What is your definition of freedom? Does it cover cases such as drug use, where the use of the drug eventually entraps the addict? Is increasing an individual's freedom that decreases another's freedom acting with respect to freedom? If so, then how is this different from murder, where an individuals freedom to kill someone is valued less than the another's freedom, and slavery, where the freedom to enslave is valued less than the freedom to be free? Can the value of each scenario be determined with respect to freedom? In such an example, an individual's freedom to live would be valued greater than another's freedom to kill. Not because murdering someone is ethically wrong, but because murder decreases the freedom belonging to a human being. (Ethically, we would, then, only need one provision: that freedom is good. )
Freedom
- Thread starter okinrus
- Start date
Okinorus:
Murder as 'wrong' is only a passing phase of government: murder, incest, selfishness- all were normal in Rome until the Roman emperors converted to Christianity.
Any wrong or right is situational and the dictate of the ruling body- in war, for example, these 'wrongs' are temporarily made 'right' again so that the most outstanding citizen can excuse himself to kill.
Therefore:
Freedom in either of these cases, so long as you're dealing with people, is simply the length of the leash.
Murder as 'wrong' is only a passing phase of government: murder, incest, selfishness- all were normal in Rome until the Roman emperors converted to Christianity.
Any wrong or right is situational and the dictate of the ruling body- in war, for example, these 'wrongs' are temporarily made 'right' again so that the most outstanding citizen can excuse himself to kill.
Therefore:
A void of inert matter with you in it.
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
okinrus said:
There is nothing more deeply personal to a human being than freely being the goddess/master of their own mind body and soul. Its my body, I can ingest substances in my body as I see fit; the standard is what I want, desire. It is my addiction, not yours. It is my god so I can deal with her as I want [after all she was a student of mine] and my mind, well thats a pretty deep subject. So, officer, get the fuck out of my way.
Geisteikesel:
If you indulge in worldly pleasures, the world has got you bound to it.
Drugs, entertainment, politics, people- anything.
You'll be sitting in your apartment for a week on LSD away from the world- until it runs out and you have to purchase more.
You'll be sitting in your apartment for a week reading all of Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard - until you run out and have to go back to the library.
Where is the freedom?
Ok, well where is the freedom in it?
If you indulge in worldly pleasures, the world has got you bound to it.
Drugs, entertainment, politics, people- anything.
You'll be sitting in your apartment for a week on LSD away from the world- until it runs out and you have to purchase more.
You'll be sitting in your apartment for a week reading all of Dostoevsky or Kierkegaard - until you run out and have to go back to the library.
Where is the freedom?
Gendanken,
And if you engage instead in worldly abstinence? Aren't you still bound by your need to escape?
Is there such a thing as freedom? Really?
Heh heh. Sorry, but it's so cute when you don't understand drugs. Nobody does LSD for a week. And if they did, they wouldn't go out for more. They'd be beat and torn. Feeling like something that has been shit on by the whole world. Plus, a week of tripping would leave your brain in a jelly-like consistency where you probably wouldn't even be able to move let alone function in enough capacity to acquire more drugs. LSD is a several hour thing and when it's over, you've had enough for a while. It's very taxing.
I like this point. Intellectual addiction. At least it's more rewarding than hedonism.
And if you engage instead in worldly abstinence? Aren't you still bound by your need to escape?
Is there such a thing as freedom? Really?
Heh heh. Sorry, but it's so cute when you don't understand drugs. Nobody does LSD for a week. And if they did, they wouldn't go out for more. They'd be beat and torn. Feeling like something that has been shit on by the whole world. Plus, a week of tripping would leave your brain in a jelly-like consistency where you probably wouldn't even be able to move let alone function in enough capacity to acquire more drugs. LSD is a several hour thing and when it's over, you've had enough for a while. It's very taxing.
I like this point. Intellectual addiction. At least it's more rewarding than hedonism.
Invert:
But let's.
That is like saying one is bound to a need for clean food.
How are you bound by something you don't think about?
What's funnier is you not understanding how laughable your knowing so much about drugs and then finding you posting so much about ignorance, and 'those masses', registers.
"He, he, he"
Seeing how this abstinence is an impossible, the question is moot.
But let's.
That is like saying one is bound to a need for clean food.
How are you bound by something you don't think about?
What's funnier is you not understanding how laughable your knowing so much about drugs and then finding you posting so much about ignorance, and 'those masses', registers.
"He, he, he"
I do not think that freedom exist, we just do not feel/reach the boundaries in some places.
Prove me wrong if you want to.
Prove me wrong if you want to.
Gendanken,
This would be at the heart of the matter. Wouldn't it?
If you were truly able to refrain from even allowing the thought in your awareness then you would be free of them. Perhaps. But, there are levels of thought and not all of them exist on the surface. Many times, one represses surface thought and thinks it eradicated but it in fact lingers beneath the surface and shows itself in surprising ways. To repress a thought is to enslave yourself to that thought.
However, I am sure that there must be a method of not thinking about something without repressing it.
Say, Hume's example of a man who had never seen a particular shade of blue. If you placed all the shades of blue that he had seen one next to the other, it is likely that he would be able to deduce that there is a missing gradation in that shade that he has not seen before. He might even be able to visualize the shade of the missing color. Hume used this as an example for how an idea might come about spontaneously rather than directly from the senses. However, I say it still came from the senses. It came from a comparison of perceptions.
This is what man does.
And this is why it is difficult (to say the least) to not think a thought. If a man had never know the taste of wine, still he might imagine what the taste of wine would be like (if he had seen someone else drinking it that is). We compare. We interpret. We read between the lines. How does one not think about 'it'?
Also, it should be noted (I'm sure you're already aware) that the abstinent is thinking about it. Thinking about it in a very severe manner. Probably thinking about it more than those who partake. I can only imagine the lewd and lustful thoughts that roam about in the mind of the truly celibate (and I mean celibate even from masturbation). What animals they must be in their minds.
In order to decry a thing, one must first have tasted that thing. One must know what it is that one talks about. I have tasted many drugs. Not all. But many. And yes, I was caught up in the disease of the masses at one time. I've been meaning to tell you this, by the way. You know that I haven't smoked a cigarette in 3 1/2 months. But, you didn't know that I have also stopped smoking pot. Haven't had any weed in 2 months. It's not that I find pot to be bad or worthy of banning, it is by far the least harmful of the drugs, but it's rather that I just got bored with it. I've had a half-bowl in my pipe for two months and I haven't even thought about it.
That last sentence relates directly to what you were saying about not thinking about it. Yes?
It is difficult in the extreme to stop thinking about something. The mind will constantly churn back to the repressed thought. Just to show 'you' whose boss. But, there does come a time when we simply outgrow, go beyond, those stale thoughts of the past. And in this we sometimes find that we are free.
This would be at the heart of the matter. Wouldn't it?
If you were truly able to refrain from even allowing the thought in your awareness then you would be free of them. Perhaps. But, there are levels of thought and not all of them exist on the surface. Many times, one represses surface thought and thinks it eradicated but it in fact lingers beneath the surface and shows itself in surprising ways. To repress a thought is to enslave yourself to that thought.
However, I am sure that there must be a method of not thinking about something without repressing it.
Say, Hume's example of a man who had never seen a particular shade of blue. If you placed all the shades of blue that he had seen one next to the other, it is likely that he would be able to deduce that there is a missing gradation in that shade that he has not seen before. He might even be able to visualize the shade of the missing color. Hume used this as an example for how an idea might come about spontaneously rather than directly from the senses. However, I say it still came from the senses. It came from a comparison of perceptions.
This is what man does.
And this is why it is difficult (to say the least) to not think a thought. If a man had never know the taste of wine, still he might imagine what the taste of wine would be like (if he had seen someone else drinking it that is). We compare. We interpret. We read between the lines. How does one not think about 'it'?
Also, it should be noted (I'm sure you're already aware) that the abstinent is thinking about it. Thinking about it in a very severe manner. Probably thinking about it more than those who partake. I can only imagine the lewd and lustful thoughts that roam about in the mind of the truly celibate (and I mean celibate even from masturbation). What animals they must be in their minds.
In order to decry a thing, one must first have tasted that thing. One must know what it is that one talks about. I have tasted many drugs. Not all. But many. And yes, I was caught up in the disease of the masses at one time. I've been meaning to tell you this, by the way. You know that I haven't smoked a cigarette in 3 1/2 months. But, you didn't know that I have also stopped smoking pot. Haven't had any weed in 2 months. It's not that I find pot to be bad or worthy of banning, it is by far the least harmful of the drugs, but it's rather that I just got bored with it. I've had a half-bowl in my pipe for two months and I haven't even thought about it.
That last sentence relates directly to what you were saying about not thinking about it. Yes?
It is difficult in the extreme to stop thinking about something. The mind will constantly churn back to the repressed thought. Just to show 'you' whose boss. But, there does come a time when we simply outgrow, go beyond, those stale thoughts of the past. And in this we sometimes find that we are free.
Invert:
We're only courting possibliites.
"But this universal and primary opinion of all men (gend: that external reality exists, that objects are neither annihilated or created with our absence or presence), is soon destroyed by the by slightest philosophy which teaches us that nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or a perception, and that the senses are only the inlet through which these images are conveyed, without be able to produce any immediate intercourse between the mind and the object"- you kow the title, don't need to type
Applying this to the idea of freedom, it (freedom) only becomes an object or thought to one exposed to the experience of bondage as another thought.
The spontaneous idea he spoke of with the blue was what I feel was an apology for spirituality- his skepticism seemed to make it possible for a god since he decide that, well, we all believe things that we don't know so...maybe something is there? So by associating the ideas that men had with images forged in experience, he too, capitulated.
So therefore this:
A cockroach is as likely to think about 'freedom' is it is about wine, is what I'm saying.
*edit*
Ha.
Forgot to run it through a spellcheck. Pardon. Happens when exited.
This is why I said the question was moot.
We're only courting possibliites.
This is also the man that says this-
"But this universal and primary opinion of all men (gend: that external reality exists, that objects are neither annihilated or created with our absence or presence), is soon destroyed by the by slightest philosophy which teaches us that nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or a perception, and that the senses are only the inlet through which these images are conveyed, without be able to produce any immediate intercourse between the mind and the object"- you kow the title, don't need to type
Applying this to the idea of freedom, it (freedom) only becomes an object or thought to one exposed to the experience of bondage as another thought.
The spontaneous idea he spoke of with the blue was what I feel was an apology for spirituality- his skepticism seemed to make it possible for a god since he decide that, well, we all believe things that we don't know so...maybe something is there? So by associating the ideas that men had with images forged in experience, he too, capitulated.
So therefore this:
Could only be with a man exposed to the ideas of wine- taste, color, description.
A cockroach is as likely to think about 'freedom' is it is about wine, is what I'm saying.
*edit*
Ha.
Forgot to run it through a spellcheck. Pardon. Happens when exited.
Last edited:
okinrus,
"Can the value of each scenario be determined with respect to freedom? "
Yes, it can and should. Individuals should be free to do as they like, unless it imposes on another's freedom.
"Can the value of each scenario be determined with respect to freedom? "
Yes, it can and should. Individuals should be free to do as they like, unless it imposes on another's freedom.
True freedom is being able to do or not do whatever you with. It is also impossible in this universe for a couple of reasons.
The first is the construction of the universe; some things are just impossible in the relm of physics and biology. I, for example, can not levitate objects with my mind or turn into an avacado the size of a sun. The second is society itself; as my right to move my fist ends where your nose begins, my freedom is restricted in this respect.
This dosn't make freedom moot or any less worthy a goal. It only means you can not have complete freedom. In my eyes, you should still have as much as you can grab without infringing on the freedom of others.
To me, that means you can do whatever you want to yourself and your property as long as it dosn't damage the person or property of anybody else. This even means the right to make your own mistakes. Take drugs or commit suicide if you want; thats your choice. Just leave a memo on some hotline so we know where to pick up your body. Rotten corpses are so hard to clean up. Tattoo yourself, gouge out your eyes, gamble away your money. It dosn't hurt me. Or don't.
And so on and so forth.
The first is the construction of the universe; some things are just impossible in the relm of physics and biology. I, for example, can not levitate objects with my mind or turn into an avacado the size of a sun. The second is society itself; as my right to move my fist ends where your nose begins, my freedom is restricted in this respect.
This dosn't make freedom moot or any less worthy a goal. It only means you can not have complete freedom. In my eyes, you should still have as much as you can grab without infringing on the freedom of others.
To me, that means you can do whatever you want to yourself and your property as long as it dosn't damage the person or property of anybody else. This even means the right to make your own mistakes. Take drugs or commit suicide if you want; thats your choice. Just leave a memo on some hotline so we know where to pick up your body. Rotten corpses are so hard to clean up. Tattoo yourself, gouge out your eyes, gamble away your money. It dosn't hurt me. Or don't.
And so on and so forth.
Personal protection can only go so far; it is each person's choice how to make their life. But there almost always needs to be guard rail, I think; sufficient danger may even require criminal penalty. Sure a person attempting to drive off a bridge will have a more difficult time accomplishing their feat, but most people don't want their cars going off the bridge. Most people don't want themselves addicted to some substance, and they certainly don't want their children, not yet having full freedom, and not yet being fully aware of the consequences, to be addicted either. Therefore, the state should place some guard rails. And yet I'm still uncertain whether doing this will, in effect, restrict personal freedom. On one hand, a person prevented from their use of narcotics; but, on the other hand, he or she might prevent their alto-ego and peer pressure from destroying their lives. Proctection from our own mistakes is often wanted. Furthermore, each person addicted to a substance affects those around them, often negatively. For instance, a person addicted to alcohol is affects his family and his job, so much so that his family's freedom may be restricted.
an>roid.v2
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
My definition of freedom is constraint. I'd rather not ponder on my freedoms otherwise I'll be reminded of my constraints. Freedom is just the imported raspberry jam you don't happen to have on that one bloody morning when you crave it on your morning toast.
Freedom comes with responsibility in my opinion. Irresponsible people need to have their freedom restricted because their irresponsible actions can lead to the harm of others.
Drugs have become a worry for Government because they are too aware that drugs change people's perceptions. The Government depends upon people for votes and is afraid that if the common man starts seeing the world through different eyes, then they will no longer have a use for them. It is therefore a self-preservation technique to restrict usage.
I tell you this though, you could buy a license to produce / use anything if you were prepared to pay their price. Everything has a price on it's head. It is just a matter for the individual whether they accept the prohibition as a 'good' thing or not. Personally I would like to see much more eduction surrounding substance usage.
The war on drugs will only fuel it's use because people take drugs as a symbol that they are not under the Government's authority. They are indeed free to do what they please. It doesn't come as any suprise (well to me at least) that the Government penalise the people they catch.
There are a few types of people and their motives are plain to see
Governmental Decision Maker
Has heard that drugs are bad. Has seen evidence of drug abuse and this confirms what he has heard. He feel's a duty to declare that drugs are only bad for humans and has the power to declare a war on 'drugs'. He cannot of course declare a war on 'humans' because humans have given him the authority to make such decisions as these. The drug dealer is then demonised by the Government, so that someone other than 'drugs' is blamed because of course you cannot blame a 'molecule' and you cannot blame a human. The drug dealer now sub-humanised can be caught and punished in clear conscious because he is in-human (which of course is fallacious).
The Drug Dealer
There are many types of people who sell substances to others but they can really easily be classified by the amount they sell and the types that they sell. The dealer having had war declared on him will seek to sell his products in the darkest places so that he is not caught. Dealer's that deal openly are usually caught.
The Drug User
The person who takes drugs does not do so because they are 'evil'. It is almost always as a result of a desire to 'find out what they (substances) do'. This is usually as a result of being told that they must not do them but not always. Prevention breeds curiousity in my experience. The drug user can have a variety of experiences and all of course are personal to them.
The Drug Abuser
The drug abuser has stopped experimenting and now lives for the drug experience in larger and larger measures. The drug abuser tends to have issues that they are seeking to escape from.
The Doctor
The doctor has a good idea what the substances do but is usually relying upon the witness of those who have taken drugs, coupled together with an understanding of how the substance reacts with the organs that the blood carries it to. The doctor does not judge the Drug Abuser but seeks to heal him. The doctor very rarely sees a drug user, just the abusers. Sometimes an innocent curiousity can take a user to the doctor's but this will be as a result of bad reaction to a substance. This is quite a rare occurence amongst first time users in my experience but it does happen nevertheless.
The most common cause of bad reaction's to hallucinogens for example is to do with the 'environment' that the substance is taken in. This is why education is more beneficial than prohibition in my experience.
The Government Supporters
The common people are afraid that drug dealers will influence their children. They are not of course afraid that the drug dealer will influence them. The Govt. supporter is glad that the govt is taking a stance against dealers because the more dealers locked up, the more likely their child will not have to be subjected to something they call (and see) as bad.
The Shaman
The Shaman prepares his own substances. He does not rely on the provision of others but only of Nature. The Shaman has researched his medicines properly and is already aware of their effects. The Shaman then endeavours to find answers in his state of altered perception, answers that will help him to bring enlightenment to those not selected to share in his rituals.
The Shaman treats his practise as 'sacred' because he has seen a side to life that remains hidden from the common man's view. The Shaman is aware that the world and everything in it belong's to God. The Shaman is very often humbled whilst being carried on a wind, being shown sights and sounds that are he is unable to speak of when returning to a world's eye view. The Shaman sees through the eyes of the Eagle as he flies. It is a 'journeying' but the Eagle speaks a different language to man and whilst the Eagle's language is understood by the Shaman when the Shaman himself is an Eagle, when he becomes once more just a man, he can remember feelings but cannot express them because he no longer has the language to do so. The shaman then must take those feelings and try to express them in actions. Actions speak louder than words for the Shaman anyway.
peace
c20
Drugs have become a worry for Government because they are too aware that drugs change people's perceptions. The Government depends upon people for votes and is afraid that if the common man starts seeing the world through different eyes, then they will no longer have a use for them. It is therefore a self-preservation technique to restrict usage.
I tell you this though, you could buy a license to produce / use anything if you were prepared to pay their price. Everything has a price on it's head. It is just a matter for the individual whether they accept the prohibition as a 'good' thing or not. Personally I would like to see much more eduction surrounding substance usage.
The war on drugs will only fuel it's use because people take drugs as a symbol that they are not under the Government's authority. They are indeed free to do what they please. It doesn't come as any suprise (well to me at least) that the Government penalise the people they catch.
There are a few types of people and their motives are plain to see
Governmental Decision Maker
Has heard that drugs are bad. Has seen evidence of drug abuse and this confirms what he has heard. He feel's a duty to declare that drugs are only bad for humans and has the power to declare a war on 'drugs'. He cannot of course declare a war on 'humans' because humans have given him the authority to make such decisions as these. The drug dealer is then demonised by the Government, so that someone other than 'drugs' is blamed because of course you cannot blame a 'molecule' and you cannot blame a human. The drug dealer now sub-humanised can be caught and punished in clear conscious because he is in-human (which of course is fallacious).
The Drug Dealer
There are many types of people who sell substances to others but they can really easily be classified by the amount they sell and the types that they sell. The dealer having had war declared on him will seek to sell his products in the darkest places so that he is not caught. Dealer's that deal openly are usually caught.
The Drug User
The person who takes drugs does not do so because they are 'evil'. It is almost always as a result of a desire to 'find out what they (substances) do'. This is usually as a result of being told that they must not do them but not always. Prevention breeds curiousity in my experience. The drug user can have a variety of experiences and all of course are personal to them.
The Drug Abuser
The drug abuser has stopped experimenting and now lives for the drug experience in larger and larger measures. The drug abuser tends to have issues that they are seeking to escape from.
The Doctor
The doctor has a good idea what the substances do but is usually relying upon the witness of those who have taken drugs, coupled together with an understanding of how the substance reacts with the organs that the blood carries it to. The doctor does not judge the Drug Abuser but seeks to heal him. The doctor very rarely sees a drug user, just the abusers. Sometimes an innocent curiousity can take a user to the doctor's but this will be as a result of bad reaction to a substance. This is quite a rare occurence amongst first time users in my experience but it does happen nevertheless.
The most common cause of bad reaction's to hallucinogens for example is to do with the 'environment' that the substance is taken in. This is why education is more beneficial than prohibition in my experience.
The Government Supporters
The common people are afraid that drug dealers will influence their children. They are not of course afraid that the drug dealer will influence them. The Govt. supporter is glad that the govt is taking a stance against dealers because the more dealers locked up, the more likely their child will not have to be subjected to something they call (and see) as bad.
The Shaman
The Shaman prepares his own substances. He does not rely on the provision of others but only of Nature. The Shaman has researched his medicines properly and is already aware of their effects. The Shaman then endeavours to find answers in his state of altered perception, answers that will help him to bring enlightenment to those not selected to share in his rituals.
The Shaman treats his practise as 'sacred' because he has seen a side to life that remains hidden from the common man's view. The Shaman is aware that the world and everything in it belong's to God. The Shaman is very often humbled whilst being carried on a wind, being shown sights and sounds that are he is unable to speak of when returning to a world's eye view. The Shaman sees through the eyes of the Eagle as he flies. It is a 'journeying' but the Eagle speaks a different language to man and whilst the Eagle's language is understood by the Shaman when the Shaman himself is an Eagle, when he becomes once more just a man, he can remember feelings but cannot express them because he no longer has the language to do so. The shaman then must take those feelings and try to express them in actions. Actions speak louder than words for the Shaman anyway.
peace
c20
geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
okinrus said:
Gendanken,
Ahh. I have been pondering what you meant with this quote for some time now and it just came to me. At first, I couldn't understand how you reached the conclusion of contrasting bondage with freedom from this quote in particular. But, now I think I understand.
Concepts form in a certain manner. According to Hume and others (don't think Hume was original with this idea), our ideas are directly attributable to our impressions. (I am a bit shaky on exactly what impressions are. It's obvious that they are what we sense from the physical world, but he also seems to attribute certain thoughts and emotions as impressions. But, that's another discussion.) Therefore, our concept of freedom is directly attributable to a concept of bondage. Before some type of physical bondage, either in us or in others, we would be incapable of conceiving of this nebulous 'freedom'. And, while there are many types of bondage, it is likely that directly physical bondage (chains, shackles, whatever) would be the original source which was later abstracted to other impressions. (Or would they be ideas?) Servitude. Heirarchy. Loyalty. Obligation. Duty. Etc....
But, while bondage does extend into the nebulous realms of the abstract, freedom lies almost entirely within it.
Interesting. Is this what you were saying?
I admitted to as much when I first mentioned it. That the man would have to know that there is such a thing as wine in order to extrapolate properties for it.
However, the cockroach is actually more likely to think about wine than freedom. Wine is useful to it. Freedom is just existence. The only time that the barest hint of freedom would enter into a cockroach's thoughts would be when it is in captivity. And then, I highly doubt if it is capable of the abstraction which man carries out that makes freedom from bondage. The ability to extrapolate opposites. The cockroach's idea of freedom would just be a vague desire to be not trapped. And as soon as the trap was escaped so too would it escape the idea of freedom.
I noticed. You must have been very excited.
ClockWood,
Forgot one. Forgot that in a good percentage of instances, your body acts of its own accord and you just take credit and provide the explanations. There are theories that "you" actually came about simply because of the need for the body and mind to come together in some rational way. To interpret actions and make them into a 'reasonable' whole. Did you know that it takes about a half-second for stimulus from the retina to register in your conscious awareness? And yet you still act as though what you see is happening now. You interpret what was happening a half-second ago and predict what should be happening now. This is where you come in. Tying it all together. And to take the credit.
But, this is probably a good deal more biological that Okinrus was thinking when he posed the question.
Edit: Goddamnit. Lost half my post. Was adding it in wordpad not in the window.
Fixed.
Ahh. I have been pondering what you meant with this quote for some time now and it just came to me. At first, I couldn't understand how you reached the conclusion of contrasting bondage with freedom from this quote in particular. But, now I think I understand.
Concepts form in a certain manner. According to Hume and others (don't think Hume was original with this idea), our ideas are directly attributable to our impressions. (I am a bit shaky on exactly what impressions are. It's obvious that they are what we sense from the physical world, but he also seems to attribute certain thoughts and emotions as impressions. But, that's another discussion.) Therefore, our concept of freedom is directly attributable to a concept of bondage. Before some type of physical bondage, either in us or in others, we would be incapable of conceiving of this nebulous 'freedom'. And, while there are many types of bondage, it is likely that directly physical bondage (chains, shackles, whatever) would be the original source which was later abstracted to other impressions. (Or would they be ideas?) Servitude. Heirarchy. Loyalty. Obligation. Duty. Etc....
But, while bondage does extend into the nebulous realms of the abstract, freedom lies almost entirely within it.
Interesting. Is this what you were saying?
I admitted to as much when I first mentioned it. That the man would have to know that there is such a thing as wine in order to extrapolate properties for it.
However, the cockroach is actually more likely to think about wine than freedom. Wine is useful to it. Freedom is just existence. The only time that the barest hint of freedom would enter into a cockroach's thoughts would be when it is in captivity. And then, I highly doubt if it is capable of the abstraction which man carries out that makes freedom from bondage. The ability to extrapolate opposites. The cockroach's idea of freedom would just be a vague desire to be not trapped. And as soon as the trap was escaped so too would it escape the idea of freedom.
I noticed. You must have been very excited.
ClockWood,
Forgot one. Forgot that in a good percentage of instances, your body acts of its own accord and you just take credit and provide the explanations. There are theories that "you" actually came about simply because of the need for the body and mind to come together in some rational way. To interpret actions and make them into a 'reasonable' whole. Did you know that it takes about a half-second for stimulus from the retina to register in your conscious awareness? And yet you still act as though what you see is happening now. You interpret what was happening a half-second ago and predict what should be happening now. This is where you come in. Tying it all together. And to take the credit.
But, this is probably a good deal more biological that Okinrus was thinking when he posed the question.
Edit: Goddamnit. Lost half my post. Was adding it in wordpad not in the window.
Fixed.
Last edited:
c20H25N3o:
You actually believe drugs were criminalized because your government was looking out for your health?
For your freedom?
This is the same government looking out for your grandmother’s 'heatlh' by penalizing her using Canadian drugs.
(Your constitutions are written on weed)
Invert:
The same with warmth or beauty- you'll never know the meaning of either without experiencing their antipodes.
Tubman, for example, was stirred the same way concerning freedom.
All you mentioned was the simple, inert act of looking on someone drinking wine, which is usually no different than drinking water when we look on them.
(all hail prose)
Its likelier to think about trust as it is about distrust- both abstracts.
Better?
These points seem fairly obvious.
You actually believe drugs were criminalized because your government was looking out for your health?
For your freedom?
This is the same government looking out for your grandmother’s 'heatlh' by penalizing her using Canadian drugs.
(Your constitutions are written on weed)
Invert:
Exactly.
The same with warmth or beauty- you'll never know the meaning of either without experiencing their antipodes.
I think you are likelier to stir his curiosity if you describe wine to him or he sees your reaction to the tasting of it, repeated and overtly.
Tubman, for example, was stirred the same way concerning freedom.
All you mentioned was the simple, inert act of looking on someone drinking wine, which is usually no different than drinking water when we look on them.
Fine, screw the wine.
(all hail prose)
Its likelier to think about trust as it is about distrust- both abstracts.
Better?
These points seem fairly obvious.
c20H25N3o, education can only go so far. At some point it's the power of the will, along with other factors. People have to learn how to say "no," which, from my experience, can only occur through practice.
I doubt government's restriction causes drug abuse because many legal products, say cigarettes or simply potato chips, are routinely abused, causing health damage. These abuses, given the way health insurance works, inevitably effect someone else, if only to waste the doctor's time. See, very little of what we doesn't effect someone, but very little is known of the exact effects. But my guess is that the irresponsible actions of a few people will negativively effect the larger population.
Well, no. You can blame a molecule; however, without doing something about it, society doesn't improve. Now, of course, there are ways to improve society without banning the drugs. An attempt could be made to tax the drug, presumably increasing the price. But a legal drug tax, I think, is unlikely raise the price higher than having the drug illegal, which again goes back to the guard rail. A sufficiently high barrier should be constructed when a substance is considered dangerous, and for some drugs, I'd imagine, the damage to the brain is greater than a car accident. Sure, the government might stand to gain more money off the sale of drugs; but when half the populace is drunk, high, and wasted there will be no one to run the government. In addition, for the users of the drug, making the drug illegal means enforced treatment programs could be imployed, and for those who use the drug responsibly, but illegally, they won't usually be caught.
geistkiesel, everyone makes mistakes, even with full knowledge that what there're doing is wrong, dangerous, or deadily. Freedom is also freedom from past mistakes.
As an example, say you're driving your car 55 mph through a 15 mph zone with turns every 10 feet, each taking you to an unknown destination, and driving the car in reverse is impossible. For sake of the example, suppose also that the street is one-way, and that incapable of slowing down. You might consider yourself free, here; but you're only free to go straight because if you do try to make a turn, your miss the turn and crash. Now if the state enforces the speed limit, is the state really restricting your freedom? Or is the state giving you more freedom because driving 15 mph allows you to make all those turns? True, speed limits restrict your ability to drive fast, but with this restriction you'll be able to make more turns.
Last edited:
L
laughing weasel
Guest
Freedom is the ability to make individualized choices. We all choose different form of restraint. There are people who cheat people fro a living but would never kill anyone because they are scared. There are people who would do horrible things to strangers but will not lie to friends. We are all servants to the choices that we make as teenagers. Some of those decisions rule our lives forever afterward. The important thing is to be free to make those choices for good or bad.