What is Freedom?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by lixluke, Sep 10, 2005.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I get a lot of strange responses from people that do not seem to understand the concept of freedom.

    For example:
    I have the freedom to say what I want anywhere I want. Including yelling fire in a public place when there is no fire.
    Therefore, a person’s freedom to enjoy a public place without disturbance is affected.
    WRONG

    I have the freedom to be safe from being beaten, robbed, and murdered.
    Therefore, this limits a person’s freedom to beat, rob, and murder me.
    WRONG




    Freedom means that you can do ANYTHING you want to do -
    When you want.
    How you want.
    Where you want.

    As long as:
    You are not physically harming any person or their property. With or without intention.
    You are not causing direct harm to the earth environment. With or without intention.
    You are not intentionally committing malicious acts against a person/property. For any reason whether it be for your own profit or for their physical/material harm.
    You are not invading into or exploiting the privacy of any person.
    You are not committing sexually explicit/obscene acts in public places where. (Public places are where children are present as well as adults that chose and deserve to be free from violence and obscenities of any sort.)

    Freedom means just that. You can do what you want. You are free from physical/material danger, poverty, sickness, discrimination, invasion of privacy, and any sort of malice against you are the environment.




    To claim we can never be free because freedoms conflict (such a case as one’s freedom to not be murdered conflicts with one’s freedom to murder) is a claim that is not operating out of a sense of what freedom (as in social freedom) is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2005
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I think you have just demonstrated the key point that is missing from virtually every discussion on this forum: do not begin a debate till you have defined all the key terms.
    Your definition of freedom is fine, but it is not the only one. And it is rife with ambiguities. Let's look at just one:
    You say: "You are not committing sexually explicit/obscene acts in public places where. (Public places are where children are present as well as adults that chose and deserve to be free from violence and obscenities of any sort.)" I take it then, that you would prohibit the wearing of shorts, sleevless shirts, short dresses, etc. in public. Why should I be subject to the obscenity of semi-naked flesh, especially when my children may be in danger of seeing it. Such deliberately provocative displays are not only obscene, but immoral. We must, by your own argument, be free of them.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    It is only ambiguous to those that want to cavile it as such.
    Nobody is arguing that there is other definitions of freedom.
    Technically, the more you are able to do as an individaul, the more free you are. If you can go around killing people, you have more freedom than everybody else that cannot.
    But that does not coincide with true social freedom.
    What makes your free is your ability to do whatever you want, and your safety from various forms of harm.

    There are many various definitions according to the democracy about determining what obscene may be. You are bringing up another issue that is veers far from the point. Should we cover ourselves up like the Muslim extremes? Should we be free to wear what we want as long as our privates are covered?Should we allow for free nudism? It's a different point, and a different issue which might be somewhat related, but veers from the underlying point.


    Are you too focued on caviling every aspect of the post that you missed the intent?
    To make a simple point of intent:

    When speaking about freedom/social freedom, it means that you can do anything, and you are free from certain various forms of physical/material harm etc. Because of this, you are "truly free". The fact that you are not free to disrupt the freedom of others does not make you any less truly free.

    For the nitpickers, I can sit here, and breeak this statement down into little pieces, and define everything with exact precision. But I do not have all day for you morons. If you do not get the point, and are just here to nitpick, go find yourself a brain.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Freedom is allowed within the dictates of the laws where you live. Therefore everyone is free IF they follow the laws.
     
  8. Fafnir665 You just got served. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,979

    I doubt you could do that, sense you have no backing for anything you say. Your post reads 'This is right, because it is what I say is right, not because I have proof.' Which is exactly what saying 'You just dont get it,' which really reads 'I dont understand it, so I cant explain it to you, so youre stupid.'

    So, explain your point with 'exact precision'.

    ..................................................^

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ^
     
  9. SoLiDUS OMGWTFBBQ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,593
    The thing is, he does have all day, seeing as he doesn't work for the government checks he receives. Please cool skill, enlighten us.
     
  10. Odin'Izm Procrastinator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,851
    Freedom is somthing you get when you are an american, no one else has any.
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I believe this is a discussion and debating forum. You posted some thoughts. I demonstrated what I believe to be ambiguities in your presentation. Instead of addressing these you repeat your contentions, call me a moron and advise me to obtain a brain.
    It rather seems as if you were hoping people would comment fabourably on the erudition and wisdom of your post. Instead, at the first casual criticism you resort to an ad hominem attack.
    I don't think I need to add anything. Your own attitude denigrates you far more effectively than I could.

    I just went back and re-read your opening post and my reply. I was making a very serious point relating to any discussion - namely that many apparent disagreements stem from different definitions of key terms by the participants. To properly explore your arguments we need to be sure that we are talking from the same base. I indicated where there was a clear contradiction within your own definitions. (Do you deny this exists?) Instead of developing the discussion you go off on a rant.
    So, contrary to my original intention, I have to say, **** you really are acting like a juvenile, ill-educated twit.
    Hmm, I was right the first time. Your own innanity conveys it far more effectively than my words.
     
  12. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Freedom is the ability to find peace and happiness within oneself, independent of external circumstances.
     
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    What a load of bull. You did not even make a point for or against the proposition. All you did was cavile the definitions. You're too dumb to notice that it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do witht the point. You are going way out of your way to look for fault where it doesn't exist for the sake of finding fault. What for? The nitpick about what it really means to be obscene could be anything. Who really cares? It has nothing to do with the point.
     
  14. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    It has everything to do with the point.
    You said in your original point:
    There are quite a few people that find miniskirts, thongs, Daisy Dukes, bikinis etc horribly offensive and distasteful and would not want their children to view such obscenities.
    According to your definition, they should have that right, IF it is obscene.
    Question is, WHO decides what is obscene?
    Social freedom implies a level of compromise.
    Who is the arbiter of that compromise?
    Should I be allowed to display the nudie mags in my store?
    Should I be allowed to display nude art in a public museum?
    Should I be allowed to play music with profane music loud enough for others to hear?
    etc
     
  15. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    No it doesn't. I guess you did not read the thread becuase you obviously do not even know the point. All of that is irrelevant. Learn to read.
     
  16. SativaDiva Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    79
    In my opinion, actual freedom exists in true anarchy. It's a shame, though, that the masses cannot handle it.
    :m:
     
  17. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    You are such an arrogant prick.

    Just because YOU think it is irrelevant, doesn't mean you are right.
    You want to listen to nothing that opposes your lacking point of view?
    Why did you bother posting it?

    IF I DID misunderstand you, it is automatically my shortcoming and inability to read, not your own inability to express your meaning well enough?

    Perhaps you should use your uncanny abilities of self-expression and point out exatcly why you think such things are irrelevant.
    You said people should be free to not to have to witness public obscenity.
    What, precicely IS public obscenity? Your definition of obscenity, the rest be damned?
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Thank you One Raven for saving me the bother of putting down the puerile little asshole. (Admin's please note that is not an ad hominem attack, but an objective description of the camel turd). I am at a loss as to his attitude. His opening post was quite interesting and could have led to a productive discussion. Like you I am at a loss to know why he posted at all, and utterly bemused by why he treats a rational objection with an emotional tirade. Oh, wait a moment you already covered that - he's an arrogant prick.
    I await with interest his definition of public obscenity. I'll pm you my prediction of what it will be.
     
  19. Fafnir665 You just got served. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,979
    Guys, guys. You cant get an answer out of Cool Skill. He doesnt know what he's talking about. I refer you to his thread in um, about the members. Gendanken does a good job of describing what a 'bullshitter' is.
     
  20. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Fafnir665, you are probably correct. I have noticed his name around the forum for some time, but have not consciously interacted with him before. I was bemused by his emotional response to an objective post. I shall likely continue a dialogue with him, or as close to it as I can get, out of a touchingly naive expectation I have that 'people' can be shown the error of their ways through a combination of rational argument, blatant sarcasm and punctuated insanity.
     
  21. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    C.S., you are pretty close to the philosophy of the libertarian movement and the platform of the Libertarian Party.

    - People have the freedom to do whatever they choose, so long as they cause no DIRECT harm to others.

    - People have the freedom to form communities with other people who share their values, interests, beliefs, etc., and make their own rules.

    - Peaceful people have the right to immigrate and emigrate at will, both into and out of the nation itself and out of its individual communities.

    These statements are summaries. Obviously there are limits on the rules a community can make, e.g. you can't give your people the right to burn tires for entertainment and pollute the air of the next community. Obviously children can't be given all the freedom of adults, yet adults can't be given the freedom to treat their children cruelly. Obviously you need civil courts to deal with indirect harm. You may even need criminal courts if you find people violating each other's rights and causing direct harm.

    Also the libertarians have a lot to say about government: what its powers should be limited to, how its activities should be financed, how it should be staffed, how it can be disbanded if necessary. A poorly thought-out government can severely restrict the freedom of its citizens.

    But in terms of individual freedom, the first three bullets pretty well sum it up.
     
  22. Fafnir665 You just got served. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,979

    Thats why I continue to respond to him.
     
  23. nameless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    686
    What is Freedom?

    And why, do you think, that as soon as the question is asked, there is an immediate catfight? The same tenor of emotional defensiveness and agression is also seen in threads about the existence of god or the soul, or levitation...

    Which brings me to my response to the question posed.

    Would not "freedom" 'exist' solely as a 'concept' within each individual mind, thus accounting for all the problems arrising from attempting a common definition. The exact problem has manifested in the 'Souls" thread from its inception! And presently stalled at that point also. The same, I predict' will be the same here too. It is not for me to 'define' a 'concept' within your mind. If I attempt to do so, you react reasonably.. defensively or aggressively.

    So, what is freedom?
    An individual 'concept' within each individual.
    An 'illusion' reflected from the innermost (philosophic) mind to... well, the same mind...

    'Freedom' is a hypothetical 'position' from which we can artificially (subjectively) assign 'value' to other 'dream components', such as your 'political life'...

    FREEDOM~~
    If you 'believe' that you have it, you do.
    If you 'believe' that you do not, you don't.
    If you have no 'beliefs', then 'freedom' merely remains a 'hypothetical, subjective mental 'construct' handy for philosophical discussion...

    So, perhaps 'Freedom' is just another 'belief', like 'Jeeeezus', 'fairies', and 'levitating monkeys'. It is REAL, for you, 'if' you 'believe'! No one can tell you that your 'experience' is not your experience. Hence the heated arguments arising when universally binding (consider the term, 'binding'!) definitions are attempted, not to mention a 'universal' consensus of 'existence' before the attempt to 'definite'!!
     

Share This Page