"Freedom"

infoterror said:
Whatever happened to the idea that if an individual is harming nothing, he or she should be able to do whatever is desired?

That idea runs into problems immediately because sins of omission can be as destructive as active counteraction. If I'm taking bong hits in my house and fail to notice the armed bandits taking turns raping my neigbhors, I'm still enjoying "freedom," but I'm not taking part in society. If in a society of bonghitters, I'm taking cocaine, or worshipping Gods that hate marijuana, I'm causing harm slowly and steadily. Harm can be defined as whatever goes against the collective goals of a society; if the values to define those goals cannot exist, harm is undefined, and almost all behavior becomes harm because none of it is geared toward order.

how do bong hits have anything to do with failing to notice a rape in progress? if i have understood this statement correctly, this is yet another negative association of marijuana users on their integrity and awareness.

if one was worshiping a god that hates marijuana, (lets assume the majority of the population falls under this religion) and, being the majority, they take matters into their own hands and outlaw marijuana for those non believing pot smokers, isnt that withholding the rights/freedom of the non religious people? seperation of church and state was set in motion for a reason.

i totally agree with the statement, "Whatever happened to the idea that if an individual is harming nothing, he or she should be able to do whatever is desired?", and feel it could be the basis for a truly free society. Because, harm should not be defined as "against the collective goals of a society" but rather the withholding of anothers freedom.
 
By Design said:
how do bong hits have anything to do with failing to notice a rape in progress? if i have understood this statement correctly, this is yet another negative association of marijuana users on their integrity and awareness.

I think the point being made was not specific to marijuana.
 
speed said:
and I hear its very expensive and very gay, so...

:lol: You're absolutely right. Although, it is less expensive and probably more gay than it was five years ago. I've been propositioned a number of times. But luckily the girls are hot here, so I've been able to find happiness.
 
VikingSF said:
I was able to find a job with a company that paid me a very high hourly wage, paid all of my monthly health and dental insurance costs, and gave me generous amounts of paid vacation time. Now, five years later, my hourly wage is even higher after a number of raises and promotions, so that I make almost 40K a year. On top of that, the company accomodates my college schedule, allowing me to shift my working hours around my class schedule, so that someday I can leave this company for better, more fulfilling work elsewhere.

It's easy to make a good living in this country. The question isn't you*, however; it's where the country is going as a whole.


* Or "me," personally. Big point is: not personal, holistic.
 
infoterror said:
It's easy to make a good living in this country. The question isn't you*, however; it's where the country is going as a whole.


* Or "me," personally. Big point is: not personal, holistic.

Agreed. With a country so large, it's hard to make accurate generalized statements or solid conclusions.
 
Small companies which have good conditions for their workers are being made bankrupt by not being able to compete with large multinational corporations who are less considerate. This fact is established. Okay, so how then does that translated to nations? Surely then a nation like China is going to be far more economically powerful, when we have a global market with no trade barrriers, than the countries who enshrine workers rights (pensions, wages, hours working) into their policy. Without protectionism, these nations will go under, just as the small companies do. And what then?
 
War Against the Mind is No Cartoon

Sun Media
Wed 15 Feb 2006
Charles Adler


"So there I am in my Adler on Line studio listening to an
expert on terrorism telling me that publishing the Muhammad cartoons
is the equivalent of publishing cartoons mocking the Holocaust.

What matters is not what you believe, Mr. Adler, I am told. What
matters, he says, is what they believe.

Does it get any more pathetic for western civilization? I didn't
know that the massacre of millions of people was a belief. I thought
it was fact based.

I thought that what separated us from the uncivilized was that we
had a system of law based on values that have been mutually accepted
by reasonable people. I thought that reason was based on the logical
marshalling of facts. I thought that facts had to represent reality.
I thought that if reason and reality got a divorce, nobody's freedom
could remain safe.

I thought that the Cold War was fought in the name of protecting
the free mind which was under attack by the Communist mind. I
thought that the war against Communist tyranny was about keeping us
free. I thought that a person's yearning to be free was innate and
that a free society was one where the tyrants of statism and
religiosity were to be kept at bay with constitutions and the laws
that must obey them.

What is a cartoon? Have you ever watched The Simpsons and asked
yourself the question: Why is it that laughter has, for a few
moments at least, conquered me? We could analyze the joke or simply
admit to ourselves that what the cartoon is lampooning is making us
free to laugh at it.

Most of the time we end up laughing at our own foibles and our own
conventional nonsense. Cartoons liberate us from the chains of
bigotry. They are celebrations of personal freedom.

I personally believe that freedom is the cradle of our
civilization. That cradle gets rocked every day by authoritarians of
all stripes who view our friend, freedom, as their foe. But I
personally believe that when the cradle rockers are exposed for what
they are, we will fight back.

I personally believe that we don't wish to become prisoners of our
own fearful minds.

I personally believe that we don't want freedom to sit on death
row, and then to lethally inject it with the poison of intolerance.

We have been told by moderate voices that the publishing of the
Muhammad cartoons shows disrespect to those of the Islamic faith. I
buy that and I have no desire to publish the cartoons on my website.

Some people are telling me I am a coward not to publish them. But I
am not going to give the mob the power over my mind. I am not going
to publish them simply to spite those who threaten and murder.

Nothing is gained in deliberately disrespecting someone else's
treasured icons. But everything is lost when we lose our minds and
pretend there is moral equivalence between the mockery of murder and
that of an icon.

When the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues, they were engaging in
disgusting acts. But when they executed women in that soccer stadium
they were committing evil acts.

As a free man I am not willing to declare that there is no
difference between what is disgusting and what is evil.

If the cartoons in question were mocking the massacre of Muslims,
they would earn the condemnation that they have received.

But if we as a free people choose to murder our own minds and
diminish evil in the name of tolerance, we are putting ourselves in
a position where we no longer have anything left to lose. We will have
surrendered everything that mattered."
 
The Winnipeg Warrior said:
War Against the Mind is No Cartoon

Sun Media
Wed 15 Feb 2006
Charles Adler

"So there I am in my Adler on Line studio listening to an
expert on terrorism telling me that publishing the Muhammad cartoons
is the equivalent of publishing cartoons mocking the Holocaust.

What matters is not what you believe, Mr. Adler, I am told. What
matters, he says, is what they believe.

Does it get any more pathetic for western civilization? I didn't
know that the massacre of millions of people was a belief. I thought
it was fact based.

I thought that what separated us from the uncivilized was that we
had a system of law based on values that have been mutually accepted
by reasonable people. I thought that reason was based on the logical
marshalling of facts. I thought that facts had to represent reality.
I thought that if reason and reality got a divorce, nobody's freedom
could remain safe.

I thought that the Cold War was fought in the name of protecting
the free mind which was under attack by the Communist mind. I
thought that the war against Communist tyranny was about keeping us
free. I thought that a person's yearning to be free was innate and
that a free society was one where the tyrants of statism and
religiosity were to be kept at bay with constitutions and the laws
that must obey them.

What is a cartoon? Have you ever watched The Simpsons and asked
yourself the question: Why is it that laughter has, for a few
moments at least, conquered me? We could analyze the joke or simply
admit to ourselves that what the cartoon is lampooning is making us
free to laugh at it.

Most of the time we end up laughing at our own foibles and our own
conventional nonsense. Cartoons liberate us from the chains of
bigotry. They are celebrations of personal freedom.

I personally believe that freedom is the cradle of our
civilization. That cradle gets rocked every day by authoritarians of
all stripes who view our friend, freedom, as their foe. But I
personally believe that when the cradle rockers are exposed for what
they are, we will fight back.

I personally believe that we don't wish to become prisoners of our
own fearful minds.

I personally believe that we don't want freedom to sit on death
row, and then to lethally inject it with the poison of intolerance.

We have been told by moderate voices that the publishing of the
Muhammad cartoons shows disrespect to those of the Islamic faith. I
buy that and I have no desire to publish the cartoons on my website.

Some people are telling me I am a coward not to publish them. But I
am not going to give the mob the power over my mind. I am not going
to publish them simply to spite those who threaten and murder.

Nothing is gained in deliberately disrespecting someone else's
treasured icons. But everything is lost when we lose our minds and
pretend there is moral equivalence between the mockery of murder and
that of an icon.

When the Taliban destroyed Buddhist statues, they were engaging in
disgusting acts. But when they executed women in that soccer stadium
they were committing evil acts.

As a free man I am not willing to declare that there is no
difference between what is disgusting and what is evil.

If the cartoons in question were mocking the massacre of Muslims,
they would earn the condemnation that they have received.

But if we as a free people choose to murder our own minds and
diminish evil in the name of tolerance, we are putting ourselves in
a position where we no longer have anything left to lose. We will have
surrendered everything that mattered."

In regards to these cartoons: Islam tells us that on that unappealable Day of Judgment, all who have perpretrated images of living things will reawaken with their works, and will be ordered to blow life into them, and they will fail, and they and their works will be cast into the fires of punishment.
 
speed said:
In regards to these cartoons: Islam tells us that on that unappealable Day of Judgment, all who have perpretrated images of living things will reawaken with their works, and will be ordered to blow life into them, and they will fail, and they and their works will be cast into the fires of punishment.

With an exception for art, I'll say I distrust images of things being used in lieu of the things themselves.

Words excepted, of course!