What do you think a "fair society" is?

@sonship said
Thanks, up to this point, for demonstrating your vacuousness to present anything more a reason for rejoicing then the conclusion of the Bible.

You mean your torturer god ideology ~ the one you use "the conclusion of the Bible" to prop up? It's a "reason for rejoicing" for the 5,000,000,000 or so non-Christians around the world?

@caljust said
Seems to me fmf hit a raw nerve there. He just can’t get over it!

Seems to me FMF hit a raw nerve there. [sonship] just can’t get over it!

Yes indeed. And it's not as if he can claim that he doesn't make comments about other people's personality and behaviour, so he can't try to hide behind the principles and standards that he applies to his own posting.

@fmf said
I am talking about how our relationships with strangers - to whom we are bound in some geographical or political way - are governed. So I am not talking about small groups - like families or neighbourhoods - where people know each other. What do you think a "fair family" is, is a different question from What do you think a "fair society" is. I think.

Yes I understand that; what I am not understanding is what “groups of people large enough for all their members to know each other" are. Societies are large groups for sure, but the members certainly don’t all know each other. It reads to me like you’ve phrased it incorrectly. Anyway, I get your wider point about larger groups vs small groups.

@divegeester said
It reads to me like you’ve phrased it incorrectly.

I did. The word "not" is missing.

@FMF

Ruffled feathers, raw nerves ...

Funny, for finding me the most joyless poster that you cannot stop reading my posts. Glutton for punishment or what ?

You mean your torturer god ideology ~ the one you use "the conclusion of the Bible" to prop up? It's a "reason for rejoicing" for the 5,000,000,000 or so non-Christians around the world?

I am not worried about non-Christians as much as ANTI-Christians.

I expect to be shocked at God's knowledge of everyone's circumstances.
And I expect to be shocked at how inexcusable the rationalizations of Christ rejectors will end up.

Putting hope in God's incompetence or eagerness to condemn as many as possible, I think are vain hopes which will amount to foolish notions for one to have had confidence in.

Trusting that these objections indicate Jesus Christ is not as morally or intellectually just and competent as you and therefore furnish reasons to reject the offer of salvation, will prove to have been fool-hearty assumptions.

Proverbs 21: 30 - "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel that can avail against Jehovah."

@fmf said
I did. The word "not" is missing.

Ah, unlike you to miss words out more my style.

@divegeester said
Ah, unlike you to miss words out more my style.

You are terribler in this matter.

@sonship said
Funny, for finding me the most joyless poster that you cannot stop reading my posts. Glutton for punishment or what ?

I make no secret of it. I find the distorting effect of religiosity on the intellectual and interpersonal skills of people like you fascinating.

@caljust said
There is no such thing as a “fair” society - even the most loving family cannot be totally fair.

Fairness would mean everybody has the same amount of everything - money, looks, brains. Totally impossible.

A society must be JUST, not fair. Equal treatment under the law.

Somebody once said “What is worse than the unequal treatment of equals, is the equal treatment of unequals.”

I think it's important to specify what we all mean by "fair". Is it "fair", as an, a game is fair if both sides have equal chances of winning? Or, is it "fair" as in, the outcome must be even for both parties?

I personally prefer a society that is mostly "fair" with respect to opportunities available. Mainly, this means that people have the freedom to try their hand at various trades, forms of education, social relationships, and personal beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone.

"Fairness" of outcome is not always attainable. Some people are just better than others at some, or all, of these things. Some people are better at finding a fulfilling path through life, period. In most cases, it's not practical, or even desirable, to legislate everyone back to equality of outcome.

There are certain exceptions. There his a huge "wealth gap" in the world - a ever-smaller group of people control an ever-growing percentage of the world's wealth; that should be regulated against. Affirmative action has been a necessary evil to correct for institutional racial bias in the USA. No, the outcomes are never going to be equal, but large trends away from that direction ought to be reversed, if possible. Prolonged, dramatic inequality of outcomes leads to resentment, revolution, civil war, bloodshed, etc. often with the new system being no improvement on the old.

@BigDoggProblem

I can't disagree with anything you said here, Dogg. Well stated.

@bigdoggproblem said

I personally prefer a society that is mostly "fair" with respect to opportunities available. Mainly, this means that people have the freedom to try their hand at various trades, forms of education, social relationships, and personal beliefs, so long as they're not hurting anyone.
There are certain exceptions. There his a huge "wealth gap" in the world - a ever-small ...[text shortened]... t, revolution, civil war, bloodshed, etc. often with the new system being no improvement on the old.

Not sure what fmf had in mind when he launched this subject, but I must assume that it would have to deal with how our own personal choices can contribute to such a society.

The huge wealth gap you mention is an obvious concern. The super rich have secluded and ensconced themselves to such a degree (by controlling even the making of the rules) that it is difficult to see how that trend could ever be reversed.

@caljust said
The huge wealth gap you mention is an obvious concern.

Taking levels of wealth independently of nationality, politics and religion; do you think wealth differential is an indicator of an unfair society?

@caljust said
Not sure what fmf had in mind when he launched this subject, but I must assume that it would have to deal with how our own personal choices can contribute to such a society.

...and whether the degree to which our personal choices can be accommodated or tolerated by society is a measure of "fairness" and how this can be achieved.

@sonship said
Trusting that these objections indicate Jesus Christ is not as morally or intellectually just and competent as you and therefore furnish reasons to reject the offer of salvation, will prove to have been fool-hearty assumptions.

Your ideology is that people who don't believe there is "the offer of salvation" [as a kind of reward for believing there is "the offer of salvation"] deserve to be tormented in burning flames for eternity and it is a problem with your 'moral intellect'.

Jesus has been dead for 2,000 years. Your ideology is your ideology, here and now, talking to me, and it is a manmade one that you must take personal responsibility for it if you choose to peddle it.

Your intellect is your intellect and ~ along with your integrity ~ it governs your ability to address what I put to you and to do so without using logical fallacies and superstitious assertions.

When you are not preaching to the choir, sonship, explaining-away your morally incoherent ideology by passing the buck to a mythological figure called "Jesus Christ" doesn't wash.

@sonship said
I am not worried about non-Christians as much as ANTI-Christians.

What does "fair" mean for you when talking about how you think society should organize itself?