If you are talking about process based justice then probably not. Equality involves infringement of individuals liberties such as property rights, and usually involves unequal treatment of individuals.
If you are concerned with outcome based justice then it is probably just. Infringement of liberties and unequal treatment of individuals are justified in the pursuit of equality of outcome.
You aren't going to have the answers to these questions without defining your terms OP, and any discussion will just be people talking past each other.
Any photoshop fags want to edit a cross burning into the background, or maybe a nazi march?
The baseball game is stupid.
Also, justice != equality of outcome. Justice means equality of opportunity. This image presumes there are only three boxes in the world. I see no reason to take the tall guy's box when the little faggot could easily just go grab another.
>>41028665 Yes. This picture assumes that the smaller people have absolutely no means to make themselves "taller". In reality those who have the best usually deserve it for what they've done with their life. Video games and laziness? Sorry, you don't get as much money as someone who built a company from scratch.
>>41028665 >>Modern equality began by dismissing the importance of biology. Ultimately, it leads to the removal of all biological factors from the equation of life until the achievement of death. The logic of equality leads towards the elimination of all forms of hierarchy that separate life or biological priorities from the larger physical world. Self-consistent egalitarianism leads to self-consistent materialism: humans and other life forms have no inherent basis for viewing themselves as chunks of “superior matter”, with special rights above all other material things. The idea that biology has any special privilege whatsoever over non-biology is in its very conception anti-egalitarian, and to fulfill and achieve the enlightenment project is to engage in rational biological self-destruction.
I think everyone can agree that the situation on the right is the most desirable. The problem is achieving it. The free market is not an end in itself, it is simply the most efficient system that we know of for distributing wealth - and even then, it's not really. We can all think of examples of necessary regulation that increase the efficiency of the market. Where the market is less efficient than central planning it is inarguable that central planning should take over. OPic is one such situation.
Feminists have given up on the "equality" bullshit as they have been thoroughly called out on it. Now they don't even pretend that they want preferential treatment.
Of course this also demonstrates quite clearly that not all parties are equal. The taller boy is worth far more as an employee in a job that requires getting things off the top shelf-- something that the femicunts still refuse to accept. They would thusly never be able to equally perform the same job.
They will ignore this, of course, because muh patriarchy.
>>41032975 If they gave a shit about not being poor they would've made better life decisions. They'd get a job, NOT fuck everything that moved or at least practiced safe sex when they did it, and then NOT have over three kids that they could obviously never afford to raise.
Or you can laze around getting free money and then spending it on frivolous shit instead of making actual use of yourself.
>>41031577 >In reality those who have the best usually >deserve it for what they've done with their life. citation needed. Also, google 'Entrenched welfare' and basic marxist principles (which everyone sane needs to move beyond, but generally stand for rudimentary scenario analysis, baser upon predictions made panning out to future events)
>>41028665 >>41028665 I know I probably sound like a commie for saying this, but just to clarify the picture you labelled as "justice" could also be seen a equality because they are all of equal height and get to see the game.
>>41034390 But what about the effects of this on later generations.
If one man works hard and becomes successful, his son may be able to succeed with a small amount of effort.
Another man is lazy, dependent on others for help, and decidedly unsuccessful, however, his son is also harmed by this, and might not be able to overcome the disadvantages he suffers from because of his father.
How can this be helped? Can it be helped at all? Short of banning inheritance or instating complete wealth distribution, both of which are demonstrably bad ideas, I don't think this can change.
>>41028665 I never noticed that the brown above the fence wasn't fence but dirt on the field, so I assumed the message was that on the right, nobody got to see the game instead of only the tall person.
>tfw a girl in my poli class used this picture to explain a point in a class discussion. >She couldn't verbalize the idea behind the picture, she just had to explain the picture. >Everyone in the class visibly cringed. >That was the day I realized I was an idiot for going into the faculty of arts.
>>41033475 Those are a lot of generalizations you're making. What about the people who had a shitty educational system? What if they never learned how to properly learn? What if cunts around them instilled wrong values into them--i.e. degenerative practices above virtues?
Poor people aren't all poor because they choose to be so. People don't want to have a shitty life--if they knew better they'd maybe make a change.
>>41028665 They are really desperate to get you into believing equality is a real thing. But where is the proof we are all the same? Do they really expect people to believe in this unscientific rubbish? Where are the scientific studies?
>>41037121 Well, I don't think those who want to ban inheritance want to ban gifts. It's more of a cap, say $10,000-50,000. I think gifting more than that is a bit absurd--it should be even lower, maybe. Entire inheritances aren't really a gift; rather it's a redistribution of wealth based on familial ties, and wealth and power being designated by lineage, were, as I thought, a thing of the past.
>>41037224 Idk, I just think that if a person wants to give there wealth to someone they should be able to. It would just cause so many problems to ban it, like things under the table and such. Also, the weakening of familial ties was from people not wanting to have ties that strong, not from bans. Someone's always going to be more well off, be it direct inheritance or indirect (such as better schooling, housing, job opportunities, wealth management, etc.), so there's no real point in banning something for no reason, it just creates another victimless crime.
>>41037342 Eh, I think the main point of it is to prevent a disparity of wealth at the top. The ol' "the top fifth of the wealthiest own 60% of the wealth." An argument is that it's partly because of inheritance--wealth is just passed down and not actually earned by the children.
>>41037490 Well, I think it's okay to ban things that are wrong, and generating disparity is in most cases wrong. It's the kind of thing that would likely make things better of if people did it, but people won't, so a ban would have to be in place.
>>41028665 Are you guys actually so fucking retarded that you cant see the practical point being made in this image?
If you craft a one-size-fits-all policy, it is only useful for the size it was crafted for. Its the entire fucking small government argument, and you jackass libertarians are getting butthurt about it because you think this is about SJW shit and socialism.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.