How can justice be achieved?

[lixluke]

What bollox?
I make a statement.
You tell me how you interpreted the statement.
I tell you that it is the wrong interpretation.
You tell me to restate it more clearly.
I cannot restate it more clearly unless you tell me how you came up with the interpretation.
That way, I can point out where I my have been unclear.

 

[Darkman]

For justice to be acheived each being's thoughts and (therefore motives to their) actions must be monitored and the required response administered.

 

[lixluke]

omg. Wrong.

 

[Avatar]

omg. Wrong.

wrong!

 

[lixluke]

Wrong.

 

[river-wind]

Originally Posted by river-wind
The Supreme Court of the US, and myself, disagree with you.

OK. It doesn’t change the fact.

It means that it is not a fact. It is your opinion, and one that others do not agree with.

This is the third time I am saying this, and you continue to go in circles. I stated what the first step was.....

Ok, and that was???
Forget "State the first step more clearly."
Let's go with "Please state the first step."

Your making a problem out of something that doesn’t exist.

Limited resources isn't a problem? I recommend you go live somewhere poor for a while, to see that this is not the case.
And even though we currently have enough food for everyone in the world, we achieve that by producing and harvesting food at a rate faster than nature can replace it.
So, although today, we need only the better distribution of food to prevent anyone from being hungry, we are not in a position to keep that production level going indefinitely - poor or not.

Only so many Joules of energy are imparted to the Planet Earth everyday from the Sun - that energy must be converted by plants and bacteria to an organic chemical form that we humans can consume.
Today, we, as a human race, are consuming more energy than the sun is providing.
That is a problem.

I have not been provided with counter examples. Safety goes and in hand with freedom.

Safety and freedom equate only on an individual level. When dealing with a society, there are hundreds of instances where the freedoms of multiple individuals conflict.

You have been given examples of this, and have not addressed them You have called them foolish without ever considering them.
And as such, I repeat, your methods will only ever get you a faith; nothing concrete can ever be created this way.

The questions still stand:
How do you create safety?
How can we eliminate causes of violence in others so that your right to safety can be implemented in the real world?
How can you provide everyone with enough food and water so that they are happy, in a world with limited resources (namely clean water and organic food sources)?
How can you allow for everyone’s freedoms if one person's freedoms can only exist at the expense of the freedoms of another?

Here I am providing Step 2 in clear and plain English: questions of How which can then lead to methods that can be implemented toward the final goal.

 

[Raithere]

Today, we, as a human race, are consuming more energy than the sun is providing.

Just a quick correction. It's not even close. The Earth receives more energy in 1-3 hours (depending upon how you swing the variables) than all humanity uses in an entire year. This, of course, does not negate your argument of limited resources.

~Raithere

 

[river-wind]

urk - I bet you're right.

I guess I should be saying "The energy provided by the sun that is converted into a useable chemical form".

 

[lixluke]

It means that it is not a fact. It is your opinion, and one that others do not agree with.

Get real.

Ok, and that was???
Forget "State the first step more clearly."
Let's go with "Please state the first step."

Already did. Again you wish to go in circles.
You have still yet to show me how you came to your interpretation about it.
Where are you going with this repetitive nonsense of yours?

Limited resources isn't a problem?

No.

we are not in a position to keep that production level going indefinitely - poor or not.

Get real.

Today, we, as a human race, are consuming more energy than the sun is providing.
That is a problem.

Wow. You finally identified something that makes sense. Although false, it provides a realistic idea about the actual problem regarding resources.

Safety and freedom equate only on an individual level.

Right. And therefore the level that we are focusing on. There is no other level than that. The individual is what composes society.

Your questions:
“How do you create safety?” – On point.

“How can we eliminate causes of violence in others so that your right to safety can be implemented in the real world?” – Off key. You have included an invalid assertion that does nothing for it. You are mixing things up that do not need to be mixed up.

“How can you provide everyone with enough food and water so that they are happy, in a world with limited resources (namely clean water and organic food sources)?” – Again, you are loading the question. Not necessary.

“How can you allow for everyone’s freedoms if one person's freedoms can only exist at the expense of the freedoms of another?” – This is completely idiotic in every way. Your clause is completely invalid and senseless with no basis in reality.

Here I am providing Step 2 in clear and plain English: questions of How which can then lead to methods that can be implemented toward the final goal.

You are not providing anything worthwhile other than assertions riddled with loaded baseless presumptions within them.

 

[river-wind]

Please state your first step.


If, as it is said, no man is an island, how can you protect the safety of every individual without paying attention to freedoms on a group level as well?

 

[Baron Max]

...without paying attention to freedoms on a group level as well?

"Groups" don't have freedoms ...only individuals have freedoms.

And if you protect the freedom of each individual, you'll have protected the freedoms of groups of those individuals as well ...without any special considerations.

Baron Max

 

[river-wind]

Groups do not have freedoms, but groups are made up of individuals who do. The "group freedoms" are the mish-mash of agreeable and conflicting freedoms expressed on an individual level.

Imagine a bowl full of water with a number of food color pellets dropped in. One is green, one is yellow, one is blue, one is red. As they diffuse into the water, they express their own color, and paint a wonderous design.
But quickly, red and green find themselves in the same places in the water column, and mute each other's beauty. Yellow and Blue add to the mixture, Brown fills the water, and you are left with mud.

What would you do, Baron Max, to protect the freedoms of the individuals from others within that same group? Do good fences make good neighbors? Or do fences simply limit individual freedom?

 

[lixluke]

Please state your first step.

Already did. Again you wish to go in circles.
You have still yet to show me how you came to your interpretation about it.
Where are you going with this repetitive nonsense of yours?

The "group freedoms" are the mish-mash of agreeable and conflicting freedoms expressed on an individual level.

Wrong.
You seem to come off as if:
1. Injustice is inevitable.
2. Injustice plays a practical role in social function.

Both of which are false. The first one you cannot prove. You can only provide speculative hypotheticals. The second is a contradiction.

 

[Baron Max]

What would you do, Baron Max, to protect the freedoms of the individuals from others within that same group?

I guess you didn't read my post ....I said, if you protect the individuals, you'll not even have to worry about groups ....the individuals are protected. You can discuss food coloring in water if you want, but ultimately, if you protect the individual, you've taken care of all the food coloring problem, right?

And please don't get me wrong, I do understand your issue/problem, but it all boils down to protecting the individual. Once you've attained that, groups can't harm him, right? ...'cause if they can, then you haven't protected him.

I think that one of the problems that we have in the world today is that we worry too damned much about "groups"! We worry about gays, liberals, conservatives, muslims, christians, blacks, mexicans, terrorists, ....on and on, but we seem to have little concern about the individual.

Do good fences make good neighbors? Or do fences simply limit individual freedom?

Well, both! But remember, with fences, the two neighbors can just unlock the gates and enjoy each others' company. But without the fences, the neighbor's dog might come over and kill your children or vice versa.

The more a person can isolate himself from his fellows, the better his life is going to be. Yes, before you ask, yes, ....that's exactly what I meant to type! The more people you have around you, the more and worse your problems will becomel.

Baron Max

 

[Mr.Jack4WAR]

wait wait... whats the arguement?

 

[river-wind]

Already did. Again you wish to go in circles.
You have still yet to show me how you came to your interpretation about it.
Where are you going with this repetitive nonsense of yours?

I have no interpretation to provide at this point. You told me that my initial attempt was wrong, so I am trying to start over.
Please state your first step.

Wrong.
You seem to come off as if:
1. Injustice is inevitable.
2. Injustice plays a practical role in social function.

Both of which are false. The first one you cannot prove. You can only provide speculative hypotheticals. The second is a contradiction.

OK. Why are they false?
How can society be structured so that injustice is not inevitable?

 

[river-wind]

I guess you didn't read my post ....I said, if you protect the individuals, you'll not even have to worry about groups ....the individuals are protected. You can discuss food coloring in water if you want, but ultimately, if you protect the individual, you've taken care of all the food coloring problem, right?

If you protect the individual, then all you have done is protect the individual. coming back to the food coloring analogy, in order to protect the beauty of the colors, you have to keep them seperated; say by inserting clear plastic dividers between the tablets before/as they disolve.
You have to limit the freedom of movement of the color in order to keep them "safe".

And thus is the crux of the debate. Which is more important? Safety or freedom?

And please don't get me wrong, I do understand your issue/problem, but it all boils down to protecting the individual. Once you've attained that, groups can't harm him, right? ...'cause if they can, then you haven't protected him.
...

Well, both! But remember, with fences, the two neighbors can just unlock the gates and enjoy each others' company. But without the fences, the neighbor's dog might come over and kill your children or vice versa.

The more a person can isolate himself from his fellows, the better his life is going to be. Yes, before you ask, yes, ....that's exactly what I meant to type! The more people you have around you, the more and worse your problems will becomel.

Baron Max

Thank you for making my point. Fences can make good neighbors, but the freedom of both neighbors is limited until both agree to unlock the gates and temporarily remove the barriers that they have erected.

 

[Baron Max]

Thank you for making my point. Fences can make good neighbors, ....

No, sorry, I didn't help make your point! The reason for the fences is that we DON'T protect the individual ....and thus he's vulnerable to the whims of his neighbors.

...coming back to the food coloring analogy,...

Well, come back to it all you want, but it don't change nothin'.

And thus is the crux of the debate. Which is more important? Safety or freedom?

I don't think that's the "crux" of the issue. You're basically saying that it's one or the other ....why not both?

Baron Max

 

[river-wind]

A compromise! Now we're talking.

So, back to Cool Skill's starting premise (I think), how can society be set up to keep individuals both safe and free?

 

[lixluke]

Right.
You cannot possibly answer that question because you already made the illogical conclusion that it is impossible. If you, without proper reason, conclude that it is impossible, what is the point of pursuing an answer to the question?

I have no interpretation to provide at this point. You told me that my initial attempt was wrong, so I am trying to start over.
Please state your first step.

Again, you are going in circles.
There is no need for me to restate something that was already made clear.
This was your interpretation about the first step: “Don't think about the possible problems is the first step.”
You obviously interpreted something I wrote to come up with that.
Therefore, you already interpreted the first step.
Therefore there is no reason for me to restate it.
Again, what is the point of going in circles.

I made a statement that I felt was as clear as I could make it.
You interpreted it to mean something else.
Therefore, it was probably not clear.
In order for me to clarify, you must provide how you came up with that interpretation.

There is no relevant reason for you to ask me to restate something that has already been stated.
You have not state why you continue to restate something that has already been stated.
If you want me to clarify it, state exactly how you came up with that interpretation.

OK. Why are they false?

The first one is realistically impossible.
The second one is a contradiction.
What is so difficult?

How can society be structured so that injustice is not inevitable?

That is what the objective is. You cannot accomplish the objective without taking the first step.