one the many parallel running threads in me head

couple of ways the thread title there might be interpreted, though the more singular derr way it might be interpreted is not what I mean, more what I mean is counter to that

yeah nah I dun’t means abuse of liberty or rights, but it’s a good starting point

anyways, a philosophy thread, think of it as moral philosophy, or whatever, free country and all that

some typing practice if you want

drop examples here if you can think of any, to explore

BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOMSHIPNESS

Peak Warming Man said:

BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOMSHIPNESS

Happiness siimply is. It cannot be pursued or caught or taken away.

I saw an episode of Star Trek The Next Generation once, wherein Picard boldly proclaimed to the Borg that it was impossible for the Federation to subjugate itself as they demanded; “Our culture is based on freedom and self determination” he said.

For many years I thought yes, that’s the ticket.

But then I saw an episode of Battlestar Galactica, wherein the leaders of the fleet debated the rightness of allowing a woman who wanted to have an abortion to have one in a world where the Cylons had reduced the human population of the universe to a mere 50,000 people. It somewhat stunned me when the episode closed with the decision that they “needed every baby they could get”, and abortion was banned.

What I realized from that is that liberty, freedom, the right to self determination, bodily autonomy… these are not fundamental rights due to all people. They are indulgences that are appropriate to champion in certain situations, in certain times, and inappropriate in others.

We can see this in many real world examples. Ukraine has suspended elections, Zelensky will be the leader until the special military operation ends or until someone ends him. Those Ukrainians who can fight will be sent to fight, whether they like it or not. People really shouldn’t be given a choice whether they wear a mask when a deadly disease is sweeping the world, passed from breath to breath. You can not drive your car as fast as you like on public roads. If Thanos demands the genocide of all people with European ancestry lest he snap his fingers and wipe out the entirety of humanity, then, absent the Avengers, it’s time to start genociding.

Ultimately, the long term survival of the human race is a prerequisite to any other discussion about the liberties that people should be afforded. It’s not optional. If humanity dies off, there is nothing to discuss, no distinction to be made between enslaved or oppressed people and free or privileged people, no-one to even have the discussion. Should the idea of individual liberty conflict with the idea of survival of the species, then liberty must die to the sound of thunderous applause (I got that one from Star Wars). Even trying to hang on to it can be an abuse of the liberty afforded. It all just depends on the situation, the circumstances of the time.

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOMSHIPNESS

Happiness siimply is. It cannot be pursued or caught or taken away.

The right to bear arms, impinges on the right for basic safety imo and is an abuse of liberty.

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOMSHIPNESS

Happiness siimply is. It cannot be pursued or caught or taken away.

The right to bear arms, impinges on the right for basic safety imo and is an abuse of liberty.

In the times of the wild west … I concur it was needed but not today , accidental access costs lives

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

Peak Warming Man said:

BUT THEY CAN NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOMSHIPNESS

Happiness siimply is. It cannot be pursued or caught or taken away.

The right to bear arms, impinges on the right for basic safety imo and is an abuse of liberty.

We don’t have that right any more.

monkey skipper said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

Happiness siimply is. It cannot be pursued or caught or taken away.

The right to bear arms, impinges on the right for basic safety imo and is an abuse of liberty.

In the times of the wild west … I concur it was needed but not today , accidental access costs lives

I do believe that much of the wild west was concocted for dime novels.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

monkey skipper said:

The right to bear arms, impinges on the right for basic safety imo and is an abuse of liberty.

In the times of the wild west … I concur it was needed but not today , accidental access costs lives

I do believe that much of the wild west was concocted for dime novels.

i meant in the US

transition said:

one the many parallel running threads in me head

couple of ways the thread title there might be interpreted, though the more singular derr way it might be interpreted is not what I mean, more what I mean is counter to that

yeah nah I dun’t means abuse of liberty or rights, but it’s a good starting point

anyways, a philosophy thread, think of it as moral philosophy, or whatever, free country and all that

some typing practice if you want

drop examples here if you can think of any, to explore

Eg.

liberte egalite fraternite, the catchphrase of madame guillotine

I was sort of wondering recently what “freedom” actually meant.
I’d previously dismissed it a American propaganda,
but on thinking about slavery in ancient Rome it does actually have a real meaning.

“Freedom” literally means “not prisoner”, and in the days before prisons were invented it meant “not slave”. “Slave” and “prisoner” are synonyms, and for both there are two types.

The two types of criminals are and always have been lawbreakers and prisoners of war.
A prisoner of war isn’t a lawbreaker, just anyone unlucky enough to get in the way of an army.

The purpose of prisons is and has always been protection. Protection of those outside the prison from those inside. The danger from lawbreakers to those outside is crime. The danger from prisoners of war to those outside is revenge.

These are the 20 least free countries/subcountries in the world. Copied from wikipedia:

transition said:

one the many parallel running threads in me head

couple of ways the thread title there might be interpreted, though the more singular derr way it might be interpreted is not what I mean, more what I mean is counter to that

yeah nah I dun’t means abuse of liberty or rights, but it’s a good starting point

anyways, a philosophy thread, think of it as moral philosophy, or whatever, free country and all that

some typing practice if you want

drop examples here if you can think of any, to explore

Eg.

liberte egalite fraternite, the catchphrase of madame guillotine

I was sort of wondering recently what “freedom” actually meant.
I’d previously dismissed it a American propaganda,
but on thinking about slavery in ancient Rome it does actually have a real meaning.

“Freedom” literally means “not prisoner”, and in the days before prisons were invented it meant “not slave”. “Slave” and “prisoner” are synonyms, and for both there are two types.

The two types of criminals are and always have been lawbreakers and prisoners of war.
A prisoner of war isn’t a lawbreaker, just anyone unlucky enough to get in the way of an army.

The purpose of prisons is and has always been protection. Protection of those outside the prison from those inside. The danger from lawbreakers to those outside is crime. The danger from prisoners of war to those outside is revenge.

These are the 20 least free countries/subcountries in the world. Copied from wikipedia:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

one the many parallel running threads in me head

couple of ways the thread title there might be interpreted, though the more singular derr way it might be interpreted is not what I mean, more what I mean is counter to that

yeah nah I dun’t means abuse of liberty or rights, but it’s a good starting point

anyways, a philosophy thread, think of it as moral philosophy, or whatever, free country and all that

some typing practice if you want

drop examples here if you can think of any, to explore

Eg.

liberte egalite fraternite, the catchphrase of madame guillotine

I was sort of wondering recently what “freedom” actually meant.
I’d previously dismissed it a American propaganda,
but on thinking about slavery in ancient Rome it does actually have a real meaning.

“Freedom” literally means “not prisoner”, and in the days before prisons were invented it meant “not slave”. “Slave” and “prisoner” are synonyms, and for both there are two types.

The two types of criminals are and always have been lawbreakers and prisoners of war.
A prisoner of war isn’t a lawbreaker, just anyone unlucky enough to get in the way of an army.

The purpose of prisons is and has always been protection. Protection of those outside the prison from those inside. The danger from lawbreakers to those outside is crime. The danger from prisoners of war to those outside is revenge.

These are the 20 least free countries/subcountries in the world. Copied from wikipedia:

has proper read thread tomorrow maybe, too tired presently

‘The purpose of prisons is and has always been protection‘

Secondary to punitiveness.