Most Fundamental Goal is.  Anything that conflicts or weakens this goal must be discarded.  In the Gospel of Jesus Christ the most Fundamental Goal is God's Work and Glory which is "To bring to pass the Immortality and Eternal Life of Man"  Anything that conflicts or impedes this Goal no matter how good needs to be discarded (and killed with fire).  

Now other teachings tell us that "Immortality and Eternal Life" is God's life, it is his nature.  And his work to get us there involves him giving us Commands that help us partake of his nature (ie become more like him). The scriptures are quite clear that the creation and sending us to earth was part of God's work.  Here we would be proven to see if we would follow God's Commands.  That is the whole point of this mortal life.  Not fairness, not equality, not even justice.  While those are all good and important they are side effects as we follow God's Commands. 

We should never let our desires for a Good Side Effect blind us to the most fundamental Goal.  Because if we do not only to we risk losing the main Goal we also lose the desirable side effects.

We see this play out in Satan's rebellion.  God's plan is driven by people choosing to follow God's Commands.  This means that some people will choose not to.  Satan's plan was one of compulsion.  No one would be given a choice. Everyone would be forced.  God rejected this plan soundly.  We can debate the various reasons for this but to me the biggest reason is that Compulsion does not work "To bring to pass the Immortality and Eternal Life of Man."   What the typical response you have when you feel someone is compelling you to do something?  Most likely you will rebel and try to do(become) something else.  This blocks the biggest goal (and there fore should be killed with fire)

Now a hugely important aspect of God is Charity.  He sees us weak, inferior, sinners, and he is creating Heaven and Earth and shedding his own sweat, blood and tears to heal us, fix us, and share everything he has with us.  This is pure Charity.  This is an aspect he Commands us to have as well.

We are Commanded to be charitable. But we are not Compelled to be charitable. While people might debate the effectiveness of helping the poor and needy through compulsory means, when it comes to the Most Fundamental Goal it fails totally. It does not develop the aspect of Charity in the one compelled, it fact in most likey destroys or retards it.  Or to put it simply paying taxes does not help you develop more Christ-like charity, and if you are compelled (say through taxes) you are less likely to be willing to do any more. 

Thus we see that our efforts to increase the help to the poor and needy must be done through the means of persuasion, conversion and other means that encourage a voluntary response.  The moment it becomes compulsory, forced, or otherwise non-voluntary we have crossed a line we should not cross.

 

[2ndRateMind]

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

Question - even though you never answer. 

I think you will find, if you trawl through this thread, that the majority of my posts are in response to the questions, objections and concerns you have all raised. But some of these are really quite deep, and require due consideration, and that takes me some time. Anyway, it is just not true to say I never answer.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 19, 2018 by 2ndRateMind