Vegito Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 I propose a concept on freedom: Perhaps freedom is like m!@#$%^&* and energy in the universe(Physics 101). The law of conservation of m!@#$%^&* and energy states that it is a constant value. M!@#$%^&* can be converted to energy, etc. In order to have a true freedom, one must hinder or transfer another person's freedom. For instance, to have truly free speech, one should be able to say they want to brutally murder and rape every member of a given race. Of course this hinders the freedoms of that said race, and therefore is not allowed in the US(national media anyway). If I want to enjoy the freedom of a compe!@#$%^&*ive clothing market with low low prices... the manufacturers of my T-shirts have to hinder the freedom of some Taiwanese kids to make them for me cheap. Maybe freedom can be traded, or I would say converted into something else. Let's call it security. I used to be able to have a good amount of freedom in airports. Now I get an anal exam when my nail clippers fall out of my bag. In this case, I gladly trade that freedom for the security on the airplane. Can security be given up for freedom? you bet. Here is the first ammendment. You can own a gun. Does this make the country less secure considering anyone could get drunk or upset and shoot at some one? yup, so there is a little less security. Just a theory I have that makes sense in my head. Everytime you excersize even a small amount of freedom you are taking away freedom and/or security from another.
Yupa Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 In order to have a true freedom, one must hinder or transfer another person's freedom.Hrmmm?For instance, to have truly free speech, one should be able to say they want to brutally murder and rape every member of a given race. Of course this hinders the freedoms of that said raceNo it doesn't., and therefore is not allowed in the US(national media anyway).What, you mean non-cable? Who cares about those FCC-loving tight!@#$%^&*es.If I want to enjoy the freedom of a compe!@#$%^&*ive clothing market with low low prices... the manufacturers of my T-shirts have to hinder the freedom of some Taiwanese kids to make them for me cheap.No...that'd be Taiwanese hindering the freedom of some Taiwanese kids...and even then, what many Americans would call sweatshops actually pay very well for where they are.Maybe freedom can be traded, or I would say converted into something else. Let's call it security. I used to be able to have a good amount of freedom in airports. Now I get an anal exam when my nail clippers fall out of my bag. In this case, I gladly trade that freedom for the security on the airplane.That has nothing to do with freedom. What would that be - freedom of not allowing airlines and the government to discourage murder?
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 I propse a concept on posting: Don't do it while drunk or hopped up on drugs. I've learned from experience.
MonteZuma Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 When I'm pissed I don't usually log on to a political forum and talk about the philosophy of freedom, but there ya go. Anyway...As some Greek dude once said...."After the crucifixion there is the resurrection...." If freedom is 'the opportunity to exercise choice', then I disagree with the 'conservation of energy' analogy. You don't always need to give something up to have more freedom. Wealth and technology for example give us the freedom to do things we couldn't do before and travel to places we couldn't go before without 'necessarily' taking anything away. Do you really have less overall opportunity to exercise choice if airport security decides to frisk you? You can still choose whether or not to go through the gate. You can still choose whether or not you want to continue your journey. You can still buy a cup of coffee inside or outside the terminal. I don't think airport security is curtailing your freedom. Airport security is a way of ensuring that your freedom to enter the airport or travel safely is not impeded. Airport security gives you freedom - it doesn't take it away. Does the right to bear arms give you more freedom? I don't have such a right, but I am something like 10 times less likely to be killed in a homocide or accidental shooting as you are. I'd say that gives me the edge as far as freedom is concerned. Some kinds of security measures deliver freedoms and others take some away. I don't believe that there is a trade-off or corelation of any kind. Another way of looking at this might be to compare rights and responsibilities. In that case I think that there might be a corelation.
Vegito Posted August 18, 2004 Author Report Posted August 18, 2004 I propse a concept on posting: Don't do it while drunk or hopped up on drugs. I've learned from experience.you are correct sir. I was (perhaps still am stoned)... after re-reading i notice no coherant thought in my post. However it was my freedom to smoke pot and post at will that led to this mockery of a thread.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 However it was my freedom to smoke pot and post at will that led to this mockery of a thread. Since smoking marijuana is Illegal in the US (I'm !@#$%^&*uming you're in the US, if not then just call me an idiot ) you aren't exercising a freedom, you are breaking the law. Not that I believe marijuana should be illegal, just making a point.
Yupa Posted August 18, 2004 Report Posted August 18, 2004 I propse a concept on posting: Don't do it while drunk or hopped up on drugs. I've learned from experience.you are correct sir. I was (perhaps still am stoned)... after re-reading i notice no coherant thought in my post. However it was my freedom to smoke pot and post at will that led to this mockery of a thread. pot
Aileron Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 I think a problem is that private enterprises take freedoms away, under the excuse that citizens are free not to do business with them. For example, I am going up to Penn State University Park next week. That area is A1 deer hunting territory. Thus, I want to bring my gun up with me so I can go hunting when deer season starts. My problem stems from when I want to get an apartment. Virtually every apartment up there forbids firearms. Thus technically I still have the right to bear arms, I just have to give up going to college Regardless of your opinions on gun control, you can't disagree with this - this issue is not for those who manage these apartments to decide. BTW, Monte, you are WAY overestimating how many time guns are used for violence, atleast for the difference between a flat out gun ban and requiring permits for concealed weapons. (How often do criminals use large rifles?)
MonteZuma Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 BTW, Monte, you are WAY overestimating how many time guns are used for violence, atleast for the difference between a flat out gun ban and requiring permits for concealed weapons. (How often do criminals use large rifles?)The facts speak for themselves http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/00001168.gif Firearm deaths per 100,000 peoplehttp://www.ozemail.com.au/~montie/gundeaths.gif
MasterDrake Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 your charts prove nothing why because most of those countries are not even the size of the US, have the same population in size as the US, and have the same laws in effect. Thus your chart proves nothing
MonteZuma Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 your charts prove nothing why (1) because most of those countries are not even the size of the US, (2) have the same population in size as the US, (3) and have the same laws in effect.Using your logic it is impossible to compare anything. (1) Size doesn't come into it. In any case bigger and smaller countries have lower death rates than the US. (2) Population doesn't come into it. These are death rates per 100,000. Some population densities are higher than the US and some are lower. (3) Well yeah. Exactly. Thus your post proves nothing. Somewhere along the line you missed the point. The more freedom you have to carry a firearm, the more likely you are to be killed with a firearm. Fact. Has the second amendment brought you more freedom? No. It has actually supressed it. I'll take freedom from violent gun death over freedom to carry a weapon any day.
Aileron Posted August 19, 2004 Report Posted August 19, 2004 You know, this topic isn't supposed to be about gun control.
Slowking Man Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Just to point out a couple things:According to MonteZuma's statistics:Percent of gun deaths by homicide among children 15 and under:Israel: %Finland: 71%U.S.: 55%Also, I'm not sure if things like this story are a result of the same mentality that leads to gun control laws or not.
MonteZuma Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 The murder rate and accidental death rate are the relevant statistics if we are talking about the effect of gun ownership on personal freedom and liberty, although I could also put forward a case that high levels of gun ownership contributes to higher suicide as well. Finland and Israel are both countries with a -*BAD WORD*-load of guns under beds. Its no surprise then that the US, Finland and Israel have the highest <15yo gun-related murder rates in the industrialised world. The US - and Finland and Israel - would have less homicides, less suicides and less accidental gun deaths if they had more gun control.
Jericho24. Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 yeah.. next lets give osama the freedom to have a second try at the pentagon
Samapico Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Just to point out a couple things:According to MonteZuma's statistics:Percent of gun deaths by homicide among children 15 and under:Israel: % Finland: 71% U.S.: 55%Also, I'm not sure if things like this story are a result of the same mentality that leads to gun control laws or not.Actually... it would be 1% in the US... check the scale at the bottom. That would mean that 50% of firearms-related deaths among <15y.o. are homicides, the other 50% is either suicides/accidental/etc... but all those firearms-related deaths represent ~2% of all the deaths among children under 15... The percentages you pointed out are not representative, you have to compare the rate (at the bottom) corresponding to the black part (homicides) of each bar...What you gave is the ratio of homicides/(suicides+accidental) ... basically that just proves that more children suicides in the U.S....
Hackysack Posted August 20, 2004 Report Posted August 20, 2004 Some people have some screwed up veiws on freedom. <_<
Aileron Posted August 21, 2004 Report Posted August 21, 2004 Oh, I posted, but the comment didn't make it on the forum. It was pretty much what Sam said...that first chart shows that the US still only has a 1.5% rate...it would be more efficient to make driving laws or actually do something in the war on drugs. Suicide is countered by pyschology. If a suicider doesn't have a gun, he jumps off a bridge. Guns have little affect on that aspect. Accidents can also be handled by proper handling. Instead of banning guns, how about requiring owners to take a mandatory safety course? I personnally was not allowed to touch my gun until after a good gun safety speech from my father and a hunter's safety course. If those owning guns were educated as such, I doubt we would have to worry about many accidents. It would be a more appropriate step than the ban of guns. For crime, how many crimes are commited with 22-cals and muzzleloaders? A universal ban includes weapons such as that, whose ban will have no impact on the war on crime. Gun control isn't about saving lives or anything noble as that, its about one line of thought that has an opinion that private gun ownership does nothing for our society, and they feel that they have the right to dictate their opinion on the rest of us. Guns shouldn't be banned anywhere - they should be highly regulated. Smart regulations can have the same impact on personal safety, which Monte himself has proven is an insignificant aspect in the first place.
Jericho24. Posted August 21, 2004 Report Posted August 21, 2004 Sigh.. guns are made to kill, that is their purpose... go figure.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 21, 2004 Report Posted August 21, 2004 Somewhere along the line you missed the point. The more freedom you have to carry a firearm, the more likely you are to be killed with a firearm. Fact. The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point?
Netr0 Posted August 21, 2004 Report Posted August 21, 2004 Somewhere along the line you missed the point. The more freedom you have to carry a firearm, the more likely you are to be killed with a firearm. Fact. The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point? The more freedom you have to post useless things, the more likely you are to spam.
MasterDrake Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 these are all privlages not freedoms
Recommended Posts