Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by lixluke, Sep 10, 2005.
Like all politicans?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Concept of freedom is quite meaningless. Humans live in societies. Humans become humans because they live in societies with all their rules and stuff. "Freedom" peddling in the West is a part of brainwashing onslaught on solidarity of people, on the sense of belonging to tradition, culture, ethnic group etc. "Free" means you are on your own, lonely wolf, uncable of cooperation, without moral guidance except that provided by paid for wizards of mass cult and corporate media/education. Thus, "freedom" in the West means slavery. "Free" means a human unit -"easy to manipulate" by ruling elites. In true accordance with classics
Speak for yourself.
Bla bla bla. It is irrelevant. It is a comment that has zero to do with the point. Comments that have nothing to do with the point, and wish to attack an argument for the sake of attacking are pointless.
The only person you are putting down is yourself. Quite pathetic. Though your intent was to make whatever objective comment, it doesn’t matter how objective it was, it has nothing to do with the point.
Obsessed mad troll.
Wrong. It's because you are a mad obsessed troll.
Wrong. You went on a rant out of nowhere about something that was completely outside of the point. You are only looking for cheap reasons to point out flaws.
In a way, one person’s ability to do more may affect another, but in reality freedom does not conflict.
Woah!!!! No it cannot.
Wrong. You are proposing a philosophy of subjectivism. Subjectivism denies that knowledge/values are based in reality. Subjective arguments by definition are not based in reality. You cannot get anywhere in a discussion using subjectivism. When you hold that all knowledge and values are relative, you cannot discuss anything. Truth is absolute. Perception is relative. To say that truth is relative is to make an absolute statement. It is obvious that this is a contradiction/paradox. If truth was relative, it cannot be absolutely true that truth is relative.
First of all, freedom is not a feeling. It is a noun describing a degree (position in a range/scale). By technical definition, the less restrictions you have, the more free you are. The more free you are, the more “freedom” you have. Freedom is a degree of being more free, and less restricted. Instead of saying entire phrases such as, “degree of being more free/less restricted”, we simply use a word, “freedom”. They are both interchangeable.
Postulate: An aspect of freedom (part of what makes us free) is our lack of freedom to hurt others.
In discussing “individual freedom/human rights”, your freedom is your capacity to do whatever you want period. An aspect of your capacity to do whatever you want is a limit from doing whatever you want. This limit is hurting/abusing others. The intended point of this thread is just that. Although the point may sound contradictory, the individual’s lack of freedom to hurt others is an aspect of what makes the individual free.
(This postulate is the intended point of the thread. Going on a rant about the definition of “hurt others” is not the point. Whatever “hurt others” means, the point is still the same. We are not here to define what “hurt others” means or discuss the definition of what it means. No matter what, it doesn’t change the point. We are not here to discuss “what is obscene” or try to come up with an answer for it. It isn’t relevant in the context of the point. We are not here to discuss how differing definitions affect our ability to have a discussion. That is a total different discussion. When you make a comment that is not towards the point, do not expect to not be attacked for being irrelevant.)
CONFLICT OF FREEDOM
Your freedom to do whatever you want is not defined by your circumstances. Because you have no legs, you do not have the freedom to walk. This is simply circumstantial. Intrinsically, however, this is irrelevant. As long as you continue to misdirect freedom with circumstance, freedoms can conflict. In reality however, freedoms do not necessarily conflict.
I think we can all agree that walking up to somebody with your gun, and shooting them in the eye would count as hurting somebody. Otherwise, assume that it is.
An individual’s freedom to walk around the street without being shot in the eye.
An individual’s freedom to shoot somebody in the eye.
If you do not grasp the concept I have proposed, you might say their freedoms conflict.
If you abide by the concept I proposed, you arrive by the following conclusions: The individual’s lack of freedom to shoot somebody in the eye is an aspect of what makes the individual free from being shot in the eye.
Without looking for cheap reasons to point out flaws, the objective is to discuss what is reasonable about the point, and what is not reasonable about the point.
Bla bla bla. It is irrelevant... Wrong. It's because you are a mad obsessed troll... Obsessed mad troll.
Funny how all the threads you start end the same way.
CoolSkill please identify what in my initial repsonse to your opening post is a rant.
To save you the bother of scrolling here it is again.
"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."
1. Are you contending that defining the terms and parameters of a discussion are unimportant? You appear to be.
2. Do you deny that there are ambiguities inherent in your definition of freedom?
3. If you do, please point out the flaw in my logic. If you do not, please explain why we should continue to discuss based on your flawed definitions.
4. Please tell us what is the point you claim we are missing.
5. Please really do tell how a perfectly reasonable post by myself, with no ranting evident in it, is greeted by such a reaction from yourself. I am especially keen to get an answer to that one.
Note: If my hypothetical reaction to people wearing shorts in public places is what you are describing as a rant would you be good enough to investigate the use and significance of quotation marks before replying.
[Ophiolite climbs onto his vertically impressive equine quadruped.]I am not accustomed to being berated over a genuine and moderate post offered ion good faith to an thread opener. Much as Her Majesty addresses those of foreign persuasion I request and require a polite, reasoned, prompt response from you.
just say you are a kid brought up an a stifling middle class home.....Ans the overall pressure on te kid is to 'be successful' like father or mother or both or borther sister......which means pressure to go through all the education thing....and then top uni and then good salaried career.........are you FREE if you get suked into all that? you may deeply not want it. this might dawn on yo whennyou get a bit older etc. so what do you do. just follow whats expected--which i would call NOT being free...OR break out, which would take guts. cause you are gonna hve te hole lot on your case aren't you?
or...what about the girl brought up in the Muslim tradition--in the West (in this example)...and she is forced by TRADITION to be covered up in public and to have arranged marriage etc. if she follows that is she free--IF she really doesn't want it?...i would say no
I'm not sure that I followed all of your post...? But being "free" doesn't neccesarily mean that you HAVE to do something or other ....it's only that you have the possiblity to do it. One could be "stuck" in a rut, but he might still be "free" to do other things.
I've always wondered, for example, ....do people wake up one day and decide to be garbage collectors? ...or kitchen helpers? ....or ditch diggers? ...or sewer workers? Where do all of those people come from? And what prompts them to do those jobs?
Mommy: "Honey, what do you want to be when you grow up?"
Son: "Oh, Mommy, I want to work in the sewers!"
Right this is in line with what I stated in my previous post about the difference between circumstancial freedom, and actual intrinsic freedom.
Of course not. That’s dumb. Stating that something is irrelevant is not the same thing as contending it. Defining terms/parameters is not the point.
If there are, you have not pointed them out. You simply attacked something that had nothing to do with the intention. It’s idiotic.
I did. I spelled it out for you over and over. Then again in the previous post. It’s not my fault you do not know how to read. Do you want me to put it in caps? “HERE IS MY POINT. HERE IS MY POSTULATE”?
Obviously, you are too illiterate to know what this means:
I state X.
I state that X is the intended point of this thread.
Then you state: “Please tell us what is the point you claim we are missing.”
You have no sense. You asking my what the point is that I claim right after I stated it. How retarded can you be? Why are you even here?
I guess you over looked the last post about how perfectly worthless your post was. All of your answers are there. Too bad you refuse to read.
It's not my fault you did not read my previous post to this.
having to survive sir!
"Freedom"'s just another word for "nothing left to lose."
I smell shit... Oh wait I didnt step in anything, cool skill is posting...
Very potent fella, hmm ?
Well, you sure told me!! I'm humbled. Perhaps all the responses to this thread are unnecessary as you seem to have THE answer.
WOW! You told me off again. I can't believe how wrong I can be. You win.
But before I go, please define your concept(?) of 'objective ultimate reality'?
If you applied enought real critical honest thought to your answer/definition, when you were done stumbling all over your own feet, you might actually be in a position to learn something.
It is amazing what can grow in humble soil, as opposed to the concrete of arrogance and ego.
"Oh, Mommy, I want to work in the sewers!" - Ed Norton
Of course you don't really believe that, right? I mean, if nothing else, there's welfare and social give-away services. So at some point, they decided to remain working in the sewers .....why? Are you implying that, for example, there is absolutely nothing else in the entire country for them to do??? ...no other job anywhere is available? If you check the want ads, you'll see that that's a faulty assumption on your part.
would love u to live in a place bmax where noone did sewers.....wonder how long before the stink of reeking shit would get u offa your highhorse and muck in?
Highhorse?? Waht the hell are you talkin' about, Duendy? It's a perfectly legitimate question. I'm glad there are sewer workers, etc, but that has nothing to do with the question of ....why do they do it? Highhorse? You're only trying to deflect the question because you don't know that fuckin' answer!
Well, people are actually the victim of propaganda. Their ultimate goal is to be middle class and buy lots of stuff. To do that you need money. Obviously there aren't an unlimited amount of jobs around. But still you have to buy your house, your wife, your dog, and your big screen tv.
Hence you start working.
Then you buy stuff, get a wife, a child.
Now you are stuck in your consumer dream.
You are free to work and consume.
Until you retire or die.
Of course there are other choices, but hardly anyone takes them. It would be impossible, because then society would crash.
I decided to go through life without too much stuff (a bag of clothes and 1 minidisc player). Do you think our economy of growth can live on that? No, I',m a parasite. I'm slowly killing our society. Too many of me around and our system will crash.
So in general we have no choice. We are taught to be what we are, and most do it well.
Hence we are not really free.
reread what i said....and add your own reason why they' dp it. why'd thy work down the coalmines? cant think of anything worse........we are led to believ we have to do certain things to survive while others get much rich by our laboyur doing the most godawful jobs the wouldn't dream of doing
That must be your breath you're smelling. Troll.
I guess that would mean that your arrogance and ego Must have blinded you from your own arrogance and ego. So sad.
All you would have to do is visit your own brain.
Separate names with a comma.