Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Freedom-Doing what one ought or ought not do.

I'm testing the theory out, it should be flawless for the most part...

no, freedom is doing what you want to do, not what you oght not do.

Want, and when is it have we ever known what we want?

i see where your going with this. the question was a set up. you think that what we want is defined by the reality in which we live in.

but still, i think freedom is pure anarchy. plain and simple. freedom is the ability to do what you want and when you want it. and if you dont know what you want, do nothing...

Apparently free will doesn't exist. Hiesenberg principle suggests this,

No... Heisenbergs principle suggests that free will exists. It says that things are uncertain and not predetermined, so free will can exist.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
No... Heisenbergs principle suggests that free will exists. It says that things are uncertain and not predetermined, so free will can exist. indeed...Newton's Physics suggest that there is no free will......Einstein made it even worse since he basically said there ios no movement...but don't we all love our Heisenberg for giving it back to us....Oh by the way...Sheldrake has a rather interesting Idea on free will too...

Originally posted by Superfly4000
but still, i think freedom is pure anarchy. plain and simple. freedom is the ability to do what you want and when you want it. and if you dont know what you want, do nothing...
Then the question is at what point does my freedom violates another person' s freedom, and therefore nullifies such freedom?

Originally posted by Storm
Then the question is at what point does my freedom violates another person' s freedom, and therefore nullifies such freedom?

Hmmm.......
Good question

Originally posted by AOR
Freedom-Doing what one ought or ought not do.

I'm testing the theory out, it should be flawless for the most part... Freedom is being your own leader.

freedom should mean....freedom to do as one wishes, while not intruding on the freedom of others.

Originally posted by PVS
freedom should mean....freedom to do as one wishes, while not intruding on the freedom of others.

I think that's pretty solid as a working definition of individual liberty in a free but law-bound society. Of course, the debate comes into the actual everyday working out of this definiton.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I think that's pretty solid as a working definition of individual liberty in a free but law-bound society. Of course, the debate comes into the actual everyday working out of this definiton.

i think it applies, as simplified as it is. besides, "ought and ought not" are subjective and, depending on who decides what ought and ought not, can be the very basis for a dictatorship.

Originally posted by PVS
i think it applies, as simplified as it is. besides, "ought and ought not" are subjective and, depending on who decides what ought and ought not, can be the very basis for a dictatorship.

While we're on the subject, do you think it would be too terribly dictatorial for Congress to pass a law requiring mandatory bikini wear for those women deemed "too hot for everyday covering"? Of course, this determination would be part of that subjective dilemma you mentioned. A House or Senate sub-committee would have to determine the law's particular application.

But nakedness is part of freedom, right? Haven't these women been restricted by their clothing long enough? I think someone should look into this.

you present a point in the form of a joke, i assume, so i will respond.

we live in a society where public nudity is generally considered offensive. therefore others' freedom to not have an assault on their senses would be intruded upon. same way that you dont have the right to blast your stereo at 3 in the morning.

someone may counter with the point like "homosexuality is considered offensive by many", but to that i will simply say that one has a choice to wear cloths and adapt to society while a homosexual cannot just choose to not be gay to adapt. therefore their freedom to simply be who they are is intruded upon, the worst type of intrusion possible imho.

Originally posted by PVS
you present a point in the form of a joke, i assume, so i will respond.

we live in a society where public nudity is generally considered offensive. therefore others' freedom to not have an assault on their senses would be intruded upon. same way that you dont have the right to blast your stereo at 3 in the morning.

someone may counter with the point like "homosexuality is considered offensive by many", but to that i will simply say that one has a choice to wear cloths and adapt to society while a homosexual cannot just choose to not be gay to adapt. therefore their freedom to simply be who they are is intruded upon, the worst type of intrusion possible imho.

My post was pretty much a straight up joke--no hidden agenda--, but I'm pleased you responded, nonetheless. Like I said, I think your working definition of freedom, or, liberty, is pretty good. In any particular situation, you clearly have to balance individual rights against the collective good.

I was just expressing my wish to see Jessica Alba, or perhaps Scarlott Johanssen, in a bikini more often. I think that would be a collective good as well, now that I think about it....

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I was just expressing my wish to see Jessica Alba, or perhaps Scarlott Johanssen, in a bikini more often. I think that would be a collective good as well, now that I think about it....

however in order to see alba naked you would have to accept seeing the bits of those who you really dont want to see nude. chances are the nasty expreriences would outweigh the desirable one, and permanent shrinkage would be the result, rendering your alba experience ineffective.

Originally posted by PVS
however in order to see alba naked you would have to accept seeing the bits of those who you really dont want to see nude. chances are the nasty expreriences would outweigh the desirable one, and permanent shrinkage would be the result, rendering your alba experience ineffective.

LOL. That's where the House or Senate bikini screening sub-committee would come into play.

Originally posted by PVS
freedom should mean....freedom to do as one wishes, while not intruding on the freedom of others. Unfortunately, you don't write the Oxford dictionary.

Omnipotence is true freedom. Everything else, is a certain degree of freedom.

If one has absolute freedom, can one choose Not to be free? You should be able to, if your freedom is absolute. But then, if you choose Not to be free -- and therefore, you are no longer free -- was your freedom truly absolute in the first place? Was it merely conditional, conditional on not choosing to Not be free?

jerry

Originally posted by Mindship
If one has absolute freedom, can one choose Not to be free? You should be able to, if your freedom is absolute. But then, if you choose Not to be free -- and therefore, you are no longer free -- was your freedom truly absolute in the first place? Was it merely conditional, conditional on not choosing to Not be free?

jerry

Omnipotence has inherent paradoxes, yes....

there's a war going on in iraq for just that reason: "freedom". (since all other reasons have failed)

yet i see no such thing...at least not the concept of freedom which i've come to understand. in fact whenever i hear the word "freedom" mentioned in proposals on foreign policy it ends up with tens, even hundreds of thousands of innocent people slaughtered, an occupying military regime, and complete hatred for those who spread this "freedom".

in america people seem to think that freedom is a right to impose religious beliefs on the populus through their right to vote for a radical politician. their reason being "majority rules"....but wouldnt that have justified slavery?

so...it seems to me that 'freedom' an inherant right of the aggressive to impose their will on the minority/passive/weak. it also seems that 'freedom' and 'liberty' have become antonyms. any mention of civil liberties and you're a card carrying communist freedom hater.

anyway, i know its a rant, but the topic is valid. define "freedom" as you see it

I think the idea of total freedom is nothing more than a dream. In reality, we all have the freedom we'll really need.

Though, there's exceptions; People who want abortion, homosexuals, people being oppressed for these reasons when they really shouldn't be. I think there could be more things legal that aren't, but I don't think the idea of "total freedom." will ever come to pass.

-AC

NO STORM!!!! NO!!!!!!!

I believe in Freedom of speech damit to hell.

Hahaha, PVS got bitchslapped.

Absolute Freedom does not exist.


Everything is interdependent, no one and nothing is independent from everything else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahaha, PVS got bitchslapped.

shut up you feces consuming goosestepping jew hating............GERMAN

I read some time back a defintion of freedom IIRC it was something like....

Freedom is self control of your actions well enough so another does not have to step in to do so.

Of course the problem is there are so many people with so many ideas of what is "acceptable conduct" it would really depend on who is in official charge in the area you are located.

What is acceptable in one country or social group is not in another or sometimes even certain locations in a country.

Freedom is not having to say sorry

Freedom is the upside of responsibility. If you are not going to take responsibility for your choices and their consequences, you do not deserve to be free. To expect to live your life otherwise is childish.

freedom and responsibility are radically different concepts

responsibility may be necessary for prolonged amounts of freedom in a social organization, however, the "authority" of responsibility imposes certain rules on people's behaviour. The "benefit" of this authority is because absolute freedom is counter productive to the human condition.

Originally posted by inimalist
freedom and responsibility are radically different concepts

responsibility may be necessary for prolonged amounts of freedom in a social organization, however, the "authority" of responsibility imposes certain rules on people's behaviour. The "benefit" of this authority is because absolute freedom is counter productive to the human condition.
Radically different but not necessarily unrelated. IMO, freedom without personal responsibility is akin to blaming others for when things go bad with the choices one makes. In blaming others, one sees oneself as a victim. Freedom in victimhood is an illusion (indeed, absolute freedom could well be an abstract and nothing more). Freedom in the context of personal responsibility offers the greater sense of psychological independence.

There are different types of freedom ....

Allow me, if I could, to enter a Paradise. Plato's Republic if you will. That where the world would be perfect and no man would ever harm another (man being in the most general of senses. Absolutely no bias towards women). Now, then wouldn't freedom indeed be following the rules of society or as Thoreau would put it "The beat of our own drummer; self-governing"? That we would follow a set of "rules" or natural laws that actually bring us freedom, contrary to popular belief that the actually idea of rebellion and nonconformity bring freedom?

I seem to be rambling and my thoughts entangled. I guess what I'm trying to say is, as I did in the first post, is freedom is doing what we are supposed to do. That neither at the risk of our identity or lives we live according to the way things are. That there is no disturbance in "the system". Everything has an order. And when things are in balance there is peace and there is freedom. It wouldn't be freedom for the ladybug to act like a bird. Not that it can't, but rather it shouldn't. Because the lady bug could, and then be "forced" to live the life of the bird and that would not be freedom.

So again I say: "Freedom is doing what we ought to do."

I think the freedom you mean, PVS-Whirly sock, is an amount of what you are allowed to do by the standards of a society compared to your actual ability to do things.

Like, you might be allowed to just suddenly levitate, you don't have the ability though, so that is hardly a freedom. The freedom liberal idealists are talking about is one where the individual in a state have as much control over their own lives as possible together with a wish to be able to use those freedoms in a manner that is ii suppose humane....to do that there must be some kind of laws that cut down some of the possibilities you have to ensure a higher freedom of everyone.

Going to Iraq for freedom is slightly ridiculous obviously. Freedom is not something that should be imposed on you...I feel.

g6skfbT42lU

Freedom is about choice.

To choose what you do in life, to choose who you are, to choose who you want to be.

Freedom is why we live on, it is why we get up in the morning and it is why evil will never prevail

Originally posted by Grimm22
Freedom is about choice.

To choose what you do in life, to choose who you are, to choose who you want to be.

Freedom is why we live on, it is why we get up in the morning and it is why evil will never prevail

Don't get the last part.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Going to Iraq for freedom is slightly ridiculous obviously. Freedom is not something that should be imposed on you...I feel.


The reasons the war began were badly stated, but I would have gone into Iraq to get rid of Saddam anyways. The guy was a mini-hitler.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
The reasons the war began were badly stated, but I would have gone into Iraq to get rid of Saddam anyways. The guy was a mini-hitler.

Ha, like Bush.

If people understood the consequences of their actions from their own history and learn from it, then there wouldn't be any restriction on freedoms. We'd learn from it and make wiser choices. We'd be a self governing society...

Yep, I'm the Dreamer.

Originally posted by debbiejo
If people understood the consequences of their actions from their own history and learn from it, then there wouldn't be any restriction on freedoms. We'd learn from it and make wiser choices. We'd be a self governing society...

Yep, I'm the Dreamer.

No, your and transcendentalist

HAHA Yeah probably...

freedom is the same as right to act, to speak, to do whatever you want to to...or simply right to be yourself

Hi, I'm a new member. Nice to meet you all. I like your discussian.

Your free when you understand that your almost a slave.

After rereading this I just came to a very breif conclusion:

Freedom is power.

Absolute freedom gives absolute power, but there is still the balance, but only if everyone else has that same power as you, then you cannot do whatever you want without consequence. So total freedom gives total power over your life, and in cases of who is the stronger, if you are, power over other lives -for better or worse.

Freedom is death. <--very deep.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your free when you understand that your almost a slave.

That's real talk but where did you get that from? LOL

Hi. I'm new member. I'm fully agree with Goddes Kali about "Abcolute freedom doesn't exist".


Everything is interdependent, no one and nothing is independent from everything else.
Becouse your freedom is over, where your neighbour's is on. We are very interdepended each from other.