Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is freedom a threat to freedom?

Page 2 of 6 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

11 Apr 2007, 4:29 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
snake321 wrote:
Also, dysfunction isn't in the eye of the beholder neccessarily, as you claim. Note, this comment from someone who consciously and openly defends selfishness, ignorance, hostility, hypocracy, schiestiness, and filth, and who swears up and down it should be his right to harm innocent beings just because he feels like it (reguardless if their human or animal, they feel pain, if it has a conscience and a personality, it feels pain).

Yes, yes it is. You cannot objectively prove a moral system. Your claims of dysfunction rely primarily on your moral judgment. Therefore, it is in the eye of the beholder and in their own moral beliefs which may be quite different.



I don't think it's just "my moral judgement". Anyone with common since would ask how these traits are positive (of coarse I know your gonna use a selfish argument to defend it, which is just looping the argument back around in a circle rather than rationalising). Point blank, if there is a conscious, innocent victim there is a crime. But, I know your small neanderthal brain can't comprehend this.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

11 Apr 2007, 4:31 pm

But you'll use a selfish argument to defend negative values because you like to argue logic with illogic.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Apr 2007, 4:36 pm

snake321 wrote:
I don't think it's just "my moral judgement". Anyone with common since would ask how these traits are positive (of coarse I know your gonna use a selfish argument to defend it, which is just looping the argument back around in a circle rather than rationalising). Point blank, if there is a conscious, innocent victim there is a crime. But, I know your small neanderthal brain can't comprehend this.

Common sense is simply a creation of societal bias and morality a creation of what we are told. Truth is not created by consensus. My brain is likely much more powerful than yours is sir.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Apr 2007, 4:37 pm

snake321 wrote:
But you'll use a selfish argument to defend negative values because you like to argue logic with illogic.

I am very very logical and selfishness is by no means an objectively wrong thing. People act for their own self-interested reasons in most things. I do not consider your distinction between negative and positive values to really mean anything.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

11 Apr 2007, 6:36 pm

Banning certain political parties is stupid. That's more of a threat to freedom than anything else. If enough people want the Nazis, Fascists or some other party to come into power....they'll do it through revolution.



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

11 Apr 2007, 6:58 pm

My point is we shouldn't allow them to accomplish these agendas.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Apr 2007, 8:39 pm

snake321 wrote:
My point is we shouldn't allow them to accomplish these agendas.

We have a constitution. Most of the time it works. The times when it doesn't work tend to be the times when no other lawful structure would either.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 Apr 2007, 8:43 pm

Cyanide wrote:
Banning certain political parties is stupid. That's more of a threat to freedom than anything else. If enough people want the Nazis, Fascists or some other party to come into power....they'll do it through revolution.

I'd say so as well. You cannot really ban a thought, and attempting to is very dangerous.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

12 Apr 2007, 2:45 am

snake321 wrote:
My point is we shouldn't allow them to accomplish these agendas.


You don't need to worry. In the USA, it's a good chance the two-party system will last for a long long time...



calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,439

12 Apr 2007, 4:42 am

Sadly enough.



Kosmonaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,253

12 Apr 2007, 6:32 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

You cannot really ban a thought, and attempting to is very dangerous.


Technically no; you cannot ban thoughts (not yet anyway, but i suspect there are people working on this).
But the whole theory of political propaganda is based on thought control of the masses.
The Germans were brilliant at it. Many lessons were learnt and a propaganda machine based on Goebbel's model is now in place.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2007, 8:01 am

Kosmonaut wrote:
Technically no; you cannot ban thoughts (not yet anyway, but i suspect there are people working on this).
But the whole theory of political propaganda is based on thought control of the masses.
The Germans were brilliant at it. Many lessons were learnt and a propaganda machine based on Goebbel's model is now in place.

There are attempts to sway us, however, the propaganda that we have is not pushing us far in many directions. Perhaps the propaganda is canceling out, however, the number that does not fall in line is quite significant.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

12 Apr 2007, 8:38 am

well freedom absolutley will never work with humans because just think about it, if you could do whatever you wanted you would get in alot of trouble. but i guess if everyone was doing what they wanted nobody would get into trouble



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2007, 9:23 am

richardbenson wrote:
well freedom absolutley will never work with humans because just think about it, if you could do whatever you wanted you would get in alot of trouble. but i guess if everyone was doing what they wanted nobody would get into trouble

Well, I am assuming that anarchy levels of freedom are not being considered here. Yes, I am likely to also state that I disagree with anarchy.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

12 Apr 2007, 9:28 am

Why are these people so afraid of NAMBLA? They don't really exist anymore. Even the website has gone kaput.

Here's how you solve the whole problem: when people annoy you, hit them really hard. Government is too limited. All they can do is set tax laws and offer social services. I like the idea of fire and rescue. They're really cool. I sleep much better knowing that, if my house were ever to catch aflame, a bunch of big, brave men would come to put it out. Otherwise, highly motivated individuals are more useful in the keeping of order than the government.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 Apr 2007, 9:38 am

*Hits Griff with a baseball bat* :)

I think that we have laws against the initiation of aggression to be honest. NAMBLA, even if they did still exist, is way too weak to do or be anything. It will never get power.