The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We live in a physical world, of physical properties. The physical world is ruled by physical laws. Humans are physical beings, therefore we can never experience freedom.
Ta-da!
Ta-da!
Page:
Why can't you see that a freedom as you define it, with no boundaries or restrictions, simply destroys other freedoms instead ?
Under your idea of 'freedom' I can kill someone for any reason, and nothing in law says that is wrong. Yet, shouldn't the victim have had the freedom to live without fear of such a crime ? I can steal, I can do anything, and nothing in your 'freedom' can say I'm wrong. You could argue that such actions as wanton crime would cause the perpetrator to be hunted down by a mob, but then that's removing the perpetrators freedom to a trial, and the justice system, and how could there be such a mob when there would be, under Blank's freedom, no boundaries to define wrongdoing anyway ?
Morals ? Well they don't exist under the freedom you define, as the morality of a society is what places the boundaries on freedom, and establishes them.
Under your idea of 'freedom' I can kill someone for any reason, and nothing in law says that is wrong. Yet, shouldn't the victim have had the freedom to live without fear of such a crime ? I can steal, I can do anything, and nothing in your 'freedom' can say I'm wrong. You could argue that such actions as wanton crime would cause the perpetrator to be hunted down by a mob, but then that's removing the perpetrators freedom to a trial, and the justice system, and how could there be such a mob when there would be, under Blank's freedom, no boundaries to define wrongdoing anyway ?
Morals ? Well they don't exist under the freedom you define, as the morality of a society is what places the boundaries on freedom, and establishes them.
Exaclty.
Boundaries = restrictions = not free.
If anyone were truely free they could do anything they wanted. They could float around in the air making gophers out of toadstools.
Yup yup
Boundaries = restrictions = not free.
If anyone were truely free they could do anything they wanted. They could float around in the air making gophers out of toadstools.
Yup yup
There is no such thing as a freedom WITH boundaries. Why can you not see that?
Dr Duck wrote:
> Unless, of course, you consider anarchy to be freedom.
>
> The simple conclusion then would be that freedom isn't necessarily a
> good thing.
> Which, by the need for laws which encroach on some freedoms to protect
> peoples' wellbeing, doesn't seem too far off the mark.
Pretty damn on there Dr Duck, and a lot more concisely than I could put it!
All I would add is that restrictions to freedom, such as laws, are there to protect other freedoms. You have the right to freedom of speech, the right to live free from violence, acts of crime, and so on. To protect those freedoms then there have to be laws.
Freedom, without any boundaries (as Blank insists is the meaning of freedom) does not really lead to true freedom, as the absence of laws destroys other freedoms, hence a freedom without boundaries is one where there are some new freedoms at the cost of others. The only way that could ever change is if people changed in how they act - highly unlikely.
> Unless, of course, you consider anarchy to be freedom.
>
> The simple conclusion then would be that freedom isn't necessarily a
> good thing.
> Which, by the need for laws which encroach on some freedoms to protect
> peoples' wellbeing, doesn't seem too far off the mark.
Pretty damn on there Dr Duck, and a lot more concisely than I could put it!
All I would add is that restrictions to freedom, such as laws, are there to protect other freedoms. You have the right to freedom of speech, the right to live free from violence, acts of crime, and so on. To protect those freedoms then there have to be laws.
Freedom, without any boundaries (as Blank insists is the meaning of freedom) does not really lead to true freedom, as the absence of laws destroys other freedoms, hence a freedom without boundaries is one where there are some new freedoms at the cost of others. The only way that could ever change is if people changed in how they act - highly unlikely.
HALO Fan wrote:
> Hmm, I've noticed this attitude quite a bit on these forums from my
> short time of actually posting here.
>
> Someone can't actually explain themselves, or back up their statement,
> so they take the "oh, the other guy is dumb" route....
Well it's surprisingly easy to take that route when you say things like "Freedom, by it's nature, has boundaries". Frankly one of the most stupid comments I've ever heard.
> Want an example of your idea of freedom ?
>
> The Internet. Whilst having some positive aspects, it's also home to
> every sexual perversion there is(and before the morality squad pounces
> I'm not on about normal kind of porn here), and just about everything
> that is bad about the human race. It's allowed hatred and bigotry to
> spread faster than at any other time in human history, and spread more
> suffering than any natural disaster ever could. Your freedom is
> represented on the internet; a total mess and out of control, lawless.
>
>
> In short, anarchy.
>
> If you'd love to translate that kind of freedom into the real world
> then you'd have to be mad, or pointlessly idealistic. Either is
> equally bad.
Find me where I said I wanted to. Find me where I said I wanted freedom. Oh, you can't?
> And, whilst pouring scorn on me, you fail to answer the question I
> have posed you.
>
> What is the difference between your freedom and anarchy ?
Two things here:
1) It is not MY freedom. It's freedom. That's why I gave you a definition, and then when you didn't get it I told you to look it up.
2) I didn't say there was a difference between freedom and anarchy. I didn't say there had to be a difference. Freedom more or less is anarchy.
If you were capable of arguing your point I wouldn't have taken the "The other guy is dumb" route. The only reason I engaged you in the first point is because I thought you were capable. Now I see you are not. You cannot even grasp the concept or even definition of the word freedom. Increase your vocabulary just by one and maybe you'll give a better argument.
> Hmm, I've noticed this attitude quite a bit on these forums from my
> short time of actually posting here.
>
> Someone can't actually explain themselves, or back up their statement,
> so they take the "oh, the other guy is dumb" route....
Well it's surprisingly easy to take that route when you say things like "Freedom, by it's nature, has boundaries". Frankly one of the most stupid comments I've ever heard.
> Want an example of your idea of freedom ?
>
> The Internet. Whilst having some positive aspects, it's also home to
> every sexual perversion there is(and before the morality squad pounces
> I'm not on about normal kind of porn here), and just about everything
> that is bad about the human race. It's allowed hatred and bigotry to
> spread faster than at any other time in human history, and spread more
> suffering than any natural disaster ever could. Your freedom is
> represented on the internet; a total mess and out of control, lawless.
>
>
> In short, anarchy.
>
> If you'd love to translate that kind of freedom into the real world
> then you'd have to be mad, or pointlessly idealistic. Either is
> equally bad.
Find me where I said I wanted to. Find me where I said I wanted freedom. Oh, you can't?
> And, whilst pouring scorn on me, you fail to answer the question I
> have posed you.
>
> What is the difference between your freedom and anarchy ?
Two things here:
1) It is not MY freedom. It's freedom. That's why I gave you a definition, and then when you didn't get it I told you to look it up.
2) I didn't say there was a difference between freedom and anarchy. I didn't say there had to be a difference. Freedom more or less is anarchy.
If you were capable of arguing your point I wouldn't have taken the "The other guy is dumb" route. The only reason I engaged you in the first point is because I thought you were capable. Now I see you are not. You cannot even grasp the concept or even definition of the word freedom. Increase your vocabulary just by one and maybe you'll give a better argument.
Unless, of course, you consider anarchy to be freedom.
The simple conclusion then would be that freedom isn't necessarily a good thing.
Which, by the need for laws which encroach on some freedoms to protect peoples' wellbeing, doesn't seem too far off the mark.
The simple conclusion then would be that freedom isn't necessarily a good thing.
Which, by the need for laws which encroach on some freedoms to protect peoples' wellbeing, doesn't seem too far off the mark.
Blank wrote:
> Look, it's obvious that you won't accept what I'm saying. Look the
> word up in a dictionary.
Hmm, I've noticed this attitude quite a bit on these forums from my short time of actually posting here.
Someone can't actually explain themselves, or back up their statement, so they take the "oh, the other guy is dumb" route....
Want an example of your idea of freedom ?
The Internet. Whilst having some positive aspects, it's also home to every sexual perversion there is(and before the morality squad pounces I'm not on about normal kind of porn here), and just about everything that is bad about the human race. It's allowed hatred and bigotry to spread faster than at any other time in human history, and spread more suffering than any natural disaster ever could. Your freedom is represented on the internet; a total mess and out of control, lawless.
In short, anarchy.
If you'd love to translate that kind of freedom into the real world then you'd have to be mad, or pointlessly idealistic. Either is equally bad.
And, whilst pouring scorn on me, you fail to answer the question I have posed you.
What is the difference between your freedom and anarchy ?
> Look, it's obvious that you won't accept what I'm saying. Look the
> word up in a dictionary.
Hmm, I've noticed this attitude quite a bit on these forums from my short time of actually posting here.
Someone can't actually explain themselves, or back up their statement, so they take the "oh, the other guy is dumb" route....
Want an example of your idea of freedom ?
The Internet. Whilst having some positive aspects, it's also home to every sexual perversion there is(and before the morality squad pounces I'm not on about normal kind of porn here), and just about everything that is bad about the human race. It's allowed hatred and bigotry to spread faster than at any other time in human history, and spread more suffering than any natural disaster ever could. Your freedom is represented on the internet; a total mess and out of control, lawless.
In short, anarchy.
If you'd love to translate that kind of freedom into the real world then you'd have to be mad, or pointlessly idealistic. Either is equally bad.
And, whilst pouring scorn on me, you fail to answer the question I have posed you.
What is the difference between your freedom and anarchy ?
Look, it's obvious that you won't accept what I'm saying. Look the word up in a dictionary.
Okay, if Freedom has no controls then how do you prevent anarchy ?
What is the difference between a state of Freedom with no controls, and anarchy and chaos ?
What is the difference between a state of Freedom with no controls, and anarchy and chaos ?
HALO Fan wrote:
> Even so, Freedom with no controls is not freedom but anarchy unless
> you can trust every member of society to behave.
Freedom - The condition of being free of restraints. If there is a rule, law, or anything of the like, it is not freedom.
> If you define freedom as being able to do anything without limit then
> noone would ever achieve that, because we all have our own inherent
> morals and limits to what we will do as people, sure those limits may
> differ from person to person, but everyone has things they will not
> do.
Our morals are of our decision, we are free to ignore them.
> For instance, and taking this to an extreme, if I handed someone a gun
> and told them to shoot someone then chances are they would not because
> their morals tell them it is wrong. Are they then not living in
> Freedom, because something has prevented them doing something ?
But it is they who have prevented themselves from doing it - if it weren't for themselves they could have done it. They still can.
> Freedom by it's nature contains some limits to prevent certain
> actions.
No, by it's nature it DOES NOT. See the above definition.
> Even so, Freedom with no controls is not freedom but anarchy unless
> you can trust every member of society to behave.
Freedom - The condition of being free of restraints. If there is a rule, law, or anything of the like, it is not freedom.
> If you define freedom as being able to do anything without limit then
> noone would ever achieve that, because we all have our own inherent
> morals and limits to what we will do as people, sure those limits may
> differ from person to person, but everyone has things they will not
> do.
Our morals are of our decision, we are free to ignore them.
> For instance, and taking this to an extreme, if I handed someone a gun
> and told them to shoot someone then chances are they would not because
> their morals tell them it is wrong. Are they then not living in
> Freedom, because something has prevented them doing something ?
But it is they who have prevented themselves from doing it - if it weren't for themselves they could have done it. They still can.
> Freedom by it's nature contains some limits to prevent certain
> actions.
No, by it's nature it DOES NOT. See the above definition.
Page: