Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

American Freedom

ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:23:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?

In many instances it may be to the public good to restrict rights, but it's immoral to do so despite this. Killing an innocent bystander to save 50 people on the train that's about to crash is still immoral.
For instance, it may be beneficial to the public to outlaw guns. However, we still shouldn't do so.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 11:03:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 2:23:38 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?

In many instances it may be to the public good to restrict rights, but it's immoral to do so despite this. Killing an innocent bystander to save 50 people on the train that's about to crash is still immoral.

That's a matter of opinion,

For instance, it may be beneficial to the public to outlaw guns. However, we still shouldn't do so.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 11:04:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

Such as?

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:21:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 2:23:38 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
In many instances it may be to the public good to restrict rights, but it's immoral to do so despite this. Killing an innocent bystander to save 50 people on the train that's about to crash is still immoral.

So it's more about moral freedom than unrestricted freedom?

For instance, it may be beneficial to the public to outlaw guns. However, we still shouldn't do so.

Do you really think outlawing guns/gun control is effective? I agree that we shouldn't, but primarily for the reason of ineffectiveness.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 2:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 11:04:31 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

Such as?

I was meaning the ones I mentioned below, and the liberties Americans are granted that other nations are not. (religion, speech, press, expression, etc.)

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 3:48:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda.

Not all people do.

Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

I think a lot of people actually do value freedom, by the definition... Black's Law Dictionary: "The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint;the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen."

This is a broad, but I think there are a lot of people to whom these concepts are very important. While I do agree with much of what you've said (freedom is largely political), I think your interpretation is a bit skewed.

Often, as you mentioned, liberal and socialist views are shared by those who seem to proclaim freedom. In reality, they are the ones trying to restrict it. Still, I don't think this answers the question, assuming freedom is legitimate.

Assuming freedom is legitimate, what are its boundaries?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

That depends on the maturity of the citizens. Freedoms are luxuries, things that we provide to have more enjoyable lives for the people of our society. If the people are not mature enough to be able to handle that, to where freedoms are the cause of suffering, a just society would remove those freedoms.

You mention guns in another post. That is a perfect example of what happens when you allow a freedom to become entrenched that people are not mature enough as a society to be able to handle.


To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?
Are/should these rights be absolute?
Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There's always that exception. I actually wish you'd talk about your positions more. I know you're likely to have solid premises, and with the uniqueness of your views, I'm sure a lot of people would benefit from seeing you lay out your thoughts.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:21:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There's always that exception. I actually wish you'd talk about your positions more. I know you're likely to have solid premises, and with the uniqueness of your views, I'm sure a lot of people would benefit from seeing you lay out your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:29:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 3:48:41 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda.

Not all people do.

Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

I think a lot of people actually do value freedom, by the definition... Black's Law Dictionary: "The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint;the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen."

This is a broad, but I think there are a lot of people to whom these concepts are very important. While I do agree with much of what you've said (freedom is largely political), I think your interpretation is a bit skewed.

Often, as you mentioned, liberal and socialist views are shared by those who seem to proclaim freedom. In reality, they are the ones trying to restrict it. Still, I don't think this answers the question, assuming freedom is legitimate.

Assuming freedom is legitimate, what are its boundaries?

I don't believe it should have boundaries.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:29:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:25:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 7:21:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There's always that exception. I actually wish you'd talk about your positions more. I know you're likely to have solid premises, and with the uniqueness of your views, I'm sure a lot of people would benefit from seeing you lay out your thoughts.

https://www.youtube.com...

Though maybe I will if I have a night to sit down to 4 hours with a glass of scotch and really hammer some stuff out. Its been awhile since I've really gone into my own views. I mostly just focus on challenging the views of everyone else to see how well they really understand what they are saying.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 7:46:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly?

They aren't cherished, really. Not in the abstract. The strange thing is that freedom is most cherished by those who lack it. Where freedom is real, it is often disdained. As for how important they are, they are a pillar of American society without which it would not function as intended.

Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

There's not such thing as a 'just' society; justice is a social construct

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?

Not in America. They would be in other cultures which were not adapted around them.

Are/should these rights be absolute?

You'll have to clarify here.

Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?

That depends entirely on the society.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:44:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:21:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There's always that exception. I actually wish you'd talk about your positions more. I know you're likely to have solid premises, and with the uniqueness of your views, I'm sure a lot of people would benefit from seeing you lay out your thoughts.

I might do an AMA.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:48:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:55:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

That depends on the maturity of the citizens. Freedoms are luxuries, things that we provide to have more enjoyable lives for the people of our society. If the people are not mature enough to be able to handle that, to where freedoms are the cause of suffering, a just society would remove those freedoms.

Fair enough. On balance, do you think societies are mature enough to handle these as of now?

You mention guns in another post. That is a perfect example of what happens when you allow a freedom to become entrenched that people are not mature enough as a society to be able to handle.

You're saying that Americans aren't mature enough with guns, and are subsequently too immature for the right to bear arms?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:49:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There are some that do. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:21:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:49:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:19:38 AM, Wylted wrote:
People just define freedom as the things that agree with their political agenda. Very few people in America actually value freedom, the word is just rhetoric, and the people who shout it the loudest, seem to be the ones who want more of a police state, more spying, more authority of local police and courts and more taking away of freedoms from the poor and minorities

Lol, I disagree. I want a police state more than anyone and I never shout about freedom.

There's always that exception. I actually wish you'd talk about your positions more. I know you're likely to have solid premises, and with the uniqueness of your views, I'm sure a lot of people would benefit from seeing you lay out your thoughts.

YES
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:50:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:29:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 3:48:41 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

Assuming freedom is legitimate, what are its boundaries?

I don't believe it should have boundaries.

What course of action, then, should be taken if these freedoms were severly abused? Is that cause enough to take action, or should liberty of the people be valued higher?
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:29:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

I think you're an intelligent person, expounding on your views could only be beneficial. :) Challenging others is also a good practice... helps them out as well. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 8:52:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 8:44:22 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I might do an AMA.

Do it :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:02:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 7:46:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly?

They aren't cherished, really. Not in the abstract. The strange thing is that freedom is most cherished by those who lack it. Where freedom is real, it is often disdained. As for how important they are, they are a pillar of American society without which it would not function as intended.

Valued highly, cherished, same thing in essence. I think you're right. Freedom is most cherished by those who lack it. Sig'd. Anyways, I think it's important to note that where people don't have freedom, they value even the smallest freedoms more than we (Americans) value the biggest ones. I think that's a good guide to realizing that freedom actually is important. If the people who don't have them desire them to such a degree, shouldn't that imply that they are utilitarian and inherently important?

Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

There's not such thing as a 'just' society; justice is a social construct

Obviously there doesn't exist one, but this is skepticism. If there were to be a just society, would that just society, one that rules by justice, include freedoms such as these?

To clarify, some examples would include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. But, in general, I'm talking about the freedoms Americans have in regards to rights to which other people are not entitled.

A few other questions to facilitate discussion...
Are these rights problematic?

Not in America. They would be in other cultures which were not adapted around them.

Why would they be inefficient elsewhere? Wouldn't those societies, too, adapt over time?

Are/should these rights be absolute?

You'll have to clarify here.

Should these rights have boundaries? Should they extend to the infinite, regardless of consequences?

Can a society function better with/without extensive individual rights?

That depends entirely on the society.

Give some examples of societies where it would/wouldn't work.

I really appreciate all of the response I've gotten from this thread, and hope for more yet. :) Thanks to all who've replied.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:25:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 8:48:41 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 6:55:06 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:55:12 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
How important are the freedoms Americans have, and why are they cherished so dearly? Would a just society provide those freedoms to their citizens?

That depends on the maturity of the citizens. Freedoms are luxuries, things that we provide to have more enjoyable lives for the people of our society. If the people are not mature enough to be able to handle that, to where freedoms are the cause of suffering, a just society would remove those freedoms.

Fair enough. On balance, do you think societies are mature enough to handle these as of now?

You mention guns in another post. That is a perfect example of what happens when you allow a freedom to become entrenched that people are not mature enough as a society to be able to handle.

You're saying that Americans aren't mature enough with guns, and are subsequently too immature for the right to bear arms?

As a society, we are not. Compared to European societies where guns are heavily restricted or outright banned. Violence is significantly lower. However, we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people and guns are just a tool to make it easier. It is an issue with our society and how we view guns as a symbol of power, strength, and freedom. It is that view, that "guns are a solution" that is the problem. Perhaps the word "mature" is not an ideal word, but the mindset of the American society is simply in such a place that we are not truly able to handle that right. We are like kids that turn 21 and can start drinking, and do so incredibly irresponsibly. Rather than a wiser person that knows their limits and knows how to responsibly enjoy alcohol.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:31:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:25:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
As a society, we are not. Compared to European societies where guns are heavily restricted or outright banned. Violence is significantly lower. However, we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people and guns are just a tool to make it easier. It is an issue with our society and how we view guns as a symbol of power, strength, and freedom. It is that view, that "guns are a solution" that is the problem. Perhaps the word "mature" is not an ideal word, but the mindset of the American society is simply in such a place that we are not truly able to handle that right. We are like kids that turn 21 and can start drinking, and do so incredibly irresponsibly. Rather than a wiser person that knows their limits and knows how to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

Okay. So you do agree that guns aren't necessarily the *cause* of the violence rates, but that it's rather the mindset and culture of the people in the US? I feel that because we've accepted guns, criminals with guns want to take advantage of people pushing gun control.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:38:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:31:06 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:25:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
As a society, we are not. Compared to European societies where guns are heavily restricted or outright banned. Violence is significantly lower. However, we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people and guns are just a tool to make it easier. It is an issue with our society and how we view guns as a symbol of power, strength, and freedom. It is that view, that "guns are a solution" that is the problem. Perhaps the word "mature" is not an ideal word, but the mindset of the American society is simply in such a place that we are not truly able to handle that right. We are like kids that turn 21 and can start drinking, and do so incredibly irresponsibly. Rather than a wiser person that knows their limits and knows how to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

Okay. So you do agree that guns aren't necessarily the *cause* of the violence rates, but that it's rather the mindset and culture of the people in the US? I feel that because we've accepted guns, criminals with guns want to take advantage of people pushing gun control.

What do you mean "take advantage of people pushing gun control"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 9:44:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:38:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:31:06 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:25:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
As a society, we are not. Compared to European societies where guns are heavily restricted or outright banned. Violence is significantly lower. However, we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people and guns are just a tool to make it easier. It is an issue with our society and how we view guns as a symbol of power, strength, and freedom. It is that view, that "guns are a solution" that is the problem. Perhaps the word "mature" is not an ideal word, but the mindset of the American society is simply in such a place that we are not truly able to handle that right. We are like kids that turn 21 and can start drinking, and do so incredibly irresponsibly. Rather than a wiser person that knows their limits and knows how to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

Okay. So you do agree that guns aren't necessarily the *cause* of the violence rates, but that it's rather the mindset and culture of the people in the US? I feel that because we've accepted guns, criminals with guns want to take advantage of people pushing gun control.

What do you mean "take advantage of people pushing gun control"?

Criminals want their job to be easier, so they'd support taking people's guns. They'll get them regardless of laws. In the Columbine shooting, one of the shooters violated over 20 gun laws in getting his gun. It's not really that difficult for them to get them, so they wouldn't mind their job being made easier by stricter gun laws for law-abiding citizens. Sorry, the quote you mentioned wasn't worded correctly.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 10:30:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 9:44:06 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:38:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:31:06 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 9:25:35 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
As a society, we are not. Compared to European societies where guns are heavily restricted or outright banned. Violence is significantly lower. However, we all know that guns don't kill people, people kill people and guns are just a tool to make it easier. It is an issue with our society and how we view guns as a symbol of power, strength, and freedom. It is that view, that "guns are a solution" that is the problem. Perhaps the word "mature" is not an ideal word, but the mindset of the American society is simply in such a place that we are not truly able to handle that right. We are like kids that turn 21 and can start drinking, and do so incredibly irresponsibly. Rather than a wiser person that knows their limits and knows how to responsibly enjoy alcohol.

Okay. So you do agree that guns aren't necessarily the *cause* of the violence rates, but that it's rather the mindset and culture of the people in the US? I feel that because we've accepted guns, criminals with guns want to take advantage of people pushing gun control.

What do you mean "take advantage of people pushing gun control"?

Criminals want their job to be easier, so they'd support taking people's guns. They'll get them regardless of laws. In the Columbine shooting, one of the shooters violated over 20 gun laws in getting his gun. It's not really that difficult for them to get them, so they wouldn't mind their job being made easier by stricter gun laws for law-abiding citizens. Sorry, the quote you mentioned wasn't worded correctly.

Columbine does not apply to the average criminal. The vast majority of gun deaths are not from large shooting sprees. They are one on one. from someone you know. Most are not premeditated. They are heat of the moment, which a gun helps to allow that "heat" to result in death.

Just like with suicide, you take away the ability to make a stupid choice for just a few minutes, and people will usually not make the stupid choice (cracked did a wonderful article about this, I'll have to dig it).

One common mistake is giving into a false dichotomy that people are either law breakers or law followers, and so imposing any restrictions only handicaps the law followers.

We can easily see this when bank robbers will merely hand a note saying "I have a knife, give me money." It is a simple analysis of benefit vs risk. Benefit is measured by the chance of success and the reward of success while risk is measured by the chance of failure and the cost of failure.

A bank robber is interested in money, not killing people, since killing people grossly increases the cost of failure (life imprisonment) as well as the chance of getting caught (you now have a bullet that can be matched to a gun and police will be more interested in trying to catch you) without increasing either the reward of success (you don't get any more money for killing a bystander) nor the chance of success (the people in the bank are not the ones that are going to come after you, the police are). So there is not incentive for them to kill anyone in the process. We see that only 7% of gun murders occur during a robbery attempt.

Really, criminals will only escalate as far as they need to get what they want. If the people are unarmed, criminals will usually carry just knives. When the people become armed, criminals don't just give up, they arm themselves (and may include bullet proof jackets). We see this in England, which of course still has crime, but since guns have been banned, it is less gun and more knife crime (though it is still significantly lower than the US).

What about for pre-meditated murder? Well, if you are planning on killing someone, you probably already know them, and so you do not need to over power them (get in a gun vs gun fight). Whether you poison them, shoot them, stab them, bash them over the head, the actual act of killing is not that hard. The complicated part that requires thinking and "meditating" is how to not get caught. Part of not getting caught is not doing illegal things before hand that might tip anything off. If you buy a weapon illegally, you create a risk that you will get caught. That is why most guns used for murder are obtained legally (or even more often, they already owned them for "you never know, I just want to be safe"), to minimize getting caught.

Chris Kyle is the perfect example that having a gun is not real protection. You had one of the most skilled gunman in the US, armed, with another skilled buddy, who was armed. They were both killed by someone without either of them even being able to turn their safety off. Your gun does not protect you if someone just wants to kill people.

https://www.fbi.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 1:18:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 8:50:43 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 10/16/2015 7:29:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/16/2015 3:48:41 PM, ColeTrain wrote:

Assuming freedom is legitimate, what are its boundaries?

I don't believe it should have boundaries.

What course of action, then, should be taken if these freedoms were severly abused? Is that cause enough to take action, or should liberty of the people be valued higher?

freedoms should be valued whether you agree with a person's actions or not. If freedom were only valued when you agree with them or think "they aren't being abused" than they aren't valued at all.