U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-16-2018, 11:43 AM
 
Location: NY in body, Mayberry in spirit.
2,603 posts, read 1,685,262 times
Reputation: 6070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gouligann View Post
I VERY much agree with this.

BUT. What about the ones who whine and complain and say they are offended by totally stupid things that you consider a part of this freedom?

Things that are being now called out as "offensive" are getting oppressive to a ridiculous point.
Today’s SJW’s demand that everyone respect their rights to do, say and act in whatever manner they chose, yet they are the first ones to deny the same respect to others who have a different point of view.

That is the new facism.

 
Old 12-16-2018, 12:55 PM
Status: "inpatiently waiting for Spring." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: The Ozone Layer, apparently...
1,731 posts, read 566,474 times
Reputation: 3389
In my opinion, the limit to anyone's personal freedom is the point at which it starts to inhibit someone elses personal freedom.

You can do what you want for all I care, just don't tread on me, lol.
 
Old 12-16-2018, 03:56 PM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,158 posts, read 774,111 times
Reputation: 4462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom,.....

Start with a false assumption and you're doomed to come to a false conclusion.


Spy cams at stop lights, "Alexa" listening to everything we say in our homes, Google knowing every step we take, secret FISA courts, PC thought & speech Police etc etc Haven't you ever read 1984?


WE'RE* LETTING THEM DO THIS TO US WITHOUT OUR OBJECTION!




*I'm being polite in using the editorial "We." It's you stupid college-indoctrinated Millennials who are letting 'em do it.
 
Old 12-16-2018, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,942 posts, read 9,418,208 times
Reputation: 19098
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser View Post
In my opinion, the limit to anyone's personal freedom is the point at which it starts to inhibit someone elses personal freedom.

You can do what you want for all I care, just don't tread on me, lol.
I think that's a somewhat meaningless statement because such boundaries are so nebulous. How do you define that line between the personal freedoms of one person and another? Like many other aspects of American life, it's not black and white.

And it isn't LOL. It isn't about what one person defines as personal freedom. It's about what society defines as the limits of personal freedom. And frankly, society doesn't define it. I would posit that that's exactly why we have a constant barrage of lawsuits from the local level all the way up to the Supreme Court.
 
Old 12-16-2018, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,361 posts, read 1,881,293 times
Reputation: 3168
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYJoe View Post
Today’s SJW’s demand that everyone respect their rights to do, say and act in whatever manner they chose, yet they are the first ones to deny the same respect to others who have a different point of view.

That is the new facism.
Or maybe they find your definition of freedom intrusive (fascism is more specific). In any case, they have a different idea of what freedom is than you do. It doesn't necessarily make their idea of freedom wrong. As Phateroi implied, everybody has their own ideas of what freedom is, and we as a society have decided we need expand freedom in some areas, restrict it in others. Society's ideas of freedom are always evoving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser View Post
In my opinion, the limit to anyone's personal freedom is the point at which it starts to inhibit someone elses personal freedom.

You can do what you want for all I care, just don't tread on me, lol.
As I said in the OP, blocking people from committing "the most blood-boilingly outrageous acts" is a limit on personal freedom to commit those kinds of acts. In which case you do believe some people need treading on people - including you yourself in some instances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Start with a false assumption and you're doomed to come to a false conclusion.
Do you even know the difference between an assumption and an introductory remark? No? Let me tell you what the assumptions of my post is: That there is such a thing as too much freedom, and that insisting on absolutist extents of freedom are more self-destructive than anything else. To put it politely, it seems you need work on your reading comprehension.

As for defending freedom (I'm simply being charitable in addressing this part), people defend their rights to own guns, free speech, religion (or areligious belief), etc. Reporters certainly defend their right to freedom of the press. And each side defends their own positions on abortion and religion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Spy cams at stop lights, "Alexa" listening to everything we say in our homes, Google knowing every step we take, secret FISA courts, PC thought & speech Police etc etc Haven't you ever read 1984?

WE'RE* LETTING THEM DO THIS TO US WITHOUT OUR OBJECTION!

*I'm being polite in using the editorial "We." It's you stupid college-indoctrinated Millennials who are letting 'em do it.
Once again, I'll be polite and say you could use some training in critical thinking skills - starting with logical fallacies. As for the rest, I'm not a millennial by any means. I was born less than two years before Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. I was 30 by the time the oldest millennials started college - early achievers aside.

Besides, as I said at the top of this post, some people's definition of freedom is different from yours, plus some people are willing to gain freedom in other areas even with the loss of some freedoms. Who's to say they're wrong?
 
Old 12-16-2018, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Denver CO
556 posts, read 163,285 times
Reputation: 1417
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser View Post
In my opinion, the limit to anyone's personal freedom is the point at which it starts to inhibit someone elses personal freedom.

You can do what you want for all I care, just don't tread on me, lol.
So, some questions regarding specific applications of this philosophy:

1) People should be allowed to put whatever they want into their body (drugs...any drugs)?
2) People should be allowed to do what they want with their body (suicide, self-harm)?
3) People should be allowed to associate with anyone else as long as it is consensual (prostitution...also see #2 above)?
4) People should be allowed to not associate with people they don't want to (discrimination)?
5) People should be allowed to own dangerous/potentially deadly objects up to the point they use them to harm someone else (firearms...all firearms)?
6) People should be allowed to be as offensive as they want (public nudity, foul language)?

None of these actions infringe on anyone else's freedom directly. Do you think any of these should be exceptions to personal freedom? If so, why (with the above philosophy in mind)?
 
Old 12-16-2018, 06:05 PM
 
10,133 posts, read 14,512,756 times
Reputation: 11138
True freedom is determined by ones level of self government. Ones level of self government is determined by ones level of consciousness. Keep growing dimwits and ignorants, you'll get according level of the above mentioned.
 
Old 12-16-2018, 06:12 PM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
7,007 posts, read 7,847,231 times
Reputation: 18186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Who's to say they're wrong?
And who are you to propose limits to freedom? Who gets to decide what those limits are?
 
Old 12-16-2018, 07:13 PM
 
Location: State of Grace
1,542 posts, read 1,087,736 times
Reputation: 2530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
Americans will quickly defend their personal freedom, considering it the most important thing there is – as in seeing it as a semi-religion. Everything in their tone, words, and acts implies they see it as such. But is actually sensible to believe to believe in it this passionately? Is personal freedom really the most important value there is? I say not, for valuing freedom this highly and this fervently leads to strange, if not self-destructive, conclusions.

First, the definition itself. I will say freedom means “the lack of barriers, limits, or inhibitions between what one desires and actual fulfillment of that desire”, and in the most absolute sense of the term besides. For a good metaphor, think of science documentaries showing gas molecules zipping across the screen in every direction, with some occasionally ricocheting off each other after collisions. This seems the only consistent definition of freedom I can think of. If there’s a better, more self-consistent definition, I’d like to see it.

By this definition, if we’re to stay true to the claim’s form, that implies that we should never interfere with people setting out to commit even the most blood-boilingly outrageous acts and expressions. Thus, true believers in “freedom first” are being incoherent when they support stopping people from committing such acts. After all, “the most important” means “THE most important”.

Of course, practically nobody supports personal freedom this much, for the reason just stated. At this point, they amend their belief with “as long as it doesn’t hurt others” (some add to this “or degrade the dignity of others”). However, this corrupts the purity of the “freedom first” claim. Adding this condition to “freedom” implies that the condition itself actually is more important than freedom.

So how much freedom actually is too much freedom? To what extent or degree is it necessary to restrict it? Should we restrict freedom in some areas even as we allow for more freedom in others?


My shorthand version is this: Freedom is important to the extent that it doesn’t threaten the safety or dignity of others or myself (the Twitter version of it, at least). If an act or expression (to "that" extent or degree) is likely to hurt, harm, or seriously indignify others to unreasonable degrees (unnecessary or excessive defense, retaliation, or punishment - clearly disproportionate to the wrongful act or expression), then that act or expression should have limits, if not outright banned.

Phil, my understanding of freedom, which encompasses yours, is that we must all obey two rules, and as long as we do so we are free to live, love, and be happy, working at the delight of our hands. The rules are: Love GOD with everything in you - your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and also love your neighbor (everyone) as much as you love yourself. Simple, right? Apparently not; just look at the state of the world. Individually though, we can each opt to love and be as (care) free as we like.

It all comes down to LOVE, Phil. It’s the most powerful and liberating Force in existence.


Love and All Good Things,


Mahrie.
 
Old 12-16-2018, 07:40 PM
 
12,483 posts, read 9,482,689 times
Reputation: 9020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
So, some questions regarding specific applications of this philosophy:

1) People should be allowed to put whatever they want into their body (drugs...any drugs)?
2) People should be allowed to do what they want with their body (suicide, self-harm)?
3) People should be allowed to associate with anyone else as long as it is consensual (prostitution...also see #2 above)?
4) People should be allowed to not associate with people they don't want to (discrimination)?
5) People should be allowed to own dangerous/potentially deadly objects up to the point they use them to harm someone else (firearms...all firearms)?
6) People should be allowed to be as offensive as they want (public nudity, foul language)?

None of these actions infringe on anyone else's freedom directly. Do you think any of these should be exceptions to personal freedom? If so, why (with the above philosophy in mind)?
And to this list, we can add....illegal immigration, having a house smaller than 120 square feet, and doing any number of things below age 18/16 that are otherwise considered almost universal rights. And illegally downloading music for your own personal use (that you would not have otherwise bought). And so on.

It is easy for people to say that liberty should be only limited by infringing on others' liberty, but very few of them will apply that rule when pressed about the above. Of course that isn't to say which view is ultimately right or proper, only that these blanket statements are often made without thinking it through.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top