Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 11/18/2008 3:20:31 PM EDT
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.

As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.

So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness, I am interested in hearing a defense of the limiting of freedom. Or, please to explain to me why *your* anointed beliefs/acts are somehow more deserving of preservation than another's.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:21:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.

As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.

So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness, I am interested in hearing a defense of the limiting of freedom. Or, please to explain to me why *your* anointed beliefs/acts are somehow more deserving of preservation than another's.


I salute you, sir. I really do.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:22:05 PM EDT
I gotta say I'm pretty much right with ya Camp Ninja.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:22:49 PM EDT
So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness


I would only add that this should be defined by real and measurable physical harm. Not some "waah they make me feel icky!" or "for the children" bullshit.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:23:21 PM EDT
Any disagreement with the dominant arfcom koolaid will result in you being labelled a DU Troll and moderators threatening to lock your account. Get used to it. Do your thinking and dialectical discourse somewhere else!
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:23:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.

As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.

So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness, I am interested in hearing a defense of the limiting of freedom. Or, please to explain to me why *your* anointed beliefs/acts are somehow more deserving of preservation than another's.



agreed, however say you have an individual who is clealry both a citizen and also an enemy of the state (like a imam who preaches terrorism against the US and is also and American citizen).

Should tolerance also equal inaction?

Slippery sides to all arguments I suppose, but ideally total freedom would be best if it wasnt for some assholes that would ruin it for everybody else.


Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:26:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:26:41 PM EDT by The_Camp_Ninja]
Originally Posted By Grug:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.

As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.

So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness, I am interested in hearing a defense of the limiting of freedom. Or, please to explain to me why *your* anointed beliefs/acts are somehow more deserving of preservation than another's.



agreed, however say you have an individual who is clealry both a citizen and also an enemy of the state (like a imam who preaches terrorism against the US and is also and American citizen).

Should tolerance also equal inaction?

Slippery sides to all arguments I suppose, but ideally total freedom would be best if it wasnt for some assholes that would ruin it for everybody else.




Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

Inaction is often as damning as "action".
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:27:17 PM EDT
absolute freedom is unachievable in a society


but I understand your question, I think
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:27:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Uni-Vibe:
Any disagreement with the dominant arfcom koolaid will result in you being labelled a DU Troll and moderators threatening to lock your account. Get used to it. Do your thinking and dialectical discourse somewhere else!


Meh, been here too long for that. Folks here have either accepted me, or continue to ignore. It's all good.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:28:44 PM EDT
As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.


A huge +1 to that right there!

Camp_Ninja!
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:30:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.


Yup.

But you're going to get a lot of fucking liars who reply to the poll. An awful lot of ARFcom truly believes that "freedom" does not include smoking a weed, or two guys getting married, or choosing to have an abortion and potentially facing a Judgement in an afterlife. They will all say that they believe in "freedom", but that "freedom" simply does not include acts they disagree with, and they have some pretty convoluted rationalizations for why that should be so.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:30:58 PM EDT
No matter how they vote, the truth here is option 2....
I like it! As long as it's *MY* freedom, not yours!
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:31:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.

As for me, I really, truly, FIRMLY believe that a person has a right to do/believe anything they want to, up until the point that their pursuit of that action/belief infringes upon another's right to do so. I really do believe that. That means that i support the right of others to do things and believe things that I do not personally believe in, or want to do. I find this *entirely consistent*, too.

So, making the assumption that an individual is in *no way* violating another's right to the pursuit of happiness, I am interested in hearing a defense of the limiting of freedom. Or, please to explain to me why *your* anointed beliefs/acts are somehow more deserving of preservation than another's.




Well, I can't argue with you, because I'm one of the few people who REALLY agrees with you. All I can say in response to your statement above is: "Well said".
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:32:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jnojr:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.


Yup.

But you're going to get a lot of fucking liars who reply to the poll. An awful lot of ARFcom truly believes that "freedom" does not include smoking a weed, or two guys getting married, or choosing to have an abortion and potentially facing a Judgement in an afterlife. They will all say that they believe in "freedom", but that "freedom" simply does not include acts they disagree with, and they have some pretty convoluted rationalizations for why that should be so.


Agreed, and I *do not want* to start an abortion thread, or hijack my own, but I do have to point out that abortion does not survive the scrutiny of my definition.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:32:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:33:03 PM EDT by badfish274]
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

Inaction is often as damning as "action".


Eh, you're walking a fine line on that one. Depending on the circumstances not even the ninnies in the Supreme Court would convict.

Free Speech uber alles.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:34:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

Inaction is often as damning as "action".


Eh, you're walking a fine line on that one. Depending on the circumstances not even the ninnies in the Supreme Court would convict.

Free Speech uber alles.


Yeah, I know, but it's the old "yelling fire in a theater" thing.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:35:33 PM EDT

Am I "free" to ask if that's supposed to be Jerry Garcia in your avatar ?
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:35:40 PM EDT

I really don't understand what the hell your are talking about.

Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:37:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:38:53 PM EDT by 103]
I love Freedom. But I am also a firm believer in social contract theory. We give up some of our freedoms to government and to the will of the People at large. It's sorta what we were founded on. The idea that the previous system (Parliament) harmed our freedoms more than we were willing to let government do so. So we replaced it with one that would be more in line with our beliefs.

I love Freedom, but we have always given up some freedom to protect the overriding thing that is Liberty. We did so when we created the national government in 1789 and the citizen of every state did so when each state's government was created. That is the nature of society.

ETA: Total freedom is inherently impossible.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:37:55 PM EDT
People will say that they support freedom on this thread, then bash other people's beliefs and want to persecute them on the next.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:38:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoberDude:
Am I "free" to ask if that's supposed to be Jerry Garcia in your avatar ?


Not only supposed be, but IS! From a shot when they went to Egypt, 1978.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:39:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:39:57 PM EDT by badfish274]
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

Inaction is often as damning as "action".


Eh, you're walking a fine line on that one. Depending on the circumstances not even the ninnies in the Supreme Court would convict.

Free Speech uber alles.


Yeah, I know, but it's the old "yelling fire in a theater" thing.


If you want to pick nits, the Imam's speech is proscribable only if designed to "incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." If the gubment can lock up people who simply advocate overthrow, half this forum would be in jail. I'm perfectly comfortable with some people getting to say some patently stupid things in the name of greater freedom. The best way to counter bad speech is more speech, and all that.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:39:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By blessteve:
I really don't understand what the hell your are talking about.



That happens.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:39:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Uni-Vibe:
Any disagreement with the dominant arfcom koolaid will result in you being labelled a DU Troll and moderators threatening to lock your account. Get used to it. Do your thinking and dialectical discourse somewhere else!



try again


T_C_N is pretty well known around here
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:40:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:40:59 PM EDT by USGI_45]
Originally Posted By msprooch:
People will say that they support freedom on this thread, then bash other people's beliefs and want to persecute them on the next.



True, go post a "should people be allowed to smoke weed"

It will be a fucking mess, followed by the friday night "whatcha drinkin thread" that will go off without a hitch other than people bashing others drink of choice....



I always like the threads about the .gov outlawing smoking in private establishments.....
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:41:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.

Inaction is often as damning as "action".


Eh, you're walking a fine line on that one. Depending on the circumstances not even the ninnies in the Supreme Court would convict.

Free Speech uber alles.


Yeah, I know, but it's the old "yelling fire in a theater" thing.


If you want to pick nits, the Imam's speech is proscribable only if "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." If the gubment can lock up people who simply advocate overthrow, half this forum would be in jail. I'm perfectly comfortable with some people getting to say some patently stupid things in the name of greater freedom. The best way to counter bad speech is more speech, and all that.


I agree, with caveats. "General" speech, absolutely. Advocating specific acts, or initiating them, another story.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:42:18 PM EDT
I really don't see any problem with your thought process. Just as long as I don't have to fund your idea of Freedom with my tax dollars. If you damage your brain with drugs, that is your choice as long as I don't get stuck with the bill to take care of you. Also, I don't intend to change the entire definition of a normal institution like marriage because someone thinks it infringes on their idea of Freedom.

If it doesn't affect me and my family, knock yourself out.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:48:02 PM EDT
I completely agree with you on this.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:48:09 PM EDT
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.

Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:49:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:51:27 PM EDT by omega62]
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

EDIT: But Kris Kristofferson and Janis Joplin songs aside, I'm with you about what you say in the OP. I am a libertarian at heart. I believe in as much personal freedom as possible, and as limited government as possible, all the time.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:51:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 3:52:57 PM EDT by badfish274]
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.



It's a good thing that isn't the subject of this thread, then.

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.'"
- Ronald Magnus
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:52:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.



Freedom to do and think as you wish, unless it interferes with another person's right to do so, is not "absolute". In fact, it's fairly well constrained, in my opinion.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:54:11 PM EDT
Fuck Freedom as long as I am emperor, than you little peons shall bow down to me Lord ZOIDBERG WOOTWOOTWOOTWOOTWOOTWOOT
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:55:20 PM EDT
And on a related note...

All the while the election campaigns were going on, and people were battling over "Obama" signs or "McCain" signs, I had a McCain sign in my yard.

A woman down the street had an Obama sign - a much larger one.

I had to drive by it on my way to work every morning, and every time I saw it, it depressed me because I do not subscribe to that man's ideology nor do I feel it is good for the country.

However, every day I saw it, I also reminded myself of something: "I don't agree with what she says, but I will defend to the death her right to say it."
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 3:57:39 PM EDT
Freedom?

I'm all for it!

HH
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:00:55 PM EDT
Married atheist lesbian gun owners getting abortions, that's the kind of freedom I'm about.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:04:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Wyzardd:
Married atheist lesbian gun owners getting abortions, that's the kind of freedom I'm about.


While smoking a doob?
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:06:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By jnojr:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Again, and again, and again, and again I see ArfCom be suposedly pro-freedom, but then against any freedom against the consensus. It's all well and good to belittle the Left for only "supporting diversity as long as we agree with the diversity", but then, I see the majority here are the EXACT same way with "freedom", and I think it's damned hypocritical. I really do.


Yup.

But you're going to get a lot of fucking liars who reply to the poll. An awful lot of ARFcom truly believes that "freedom" does not include smoking a weed, or two guys getting married, or choosing to have an abortion and potentially facing a Judgement in an afterlife. They will all say that they believe in "freedom", but that "freedom" simply does not include acts they disagree with, and they have some pretty convoluted rationalizations for why that should be so.


Agreed, and I *do not want* to start an abortion thread, or hijack my own, but I do have to point out that abortion does not survive the scrutiny of my definition.


But so long as you're willing to equivocate, you can't very well act shocked when someone else decides that 2A is not really an individual right, and so isn't included in their definition of "freedom".

We should have an almost impossibly-high standard for legislating behavior. And i mean that very literally... I'd prefer to live in a world where the fifty year old weird guy down the street might be banging a thirteen year old girl and nobody can say boo about it than one where my every thought or deed must pass muster with every one of a huge array of "special interests".
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:09:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:


Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.


And what about when I stand up, and say that our government has crossed a line into tyranny and the destruction of liberty, and must be brought down? Am I an "enemy of the state", too, for speaking out? I'm violating some supposed "contract" (which I sure as hell never signed, so I don't see how I could be bound by it!).
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:09:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By batmanacw:
I really don't see any problem with your thought process. Just as long as I don't have to fund your idea of Freedom with my tax dollars. If you damage your brain with drugs, that is your choice as long as I don't get stuck with the bill to take care of you. Also, I don't intend to change the entire definition of a normal institution like marriage because someone thinks it infringes on their idea of Freedom.

If it doesn't affect me and my family, knock yourself out.


So you picked option number 2
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:11:03 PM EDT
Machine guns
RPGs
carrying a handgun in a daycare
alcohol
weed
crack
heroin
gay marraige mairage mairrage husbands and husbands and wives and wives
abortion
insider trading
riding motorcycles in parks
riding without a helmet
dirtbikes on the street
mutual fist fights
hiring whoever you want
firing whoever you want
loud stereos
smokey exhausts
Driving without seatbelts
Making whatever cars people will buy regardless of your CAFE rating
And the word of the week: Price Gouging.

I want all of that stuff to be legal.

Beyond the three or four commandments that I know about, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I want banned.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:13:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By badfish274:
Originally Posted By Wyzardd:
Married atheist lesbian gun owners getting abortions, that's the kind of freedom I'm about.


While smoking a doob?

Ha! I knew I forgot something. Smoking a joint while saying the Pledge in public schools
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:13:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.



Freedom to do and think as you wish, unless it interferes with another person's right to do so, is not "absolute". In fact, it's fairly well constrained, in my opinion.


Let me throw a couple examples out there.

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I decide I want to start a fireworks manufacturing plant in my garage. Is that ok?

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I like mowing my yard in the buff. Is that ok?

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. Your 30 ft fence between us is blocking all the natural light coming into my home. Is that ok?

Who decides what is me pursuing happiness, and you being at risk, and/or denied the same freedom, and where do those lines cross?
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:17:31 PM EDT
My agurment to weed is that it kills your brain cells therefore by your choice you become a burden on the state and to the people because we have to pay for someone to wipe your ass because you are to fucking lazy to get a job with healt care therefore it is inhibiting my freedom.

Thats why drugs like weed, cocain and others are not legal.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:20:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.



Freedom to do and think as you wish, unless it interferes with another person's right to do so, is not "absolute". In fact, it's fairly well constrained, in my opinion.


Let me throw a couple examples out there.

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I decide I want to start a fireworks manufacturing plant in my garage. Is that ok?

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I like mowing my yard in the buff. Is that ok?

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. Your 30 ft fence between us is blocking all the natural light coming into my home. Is that ok?

Who decides what is me pursuing happiness, and you being at risk, and/or denied the same freedom, and where do those lines cross?


Ok i should change my vote because your mowing in the buff is creapy to little kids and if you want to so a little boy your weiner i have a problem with that.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:24:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:
Originally Posted By hondaciv:
There can't be absolute freedom. It's impossible.

Society sets rules to maintain peace, safety, and order.



Freedom to do and think as you wish, unless it interferes with another person's right to do so, is not "absolute". In fact, it's fairly well constrained, in my opinion.


Let me throw a couple examples out there.

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I decide I want to start a fireworks manufacturing plant in my garage. Is that ok?
My old man has about 40lbs of gunpowder in his house. Right adjacent to the kitchen, too. Have at it.

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. I like mowing my yard in the buff. Is that ok?
Sounds like fun.

You and I are neighbors in suburbia Townsville, USA. Your 30 ft fence between us is blocking all the natural light coming into my home. Is that ok?
Nope. Infringing on your property rights.

Who decides what is me pursuing happiness, and you being at risk, and/or denied the same freedom, and where do those lines cross?

The $64,000 question.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:26:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jnojr:
Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:


Well, see, right there, by your description, this individual has clearly stepped out of line with not interfering with others. He has declared war on his country, and encouraged others to join him. He has violated the contract, and should be dealt with swiftly and terribly.


And what about when I stand up, and say that our government has crossed a line into tyranny and the destruction of liberty, and must be brought down? Am I an "enemy of the state", too, for speaking out? I'm violating some supposed "contract" (which I sure as hell never signed, so I don't see how I could be bound by it!).


Yes, that would make you an enemy of the state.
The terrorists and traitors that started the war with England were enemies of the state.
It wouldn't make you opposed to freedom, though.

Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:31:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By msprooch:
Originally Posted By batmanacw:
I really don't see any problem with your thought process. Just as long as I don't have to fund your idea of Freedom with my tax dollars. If you damage your brain with drugs, that is your choice as long as I don't get stuck with the bill to take care of you. Also, I don't intend to change the entire definition of a normal institution like marriage because someone thinks it infringes on their idea of Freedom.

If it doesn't affect me and my family, knock yourself out.


So you picked option number 2


Not even close. Number two indicated that my Freedom>your Freedom.

I just don't want your version of Freedom to cost me money. You can fuck yourself up all you want. You start infringing on my Freedom when you confiscate my wealth to pay for your rehab.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:51:38 PM EDT
Alot of people who have voted here are lying their asses off. The same thing was asked a few days ago in a different way––––"Do you support gay marriage?"(or something to that effect) And the results were very different.
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:54:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2008 4:55:22 PM EDT by USGI_45]
Originally Posted By msprooch:
My agurment to weed is that it kills your brain cells therefore by your choice you become a burden on the state and to the people because we have to pay for someone to wipe your ass because you are to fucking lazy to get a job with healt care therefore it is inhibiting my freedom.

Thats why drugs like weed, cocain and others are not legal.



ur an idiat!

By your logic we should ban alcohol also. Im sure degreasing with carb cleaner isnt that great for you either...let ban it!


But the real answer is dont make me pay for your healthcare...
Link Posted: 11/18/2008 4:56:39 PM EDT
Libertarian.

Don't smoke, but don't care if you do. Don't use drugs, but don't care if you do... don't give a flyin' fuck what anyone else does so long as they aren't harming anyone else.

That's what Freedom is to me.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top