What do you hear when people say freedom?

[henry quirk]

you wrote, 'since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself' in post 143

this is the whole of it: 'I have to agree with Dana. I thought at first it was as you believed, but since we all recognize that he can only speak for himself, then there is no other reasonable determination. It is simply his opinion.'

in the following post: i disagreed with you

in 145 you say i contradict

in 146 i show there was no contradiction

in 147 you said good bye

in 148 i bid you adieu

in 149 you task me for ((( )))

in 150 i haven't a clue what's you're doing or asking

for the record: if one takes the time to read my posts, it's very clear what i'm saying and what i'm quoting

if you aren't up to the effort: then stop responding…

[DanaC]

seems to me -- outside of whip and me -- no one else should give a damn

If you want a private conversation with Whip the facility is there for a private message and/or a private room in Chat. This is a public area.

[W.HI.P]

wow, i can't believe i missed all those posts.
guys, thanks for cleaing my intent up.
henry, learn to quote ..... first press [ , then quote, then ] write the quote inbetween, then close it by pressing [ , then /, then quote, and the final button .... ] ...its pretty easy, and it makes it a lot easier to read.
oh yeah, what was your purpose in this thread again ...to defend mankind...good luck with that.
you'd have to be ignorant or stupid to fight that battle.
you have no chance of winning.

the only defence one could have for humanity is that we're at an infant state.
we would have to survive our own self destructive nature and evolve.
of course that would not change the actions we've taken to this point.

[henry quirk]

"If you want a private conversation..."

i don't, dana: i just don't get why anyone 'feels' the need to poke around in my issue with whip...or: why anyone thinks i'm obligated to dance with them

*shrug*

-----

"what was your purpose in this thread again ...to defend mankind"

nope: read again, whip

[W.HI.P]

henry, instead of pressing reply, press quote on the post you want to quote and it will do all the work for you.

look, i've spent to much time educating you on mankind and on how to use this forum.
you're obviously too stupid to learn on either of the topics, so i'm done with you.

[henry quirk]

fine by me whip

i note, however, no attempt to refute me, only the useless posturing of poking at the meaningless issue of my (non)style

as i say elsewhere in this forum: much easier to complain about ((( ))) than to address what's inside ((( )))

[Queen of the Ryche]

"what we each have is far more powerful and real than 'freedom' or 'free will': we have agency, or, the capacity to choose"

So isn't that freedom of choice? I see a lot of opinion and posturing in this thread and it upsets me because I think Glatt brought up a valid point. We hear so many "defending" their "freedom" yet do they really know what they claim to be defending? After reading this thread I have discovered that freedom seems to be completely left up to the interpretation of its posessor, or those who don't believe they posess it at all. I know my true freedom is limited, but I enjoy the freedoms that I believe I do have.

[henry quirk]

"freedom of choice"

i think the two words, 'freedom' and 'choice', exclude one another

if you follow my postings in this thread, i equate the individual and choice...i believe them equivalent, synonymous

that is: to BE an individual one must choose, and to choose one must BE an individual

if 'freedom' is a fiction, a fiction most often offered up as privilege to the governed by the governors, then it can't have anything to do with 'choice' since 'choice' is integral to the individual who exercises it

that is: 'choice' can't be taken away from the agent, nor can it be granted to the agent by another

so: 'freedom of choice' is an error...in my opinion... --henry

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"If you want a private conversation..."

i don't, dana: i just don't get why anyone 'feels' the need to poke around in my issue with whip...or: why anyone thinks i'm obligated to dance with them

*shrug*

-----

Okay. Fair enough.

[classicman]

Hey Dana - wanna dance. Apparently this thread is not a public anymore.

[DanaC]

Hey Dave....why you not in chat? why you not?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

When MLK says it, I get a tear in me e'e.

When Team America says it, I giggle.

When Toby Keith says it, I want to punch him in the mouth.

I don't get it. I googled Toby Keith, and I still don't get you. Seems like he'd say the sort of thing any American country-music hat-act musician would. Do you reckon he'd get the cuffs out for you?

Griff, from post #1:

There is often a difference between what people think they're saying and what they are saying.
ex: UG thinks he's saying freedom for everyone. I'd say what people generally hear is submit to my freedom. That is why he and Radar and Dana collide, they all want a version of freedom to reign, but their definitions are incompatible.

Mulling over radar (a/k/a Paul Ireland), I believe him to be temperamentally unsuited to genuine freedom. It is the narcissisist in him that does this -- his cast of mind is to be an absolute ruler. He can pretend for considerable stretches of time to be a libertarian, but that is not where his heart of hearts is. His ideas of what constitute violations of rights seem on closer examination to be mainly offenses to the Ireland ego.

To say that I say "You submit to my freedom" is not to hear what I am saying at all, but instead to hear only what you imagine I'm saying. Clearly not the same thing. Makes me rather indignant, to be sure. I want you free and happy too. That's a point of deep difference between me and radar, who has never found any such desire in his heart, and his posts repeatedly show this.

DanaC has not to my understanding ever expatiated on liberty. She clashes with me out of a belief in socialism, a less free way than libertarianism. Which is not something she bellyfeels.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

He was successful in taking it, but he didn't allow for repercussions. There are always repercussions.

Ah.

"Nothing ever ends, Adrian. You of all people should know that."

--Watchmen. The book rather than the movie, which used a similar line, from a different character.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"I think the line is, as long as you aren't hurting another being (that would include animals, because I believe animals are as important and as sacred as people), then you should be able to do whatever you want."

why are other people sacred?

if joe has what i want, and i successfully take it, then joe loses

if i'm unsuccessful in taking it, then i lose

if i have something joe covets, and joe is successful is taking it, then he wins

if joe is unsuccessful, then i win

You are taking something from someone, so that is doing harm.

as for animals: nuthin' like a thick, juicy, rare, steak to fortify a body

Nothing wrong with eating meat, as long as you humanely kill the animal and don't waste anything.

my point: there's no reason not to steal, lie, cheat, or kill another other than pragmatism (and individual preference)

Of course there are reasons not to do those things; there are morals and ethics and decency.

certainly: the great fictions of morality and law -- being fictions -- are next to useless



"I also think we should not being doing harm to the earth. We should only take what we need."

we are fleas on this planet...it'll be 'round long after humans kick off...i say: get now while the getting’s good...

I would say we are more like a virus than fleas.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He wasn't speaking for all; he was speaking of all. When he says 'we' that is because he is making his personal assessment of 'us' (mankind).

yup. That is his opinion of mankind.