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, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
32,486 posts, read 9,606,936 times
Reputation: 30738

Advertisements

Freedom has nothing to do with anyone else's "dignity." How a person feels as a response to one's exercising personal freedom is entirely on him.

 
Old 12-17-2018, 01:04 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
3,361 posts, read 1,881,293 times
Reputation: 3168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nor'Eastah View Post
And who are you to propose limits to freedom? Who gets to decide what those limits are?
Simple sentence: Society as a whole, via their elected officials and independent judiciary, gets to decide.

However, all groups should be open to persuasion by activist groups to go along with their program (to change or repeal the law as appropriate).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
Freedom has nothing to do with anyone else's "dignity." How a person feels as a response to one's exercising personal freedom is entirely on him.
In the end, it has a lot to do with dignity, meaning not being hurt, harmed, or degraded outside the scope of reasonable, proportionate, and necessary levels of defense, retaliation, or punishment. If robbery, assault, battery, arson, discrimination, etc. did NOT tend to hurt, harm, or degrade another person, then it's difficult to see why society should ban those behaviors. Same with disproportionate punishment. Otherwise, why not sentence a 13 year old to 20 years in prison for merely shoplifting a candy bar?

As for feelings being "on him", again, I'm afraid you're wrong - unless you wish to say your feelings about restricting laws impacting on your pet issues is on you - whatever those pet issues may be.

Last edited by Phil75230; 12-17-2018 at 01:32 AM..
 
Old 12-17-2018, 01:16 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
3,036 posts, read 1,108,617 times
Reputation: 5832
"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
 
Old 12-17-2018, 04:44 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
2,158 posts, read 774,111 times
Reputation: 4462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post



Do you even know the difference between an assumption and an introductory remark?

?

A statement made without corroborating proof is an assumption.


"Freedom is apparently the right to do anything the law allows."-- Baron de Montesquieu


In other words, every law or regulation detracts a little more from our freedom.


Phil, while you can be proud that you had the wisdom to achieve such a superannuated condition, unless you were born before ~1955, you have no idea what freedom is.(Consider that observation to be coming from the released prisoner in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.)
 
Old 12-17-2018, 04:57 AM
Status: "inpatiently waiting for Spring." (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: The Ozone Layer, apparently...
1,731 posts, read 566,474 times
Reputation: 3389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
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.

I find that many people feel they can do anything they want, but YOU cant. Like Freud's, "Im OK. You're not." persona. Reality is your personal freedom is only as good as mine is. Once you start infringing on someone elses right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you open the door to have your own rights infringed upon. "Im OK, you're not" never really works out for the person with the mindset. The concept leads to anarchy ultimately. Personal freedom does not mean freedom to go beyond basic rules and laws. When you do, you are now infringing upon someone else.

Someone once said, long ago, "Good fences make good neighbors." And, that statement is debatable, but a good fence sets a good clear boundary that neither side can feign ignorance about when infringing upon the other.
 
Old 12-17-2018, 05:15 AM
 
12,483 posts, read 9,482,689 times
Reputation: 9020
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan View Post
"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."
---Napoleon Bonaparte
Without rights, one cannot legally "fight" for his or her interests.

Relying on one group of people to protect the rights of those with less power is a risky strategy, because the powerful may be overworked, apathetic, greedy, or simply out of touch with what it is like to have a less privileged life.
 
Old 12-17-2018, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
3,036 posts, read 1,108,617 times
Reputation: 5832
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Without rights, one cannot legally "fight" for his or her interests.
.
Napoleon didn't say "legally". He meant that a man will sooner fight if his interests are threatened, than if his rights are. When a man thinks it is worth a fight, legality is seldom an issue.
 
Old 12-17-2018, 09:20 AM
 
10,665 posts, read 6,084,532 times
Reputation: 11070
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser View Post
I find that many people feel they can do anything they want, but YOU cant. Like Freud's, "Im OK. You're not." persona. Reality is your personal freedom is only as good as mine is. Once you start infringing on someone elses right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you open the door to have your own rights infringed upon. "Im OK, you're not" never really works out for the person with the mindset. The concept leads to anarchy ultimately. Personal freedom does not mean freedom to go beyond basic rules and laws. When you do, you are now infringing upon someone else.

Someone once said, long ago, "Good fences make good neighbors." And, that statement is debatable, but a good fence sets a good clear boundary that neither side can feign ignorance about when infringing upon the other.
His dog stares at me and barks through fence and his half dead trees breach the fence and boundary line. Vermin attracted to his messy yard just crawl under the fence to my property. Good people make good neighbors, fences are barely a band aid.
 
Old 12-17-2018, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
19,942 posts, read 9,418,208 times
Reputation: 19098
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

Phil, while you can be proud that you had the wisdom to achieve such a superannuated condition, unless you were born before ~1955, you have no idea what freedom is....
I would like you to explain this statement further.

It seems to me that many people had far less freedom in the period of time before the following laws were passed:

Thirteenth Amendment
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Fourteenth Amendment
Fifteenth Amendment
First Ku Klux Klan Act
Second Ku Klux Klan Act
Third Ku Klux Klan Act
Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Civil Rights Act of 1960
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1970
Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1975
Voting Rights Act
Amendments of 1982
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987
Fair Housing Act
Amendments of 1988
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Voting Rights Act of 2006
 
Old 12-17-2018, 03:39 PM
 
4,450 posts, read 2,362,195 times
Reputation: 3787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230 View Post
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.
Problem with this definition is people will find a way to distort what you've said to legally bludgeon their politically enemies.

See "hate speech" laws.
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