Oil !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

That quote is broad. Freedom covers many aspects of life safety being one of them. The rest I totally agree with.

---

One can say that safety is broad based.

1.) If a child is not free to go where he/she pleases, will their safety be lessoned or greatened?

2.) If a child is free to go where he/she pleases, will their safety be lessened or greatened?

3.) Similarly, if a child is free to go where he/she pleases and does not choose to leave, has their safety been lessened or greatened?

4.) Also, if a child is not free to go where he/she pleases and does so anyway, is their freedom lessoned or greatened?

From this example we can see that freedom and safety are not mutually exclusive. In examples 1 & 2, the aspect of freedom did not factor into whether or not the child was more/less safe because freedom had nothing to do with it. Yet in example's 3 & 4, personal choice was the determining factor. In that same example, we see a contrast in negative vs positive freedom expressed via choice. Choice, the main aspect of freedom, was present even as an activity such as going somewhere was forbidden in one example and allowed in the other, which puts forth the question:

If one is always truly free (ability to make a choice), how can one be truly safe (being invulnerable to harm)?

The only choice is to eliminate choice, which is nearly impossible without killing everyone and everything. In doing so, the last person alive shall receive a great deal of freedom, and yet they are not truly safe. Weather, natural disasters, and starvation are present.

Therefore there is no such thing as being safe. You are either more safe, or less safe depending on paradox of factors that are ungovernable...

Of course..... I doubt anyone really thinks one can be completely "safe". The term Freedom and safety is not going to be the same in ever situation. So for each scenario you would need to tweak the level of safety or Freedom. I mean is anyone really "free"? Or is anyone really "safe"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

I never said I justified the invasion which is what I consider it as well. I DO NOT AGREE with us invading Iraq. I think that is was stupid and based on bad intelligence which was based just as much on our allies as our own. However I believe sense we are there and so many died for the cause, why make their lives worth nothing? We should stay and finish the war or it will all be in vein. As for the money I still think that "Freedom isn't free" and that if they want it they must help us to attain that goal in ALL aspects. As for what you said about money not equaling oil, then how do you get gas every week? Money=whatever you want, Oil is the same.

---

They didn't ask for our "help" we imposed it upon them so what right do we have to expect anything from them ?
What gave us the right to even set foot in thier country in the first place.

BTW
Please don't insult my intelligence by bringing that biased outfit known as the UN into the fray.

FUCK! Once again I'm absolutely disgusted with not only the U.S. government but the entire Western world and everything we stand for. We're a bunch of self-righteous, violent, economically and ideologically imperialistic fucking thieves who demand that the world be alligned according to our interests and sense of entitlement and privilege, and anybody who refuses to kow-tow is crushed underfoot like the fucking ants we regard anybody else as. Our coporations have successfully de facto overturned the abolitionist 13th Amendment, and have created a global system of sweat shop labour to keep our Hummers running and our conspicuous consumption flowing. Propaganda and assertions of moral superiority, as well as public indifference and increasing technologically-induced idiocy, make this violence and theft the accepted status quo. WAKE THE FUCK UP! WE INVADE COUNTRIES, BOMB THEIR VILLAGES AND SPRAY CHILDRENS' BRAINS ACROSS THE STREETS, SO BIG OIL CAN MAKE A BUCK!

Don't worry I hate the UN as much as you. They do nothing but, complain and put sanctions on countries that are ineffective. As for Iraq I don't think we have a "right" to be there, but to help someone you have to teach them to help themselves. We already did the big parts they just need to help chip in especially when they are sitting on a huge surplus. We are building schools and roads that weren't there before we invaded. If were going to just put it back to the way it was before ,of course we should be the only ones to pay then, but we are making it better than before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

Of course..... I doubt anyone really thinks one can be completely "safe". The term Freedom and safety is not going to be the same in ever situation. So for each scenario you would need to tweak the level of safety or Freedom. I mean is anyone really "free"? Or is anyone really "safe"?

---

As the existence of this site demonstrates, you are always free until free choice has been removed. Cannabis is not legal, hence we are not "free" to use it. The whole premise of marijuana prohibition is to protect society from itself (make us more safe). Yet does this legislation realize its goal? No, because i am correct.

Comparatively, does police presence increase the safety of an area? I would say yes, because it might deter a human being from acting irrational. Yet a police presence does not equate to lack of freedom, it is balanced out by ones ability to enact negative freedom. Just because a cop is around does not mean i cannot kill somebody in front of him; all his presence indicates is that my choice has potential consequences.

Freedom does not equal safety...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812

As the existence of this site demonstrates, you are always free until free choice has been removed. Cannabis is not legal, hence we are not "free" to use it. The whole premise of marijuana prohibition is to protect society from itself (make us more safe). Yet does this legislation realize its goal? No, because i am correct.

Comparatively, does police presence increase the safety of an area? I would say yes, because it might deter a human being from acting irrational. Yet a police presence does not equate to lack of freedom, it is balanced out by ones ability to enact negative freedom. Just because a cop is around does not mean i cannot kill somebody in front of him; all his presence indicates is that my choice has potential consequences.

Freedom does not equal safety...

---

Like I said it is not the same in every situation. What if that cop that was in front of you were quick enough to stop you from killing someone. Your freedom then would be prohibited. It all depends on the situation. So my question once again is can someone be truly "free" or truly "safe"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

Like I said it is not the same in every situation. What if that cop that was in front of you were quick enough to stop you from killing someone. Your freedom then would be prohibited. It all depends on the situation. So my question once again is can someone be truly "free" or truly "safe"?

---

There is a difference between negative and positive freedom. From my previous example, the cop stopping me is not prohibiting my positive freedom, only my negative freedom. I could still choose not to kill anyone (positive). Regardless of whether i was stopped, i still had the freedom to make that choice, i just did not succeed.

If cars traveling 50mph are flying across a road at a rate in which my attempt to cross will decrease, the presence of the cars does not prohibit my freedom, they just might alter my choice. But lets say i go across anyway, and get hit by a car and never make it to the other side; did the car prohibit my freedom? Nope! The success rate of fulfilling my desires does not equate to my level of freedom. I was still free to make the choice, no matter what it actually was. Even if the presence of the cars deterred me from my destination, it was my choice in the end.

As i said before, you are always free until choice is removed. Just like there is no such thing as cold, its either more or less hot; there is no such thing as being safe, its either more or less safe.

The end result is still the same, having your freedom prohibited. So no one is completely free or completely safe. While you might be free to commit one act, complete freedom means being able to do whatever you want as many times as you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apocolips31

The end result is still the same, having your freedom prohibited. So no one is completely free or completely safe.

---

Again you are incorrect. Lets try again. Marijuana is illegal in the US, hence you do not have the positive freedom to consume marijuana in the US, known as marijuana prohibition. Yet if we are not free to consume cannabis, why is this action taking place? Better yet, how is this action taking place if we are not free to do so?

Quote:

---

While you might be free to commit one act, complete freedom means being able to do whatever you want as many times as you want.

---

This line of logic will take you down a slippery slope.

I do not have the power to lift a oil barge from the water with my mind even though i want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am not free in this situation.

Similarly:

I do not have the power to lift an oil barge from the water with my mind, and i do not want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am free in this situation.

How is it that i was not free in the first example, but free in the second?

I await your response to the question above.