Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[mrsdizzyd]

abucs:

Analysing the logical shortcomings and emotionalised conditioning is not an ad hominem attack.

So far I’m reading stereotyping, not a legitimate or substantive analysis.

That’s how I read it too…

 

[abucs]

Culture isn’t a static monolith. It’s fluid and perpetually changing. The error here isn’t that someone has declared war on your ideas, it’s that you thought they were never going to have to change.

Yes culture isn’t a static monolith.
Yes it’s fluid and perpetually changing.
Yes there has been a declaration of war on Christian culture.
Who is they?

 

[abucs]

No they aren’t. They’re re-examining “All men are created equal” with fewer assumptions than you about what “men” means. The last time few times it was done, women and blacks folks got the right to vote.

What are my assumptions and again who is ‘they’.?

 

[abucs]

I thought arms races were finally antiquated at the end of the 20th cent.?

Well no they are not but this isn’t an arms race anyway.

 

[abucs]

I’m loving that your appeals to logic are immediately followed up with hasty generalization fallacies…

perhaps you should say something substantial?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m loving that your appeals to logic are immediately followed up with hasty generalization fallacies…

perhaps you should say something substantial?

I’ll be more clear.

It makes your argument fallacious.

 

[abucs]

So if you out-scream them you’ll change their mind? Did you came to Christianity in the first place by this method?

No you don’t outscream them, they are your words. You show them that their emotion is met in equal measure iuntil they put their emotion away because it isn’t going to do them any good.

 

[abucs]

Only if you’re already biased in favor of Christianity.

If you’re trying to be objective, you apply the same standard to Christianity that you used to conclude that Islam is defective.

No an SJW thinks in terms of identity politics and oppressed and oppressor.

 

[abucs]

“SJW” is not a religion. It’s a poor generalization. But don’t let facts get in the way of ideology there…

It definitely is a poor religion but it is a religion all the same.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Only if you’re already biased in favor of Christianity.

If you’re trying to be objective, you apply the same standard to Christianity that you used to conclude that Islam is defective.

No an SJW thinks in terms of identity politics and oppressed and oppressor.

Or, maybe, they used the same standard that found Islam wanting against Christianity and drew a similar conclusion? Because that what objective analysis does?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

“SJW” is not a religion. It’s a poor generalization. But don’t let facts get in the way of ideology there…

It definitely is a poor religion but it is a religion all the same.

No, it isn’t. Or at least, you’ve made no good argument showing that it is.

 

[abucs]

Is yet another tiresome generalization that doesn’t actually mean anything specific, like a lot of the other “boogeymen” in your rhetoric.

what generalisation. Let’s be specific then.

 

[abucs]

Your ideas. Or at least their status as “commonly held”.

You didn’t answer the question. The question was who are ‘they’.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Is yet another tiresome generalization that doesn’t actually mean anything specific, like a lot of the other “boogeymen” in your rhetoric.

what generalisation. Let’s be specific them.

That’s exactly my point.

SJW and “political correctness” are uselessly vague. Actually try to argue against a specific idea that has a clear, commonly agreed upon definition.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Your ideas. Or at least their status as “commonly held”.

You didn’t answer the question. The question was who are ‘they’.

That was the answer to your question…

This is pointless. Thanks for the chat.

 

[abucs]

Your alleged and over-broad SJWs. I’m responding to your post, fella. You established the context.

Again you are not answering the question ‘fella’. You said ‘they’ ?? had fewer assumptions than I. Who are ‘they’ and what are my assumptions with regards to all men being created equal.

 

[abucs]

I’ll be more clear.

It makes your argument fallacious.

There is no substance in that comment either.

 

[abucs]

Or, maybe, they used the same standard that found Islam wanting against Christianity and drew a similar conclusion? Because that what objective analysis does?

This doesn’t make sense. Again who is your ‘they’? You need to rewrite this so it can be understood.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Or, maybe, they used the same standard that found Islam wanting against Christianity and drew a similar conclusion? Because that what objective analysis does?

This doesn’t make sense. Again who is your ‘they’? You need to rewrite this so it can be understood.

“They” are the same people you reference in your post that I was responding to.

Like, are you not following along???

 

[abucs]

…Again, that was the answer to your question.

I don’t know what else to do here…

Tell me who your ‘they’ is and what are their assumptions at least. You are not saying anything substantial here.