|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2002 : 03:11:50
|
I'm notoriously bad at this kind of philosophical discussion, but personal freedom is a kind of ultimate issue with me. I see it in specific terms: I want to be able to eat dead cows if I feel like it, smoke cigarettes in my own home, drink coffee even if it's bad for me, and call a horsethief a horsethief and a quack a quack; all without some neurotic power-freak telling me that this is forbidden for the greater good (always meaning the greater power of power freaks). I also want to be able to tell people the truth about Bible-thumping charlatans and new-age witch-doctors, without being fired or clapped in jail for blasphemy or the modern equivalent, hate speech.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2002 : 05:13:45 [Permalink]
|
I don't see what is so philisphical about this issue.
If my opinion if you want freedoms for youself it is only fair to grant the same or similar freedoms to others.
If you want to destroy your health with nicotin, coffein and alcohol you have to allow others to destroy their health, too, even if they you other drugs for it.
If you want to call people names you either limit yourself to only call them things that have been proven true (convicted horsethiefs for example) or have to accept that they call your names in return.
Not wnting to be put into jail for telling people your opinion is fine, as long as you accept that nobody else is going to be put into jail for his oppinion even if it differs from yours.
Forcing your boss to keep you employed even, if he does not share your opinions or does not approve of what you do in your private time, would mean that you would have to accept the same bing done to you.
And while we are at it, how do you feel about incest between consenting adults, cruelty to animals, abortions, euthanasia, gun control, public nudity, bestiality and other stuff that some people consider to be 'Personal Freedoms'.
|
 |
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 06:35:53 [Permalink]
|
[quote]And while we are at it, how do you feel about incest between consenting adults, cruelty to animals, abortions, euthanasia, gun control, public nudity, bestiality and other stuff that some people consider to be 'Personal Freedoms'.[/quote]
May I? Thank you.
[list][*]Incest between consenting adults
[/*][/list]
Whatever they do behind closed doors(and as long as they don't make too much noise) ain't none of my beeswax.
[list][*]cruelty to animals[/*][/list]
I see whomever done that, they might as well consider themselves dead.  
[list][*]Abortions[/*][/list]
It's your body and I don't give a damn.
[list][*]euthanasia[/*][/list]
Would someone please refresh my memory on what this is?
[list][*]Gun control[/*][/list]
Long as you ain't shooting at me, I don't care.
[list][*]Public nudity[/*][/list]
If'n you look good, be my guest. Otherwise... 
[list][*]Bestiality[/*][/list]
See the incest one.
[list][*]Anything else[/*][/list]
Long as I ain't involved, I don't give a crap.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 07:12:55 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
May I? Thank you.
[list][*]euthanasia[/*][/list]
Would someone please refresh my memory on what this is?
[/quote]
a.k.a. right to die, death with dignity. The idea of terminating someones life with their permission.
[quote]
[list][*]Gun control[/*][/list]
Long as you ain't shooting at me, I don't care.
[/quote]
I thought gun control is when you used two hands to fire the weapon.
[quote]
[list][*]Public nudity[/*][/list]
If'n you look good, be my guest. Otherwise...
[/quote]
This one I'm against because then I wouldn't get any work done. 
[quote]
[list][*]Bestiality[/*][/list]
See the incest one.
[/quote]
I'd classify this one under animal cruelty instead of concenting incest. With concenting incest, both partners have made a choice.
Edited by - VALIANT DANCER on 03/25/2002 07:15:17 |
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 09:21:19 [Permalink]
|
>> >> [list][*]euthanasia[/*][/list] << <<
>> Would someone please refresh my memory on what this is? <<
A bunch of Japanese kids killing themselves.
Ian Andreas Miller. DIES GAUDII. |
|
|
|
Mr. Spock
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 12:56:11 [Permalink]
|
I am a fiercely independent and highly indulgent person myself, so I find it hard to underestimate the value of personal freedom. However, it is easy to over-simplify the whole issue.
Lars is right, I think, in stating that freedom is not an intrinsic right, and that historically speaking, we should count ourselves as fortunate to have the freedoms that we do. Since we don't live in a perfect world, not every demand for freedom can be granted.
For instance, if I can't sleep because the asshole who lives next to me is playing his music too loud all night, my freedoms have been infringed. This not only effects me, but my neighbors, and, if I cannot perform well at work the next day as a result, my employers, co-workers and customers also suffer. Whose freedom should prevail?
Politics, as I see it, is largely a matter of balancing such rights and freedoms. While this is always done imperfectly and ulterior motives almost always play a role, simply dismissing those who challenge certain freedoms as "power freaks" doesn't get us anywhere.
I guess what I'm saying is that while personal freedom is probably at or near the top of my list of values, there are good reasons for restricting freedom in many instances. While I don't see any problem with any of the instances given (even as a non-smoker, I, for instance, find the whole side-stream smoke scare a bit silly), there
are expressions of personal freedom which cannot be granted because of their social consequences. I guess you could say that as a skeptic, I'm skeptical of the libertarian claim that the best society can be attained by maximizing freedom alone.
If anyone does want to get philosophical here are a few questions:
1) What the **@!% is freedom? Many would give a negative definition such as "lack of constraints." Is a positive definition possible? Is doing whatever you want to truly freedom, or are you, to use a already over-used phrase, simply a "slave to your passions" when acting thusly?
2) I guess that one's allowance regarding which freedoms are "OK" and which ones are not depends on where you draw the line separating public and private action. To my knowledge, no one has solved this problem once and for all. Any comments?
"It has been my experience that folks with no vices have very few virtues." --Abe Lincoln |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 14:47:19 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
I don't see what is so philisphical about this issue.
If my opinion if you want freedoms for youself it is only fair to grant the same or similar freedoms to others.[/quote]
No argument there.
[quote]If you want to destroy your health with nicotin, coffein and alcohol you have to allow others to destroy their health, too, even if they you other drugs for it.[/quote]
True enough, but the limit is when these practices harm others. Defining "harm", or perhaps "an unacceptable level of harm", is where these issues become a slippery slope, and political philosophy comes into play. For instance, is the cost to the [i]rest of us[/i] of someone not wearing a motorcycle helmet high enough to justify taking away the freedom to ride without it? In some cases, the limit is clear. In others, it is not.
[quote]
If you want to call people names you either limit yourself to only call them yourself to only call them things that have been proven true (convicted horsethiefs for example) or have to accept that they call your names in return.[/quote]
Our defamation laws have pretty clear limits, refined over centuries, and I generally accept these. Unsupported allegations of criminal conduct are usually not allowed, hence a quack who doesn't like me could call me an idiot but not a child molester. They cannot make provably false statements about my beliefs or position; for example, by telling people that I advocate the alien visitation hypothesis for ufos. This latter claim did actually lead to a libel action, and I won.
[quote]Not wnting to be put into jail for telling people your opinion is fine, as long as you accept that nobody else is going to be put into jail for his oppinion even if it differs from yours.[/quote]
That's how we do it here. I have yet to demand that any quack be jailed for his/her opinions. Fraud and incitement to violence are different matters. Similarly, if someone expresses the opinion that horses are collectively owned and he should therefore have the unrestricted use of any horse he likes, I would not demand that he be jailed for that opinion. If he actually takes the horses, though, that is a different matter.
[quote]Forcing your boss to keep you employed even, if he does not share your opinions or does not approve of what you do in your private time, would mean that you would have to accept the same bing done to you.[/quote]
Forcing my boss? Done to me? Being required to grant people their privacy and freedom of conscience does not seem like such a heavy burden to me. The State of Texas is my boss, they have less choice about tolerating my opinions than a private employer would, but freedom is still not absolute in this context. I could be fired for misusing my authority and position to advance my personal opinions; for example, by requiring students to agree with me. I can also be fired for making inflammatory or defamatory statements that incur a liability for the state, or even for making provably false statements when there is no liability. This, again, is pretty clearly defined.
[quote]And while we are at it, how do you feel about incest between consenting adults, cruelty to animals, abortions, euthanasia, gun control, public nudity, bestiality and other stuff that some people consider to be 'Personal Freedoms'.[/quote]
These are all issues that have to resolved somewhere on the slippery slope between totalitarianism and absolute anarchy. You seem to be responding to something I didn't say. I don't understand how anything I said came to be construed as favoring some notion of unlimited freedom.
There is really no such thing as unlimited freedom, since it would quickly devolve into freedom for the strongest and most ruthless, and nobody else.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
Edited by - Piltdown on 03/25/2002 14:51:09 |
|
|
|
transsexual
New Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 15:58:34 [Permalink]
|
Freedom is like this. You have the freedom to swing your arms wildly but your freedom stops if it infringes my freedoms and you hit me. Between consenting adults it all should be legal if you don't infringe on somebody else. Minors change the rule some and our laws do to but truthfully many of our laws infringe our rights. Society says we can kill ourself with cigs but we can't pot. But we can buy herione and use it as a pain killer. Our law book is full of discriminating laws that were made by a society that thought they were doing the world a favour by forcing their opinion on all of us.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2002 : 20:11:03 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
[quote][list][*]euthanasia[/*][/list]
Would someone please refresh my memory on what this is?
[/quote]
a.k.a. right to die, death with dignity. The idea of terminating someones life with their permission.[/quote]
Ah, Dr. Kevorkian. It's your life and you can do want you wanna do. As long as it don't involve me.
[quote][quote][list][*]Bestiality[/*][/list]
See the incest one.
[/quote]
I'd classify this one under animal cruelty instead of concenting incest. With concenting incest, both partners have made a choice.[/quote]
No, no, VD, you misunderstood me. My response to incest was: Whatever they do behind closed doors(and as long as they don't make too much noise) ain't none of my beeswax.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2002 : 02:07:49 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
1) What the **@!% is freedom? Many would give a negative definition such as "lack of constraints." Is a positive definition possible? Is doing whatever you want to truly freedom, or are you, to use a already over-used phrase, simply a "slave to your passions" when acting thusly?
[/quote]
Just a few thoughts about that- If a person lived as a hermit with only nature to contend with, the issue of "personal freedom" would never arise, since they'd just accept the cards handed them by nature as "the way it is." So whatever "personal freedom" is, since it depends on "what other people aren't doing to me" I have no problem with "lack of" definitions. Assuming we can define it acceptably, maybe it can't be maximized, but only rearranged to everyone's dissatisfaction (I'm joking, kind of.) RE abortion, animal rights, incest, etc. regardless of how we arrange things a lot of people will be unhappy and thus have their freedom to live happily compromised (even though I can't imagine why in some cases, but anyway...)
RE slave to our passions, I wonder where to draw those lines, if that's a legit. We live in an environment where we ultimately have to compete for most things, starting with food and shelter (there are just more layers between us and the elements now than in Neanderthal times.) Effectively competing essentially means beating other people out of needs or wants, and many laws try to limit what advantages are permissible to use in doing so- the methods we can use to get what we need or want (money, for example, which extends our control over factors limiting our behaviors, legally and otherwise.) Since they're designed generally (ideally, for the benefit of a majority, but not always) some groups will always be favored, and others put at a disadvantage- so long as one lives in modern society, who is advantaged/crippled by laws, in what ways, and to what degrees... thus, determining how freedom is "distributed" depends mainly upon which people those wielding power choose to favor, and their personal whims. I think changing laws just moves the partitions around- many will always feel they're given a bad deal (and some really will be.)
Ron White |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 18:34:44 [Permalink]
|
Piltdown:
I did not mean to implie that you were advocating some sort of anarchy. I thoght it was understood from the outset that the Personal freedom we are discussing here only includes the sort of 'as long as it does not not harm anypne else' kind of freedom.
My problem was that people who cry for freedom only ever mean the freedom to what they want.
When people speak about religious freedom they mean mostly christianity and related religions, they rarley think that freedom of religion should etend to include to what they consider cultists, pagans or atheists.
I understand now that you don't advocat such a rather narrow defintion of personal freedom.
Other points you made include 'neurotic power-freaks' and the helmet example. I think the sad truth in the case, where personal freedoms are resticted to protect us from our own stupidity, is that our freedom are not taken away, but given away. People are always whining that there 'ought to be a law' for something or other. It is not even that the public would always suffer any undue harm if people where allowed to express their freedom of trying for a darwin award.
I somewhere read a very interesting statistic on how smokers are actually costing less then the average citizen here in Germany.
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 18:48:27 [Permalink]
|
to James:
You appear to hold contradictionary opinions on animal cruelty and bestialty.
To Antie:
I don't get the joke.
to transsexual:
I agree with you.
to ronnywhite:
There is a difference between being dissatified by someone being granted the freedom to do something and actually being unduly harmed.
I think there is a lot of room in our society for granting freedoms to people without limiting others.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 19:39:06 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
to James:
You appear to hold contradictionary opinions on animal cruelty and bestialty.[/quote]
I don't think it's contradictory in that sometimes the animal(MTL a dog) is the one instituting the act. And, from what I have seen and read, some humans love it. Certainly, if the animal isn't interested, it'll tell you.
Now, animal cruelty, OTOH, that's a different subject; one that'll get you a thirty second head start before something bad heads your way.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 18:20:33 [Permalink]
|
“incest between consenting adults”.
No. Because I strongly doubt it will indeed be true consent. If a child's been molested by his/her father since childhood, what may look like consent when the child grows up, may be a conditioning we don't know about. So: No way.
“Cruelty to animals.”
Ehrm. I don't know, really. It's cruel to subject animals to testing of drugs and medicine, but how would you feel, if by testing on an animal you'd get a drug that would save you or someone dear to you?
“Euthanasia.”
Again, good question. In the true meaning of the word, the right to chose when you die, and die with dignity, I'm all for it. The problem comes, when you have elderly people, who might think they've become “a burden” to their family and/or society.
“Abortion”.
No one should tell a woman what to do with her body. Abortions and infanticide have been used by humans since the stone-ages, as a means of keeping the group from starving etc. If society needs more people to work to keep wages down, telling a woman what to do, is NOT the way.
“Gun control.”
Yes, please. Let's face it, without the gun, the bullet won't cause any harm. I don't care about the gun-freaks claiming it's “the person WITH the gun who's dangerous”. He/she will be a lot less lethal without a gun.
“Public nudity.”
No, but that's purely for esthetical reasons. In a broader sense, if people don't want to wear any clothes…
“Bestiality.”
My dictionary couldn't help me there. I have no clue what it is.
“1) What the **@!% is freedom? Many would give a negative definition such as "lack of constraints." Is a positive definition possible? Is doing whatever you want to truly freedom, or are you, to use a already over-used phrase, simply a "slave to your passions" when acting thusly?”
It's interesting in a way, that a concept that's been so abused, especially by politicians, is one that refuses to be easily defined. I don't really know if there is an easy definition. When caged, animals react fiercely to loosing their freedom. So what is the “cage” for modern (wo)man? We humans have to balance our passions with reason, and a good thing, too. We're also not just a bunch of instincts and driven by selfishness.
I suppose freedom is being able to meet our needs. Or rather, normal sane peoples needs.
Stone-age people were not primitive. Okay, so they didn't go around hugging their cellulars, but they happened to be able to evolve into us. They did NOT compete, they corporated to hunt and find food and shelter. One stone-age man would have a hard time killing a mammoth, a group of hunters could do the task.
“2) I guess that one's allowance regarding which freedoms are "OK" and which ones are not depends on where you draw the line separating public and private action. To my knowledge, no one has solved this problem once and for all. Any comments?”
Humans are quite reasonable. If you explain to me why I shouldn't do something which is harmful to others, then it's okay. If you just force your opinion on me, without explanation I'd probably yell a lot about “personal freedom.” On the other hand, you have quacks who don't force themselves on others, but thrive on their ignorance. Freedom, I guess, is best achieved in a society with the highest possible amount of education and information.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2002 : 22:20:14 [Permalink]
|
[quote]“Bestiality.”
My dictionary couldn't help me there. I have no clue what it is.[/quote]
It's sex between (a) human(s) and an animal.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 04:44:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
“Gun control.”
Yes, please. Let's face it, without the gun, the bullet won't cause any harm. I don't care about the gun-freaks claiming it's “the person WITH the gun who's dangerous”. He/she will be a lot less lethal without a gun.
Ah, yes. Gun freaks. All our discussion withers to dust in the face of such insight. And the logical brilliance of "I don't care about" leaves me speechless.
I concede.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
