Freedom

I wish that every human life might be pure transparent freedom..Simone de Beauvoir

If you don’t have freedom, what do you have?

.freedom.art.wine.love.

i think everyone on this damn site should have this as their best. Respect the people who fought for our freedom. too many people take what we have for granted.

Maybe taking stuff for granted is the purpose of freedom. I don’t suppose feeling free would motivate me to dwell on the concept of freedom all the time.

what if the purpose of freedom is to help others who arent so fortunate and give them the freedom that all humanity deserves?

I don’t think so. Freedom is a very neutral concept. If I’m free, it means I can choose to help others, help myself, or simply neglect everything and waste away. True political freedom has no purpose, and no preferred approaches to living, except for those determined by natural selection.

i would say that is abusing freedom. You seem to be one of those people who have just looked as your freedom as an inheritence. Its much more, if we all had that type of attitude the world would be crumbling even further with more war and more greedy rich bastards and corporations pushing away society more and more so they can leech the world and the good people in it of everything they have. Freedom isnt a right, its a gift that was fought for by our ancestors. If you chose to sit and do nothing while all your ancestors fought for us to make a change, and you be neutral, then you are spitting in the faces of all those who died for our freedom as well as the freedom of others.

I would contend that if, after all of these hundreds or thousands of years, we’re still fighting for our freedom, then perhaps freedom was never won in the first place. So what is there to take for granted? If we were truely free, then taking it for granted would result in no negative consequences.

man u dont make sense. Freedom doesnt mean eveyrhting is free. And people will ALWAYS be fighting to have more of it. your saying it results in no negative consequences. It doesnt matter if it has no consequence without action the world has no progression. It's lazy asses that sit around and do nothing , that is causing society to rot away and become uncivilized lazy people who sit around all day and don't do anything but talk about how they are lazy and chose to do nuthing… and justify it on best stuff.

There is a difference between not being productive and not risking your life for a lost cause. If you were living in Ancient Rome, just prior to its collapse, knowing what you know now, that the crumbling of the empire was both inevitable and soon to come, would you bother fighting for it? The soldiers of the world will die in wars, gain wealth and power, and have their grandchildren beheaded in rebellions... but the meak will always inherit the earth.

yes i would fight for it. I would fight for any cause with a smidge of hope. we cant tell the future we MAKE our future. Rome fell because of many reasons. If you really are interested in that I have a book you may be interested in, I took a couple University classes on it. The fall of rome is a lil different. Your talking about a world far more undevelpoed than ours. The Roman army was a powerful army and came up with many famous fighting styles and mannnnnnnnnnnnnny accomplishments and discoveries that still exist today. And those things wouldn't be here if they didnt fight. SO yes I would of fought, because if they didnt fight for their freedom, the world would be different and you probably wouldnt be here today. answer me this, if your life was gonna end and everything you believed in was crumbling around you, and all you could do was fight to be free… would you?? or would you let them burn your houses and kill your children?

I think I'll keep my idealistic views about personal freedom, thank you kindly.

I suppose you equate military service with freedom. You're talking to a virtual anarchist, so here you are trying to convince me of the value of freedom you think we have, when I'm so against oppression, that I don't even believe in Democracy. But mine is merely a philosophy. I'm not one to fight for my ideas. I trust fate. People who fight to make their ideas law are the people who justify attrocities and pave the way for tyranny, and intolerance. Whether thier ideas be communism, capitalism, fascism, or anarchy. May the most peaceful ideology win, I say.

u didnt answer my question.

and fyi. its not the military man, those soldiers arent just soldiers. they are brothers , sisters, dads, uncles, whatever man. Those Romans had NO CHOICE but to fight. if your going to bring up a valid point in an argument about freedom pick one that makes sense. Don't compare shit about the fall of rome or about anarchists when the majority of the world arent anarchists. You talking about living in reality but your living in an anarchist fantasy.

The Fall of Rome is quite valid. It illustrates that civilizations collapse, only for another to pop up in their place, and somewhere down the line, a new society is absolutely certain that it's more free than all of the previous ones. Currently Anarchy is only a fantasy because of fear and people who want power. Governments are a symptom of ambition, greed, and vanity. I don't expect them to be avoidable any time soon. We'll have to evolve much further to be capable of a lasting and peaceful anarchy, and so I'm patient. There will be many wars fought, many nations will fall apart, including this one, before the human race learns to consistantly behave itself. Some martyrs die fighting, and others die willingly. Ironically, it's the willing deaths that we revere the most. They get written about in the religious texts. For they see the world and even their own lives as they actually are: small and insignificant.

just for th record. if youve heard anythign about global warming. its care free dont do anything sit around and not make a difference people, that are killing our earth. there will not be other civilizations and unless you and other "anarchists" get a clue and help to make a difference, your lil idea of freedom will no longer be a possibility.

I'm quite aware of global climate change. Quite aware of free energy technologies that have been available for developement for well over a decade, but that have been suppressed and prevented by government and fossil fuel industries who want nothing more than to keep the world dependent on them, despite the environmental damage. Good inventors have had their families threatened, their labs burned to the ground, and some of them (like Stanley Meyer, inventor of the Water Fuel Cell) were even assassinated! Today, some of this technology is finally spreading in a semi-underground way, mostly through free information, over the internet, by we who have decided to stop trying to patent ideas, stop competing through legal business, and simply develope it despite the risks involved, and lack of profit. It's the people who INGORE the government who have an interest in preventing global warming, so don't tell me about global warming. The only thing preventing progress in the world today are people who have their sights set on positions of centralized economic and military power, made possible by our governments and political unions.

man didnt u hear about david suzuki going around university campuses trying to get peopele to make a difference and do something. its not government man, they are influenced by the people. without the people, the government is just making choices by themselves. Read a book by linda mcquaig called it's the crude dude. youd rlly like it and it talks about everything your trying to validate.

The government is influenced by lobbyists and money. The only reason that corporations are finally beginning to change their ways and that the government is finally beginning to turn a blind eye to free-energy developement, rather than trying to stop it, is because of the dangers of global climate change. If it weren't for the profitability of fossil fuels, free energy would have been common practice decades ago. It actually takes natural catastrophies, and the threat of extinction to get these people to care. I don't think they're all evil, though.  I just think that the concepts of governments and corporations encourage people to ignore their generous side, and utilize their ambitions. So, essentially you have a huge community of otherwise kind-hearted, but competative individuals, which acts as a collective super-villain. Anyone who's ever been laid off from a Corporation understands that it's all about profit, and satisfying investors, rather than rewarding the people that actually make the company function, and anybody who's spent any time around Congress can tell you that every one of those people thinks he or she should be the President. And it's surprising how many of their personal principals they're willing to sacrifice to get closer to that goal. Centralized power always attracts selfishness, and the closer you get to it, the more selfish people you will find. It's not about saving the world, it's about being known as someone who saved the world, whether you actually did or not.

American-Style Freedom

coming from Canada nd you coming from the US i belive you and me have inherited very different ideas, beliefs and been taught differently about freedom. This whole argument has gone way away from the origianl point. People who fought for our freedom deserve respect. Thats all, I dont care  what else there is to say. The people that fought for you to be free today, deserve respect. Thats the bottom line.

ok so sry to but in on ur guys conversation, but do u both realize that to a certain extent ur both right. i mean platypus u say we should respect the people in our past who hve fought for our freedom and i totally agree with that n then  monster u say that only anarchists can bring around a good society… well if you look back in our history around the time of the revolutionary war (in US sry dont kno much about canada)  weren't the colonist anarchists to the king of England n weren't they rioting and waging war against the society of england… n b/c theese people fought for their freedom n ours they were considered rebelious anarchists so monster ur sayin that ur an anarchist n thats y u dont agree with platypus, but our history clearly shows that peole like u were the ones to bring around our freedom n so like platypus said they should be respected for doing such a great deed

i think they're both just itching for 'debate'.

No we're not.  Prove it.  I await your case with eager anticipation.

hey letstouchhearts. lets touch... uh haha. maybe you and me can have our own debate?

and yes man. that girl is absolutely right. Its anarchists and movements against government, animal rights groups, and people like the Black Panthers that fought for the freedom, individuality, and equality. If your arguing against me your telling me that you and your fellow anarchists don't deserve respect, when all I've been saying all along is that they do..

Well, my point is not that freedom is valuable, only that it's not worth fighting for. Food, clothing and water are worth fighting for… everything else seems to just be class envy.

but without freedom there would be no point for food, water, clothing, ect…  wat would be the point to life without freedom? w/o it there is no point b/c u wouldn't be living they way u want it would be someone else telling you how to live! even now ur rebelling against the goverment and thats ur right your FREEDOM so ur arguing against something that ur arguement depends on

Perhaps heaven is the only location for freedom then

Well, the definition of freedom seems to be dependant on the individual.  So in the end, you can obtain freedom, just by deciding that you want to live the way you are forced to.

ok well i dont agree with the whole heaven thing but..

i do agree that the definition of freedom is dependent on the individual, not by how they r forced to live life but by how you choose to live it

i dont believe in heaven either to be honest

Well, behind bars is behind bars, even if those bars make up the pearly gates.

i would think of all people talkin bout freedom here u would b the last person to believe in heaven!

i could never really get my idea around the whole after life idea

of all people????  Why?

Well, I don't really believe in heaven. I'm closely following studies being done concerning out of body experiences, and some of those seem to suggest an extra-demensional body, capable of surviving our physical ones. But for all I know these are just stories.  Unless I have an experience myself, I will never have solid proof.

Extra senses and outta body experiences have not been proven either and even if they were true and not just stories, it does not follow that there is a connection with other made up stuff like god and heaven nor the easter bunny and santa and leprcorns and ghosts and superman and … and …. Micheal Jackson – all made up characters that dont really exist  - but i have a secreat … one of the above is real and lives in Ireland …. BUT WHICH ONE~????

Though officially I'm an Atheist, I'm still not convinced there are no gods nor afterlives. I'm so scientific that I don't even believe scientists. The scientific method has some seldomly considered disadvantages. For one, it has usually depended on controlable experiments. Some argue that it can't be a disadvantage when the method has yielded such brilliant technology.  Well, I would argue that the world around us has managed to engineer galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even life itself: the most complex technology we have yet to observe, and yet nature doesn't seem to have any control to its experiments at all.  Another disadvantage is that science seems to rely on making its subjects of study visible or audible in some way.  According to physicists and cosmologists, we have been able to very indirectly detect something in the universe that we are currently calling "dark matter," which is strung about the universe in unimaginably thick strands of webbing. We only seem to know that it's there, because the objects we can see wouldn't behave the way they do if it were not. In other words, we can't really see it, and if we could, it appears that we couldn't touch it.... it would pass right through our hands, without us feeling a thing.  This, along with another apparent feature of reality that we call "dark energy" seem to make up around 95% of all things in the universe, and it might even be passing through our bodies at this very moment. Now if science can't experiment with 95% of the things that are out there, then how trustworthy is it of a tool for measuring reality? Perhaps no more trustworthy than religion.  Especially since it appears to me that religion has been engineered by natural selection, something that as I said before has proven itself much more brilliant than any scientist.

Perhaps nothing is real - we are all just a figment of imagination ... but whose imagination --- 

 I dont know the truth, whether it is science or even a religion, I dont believe in any of these things both religion and science work within the rules of the universe as we know it, so no proof at all - i only believe that i am allowed to grow and die in a set limit of time and I have no idea what happens outside my little world nor either end of my brief life so therefore i really need to figure out a way of having maximum amount of fun without limiting my exsistence or damaging my future happiness in any way.  I think we all spend too much time worrying about things we cant answer or control - enjoy the freedom that we are allowed albeit limited and not true freedom and enjoy the time we are given albeit limited. ;o)

I seem to have taken an alternative approach to life. I don't seem to trust fun. I trust silent observation of the world around me. Part of the reason is that so few people take that approach to life. I want to be the guy who knows what it's like to experience nothing on purpose.

sorry when i said off all people i ment hideous monster

but i have to agree that since we are alotted such a short amount of time for living we may as well use it to live however you see fit. I never really got into the whole religion n after life thing but i cant truly consider myself an athiest b/c i think that maybe something is waiting once we die, bt that might be society drilling religion into me. And the after life.... i dont know , i dont believe in heaven or hell ( even though hell seems more possible then heaven)  but something has to happen, i mean the average person only lives 87 years but think about how many years have passed since the begining of earth or of anything and to think that we're given a short amount of time to live n the rest to just wonder around heaven or hel or where ever for an eternity seems totally unfair. But then theres also this theory i've been thinking of, since most people think once we die only our souls live on , like they leave our bodies n float somewhere else)  then what about before we were born ? when we were consieved did we just get a new soul or is it an old one being recycled n if it is then isnt that kind of like reincarnation??

agnostic

Hell is silly – why would the devil punish us for being bad – surely he would want to reward us

haha inever thought of it like that but yay he wouold like it if we were bad! but wats agnostic?

wouldnt the devil rewarding you be the opposite of bad? SO shouldnt he just punish you and dam,n you to eternal darkness because hes evil? Im sure he'd be glad you were bad, but he's not gonna be good to you becuase of it. He's gonna cast you into the flaming rivers of hell.

As for the whole science thing... there are so many thinsg that are unexplaiable and not proven. Doesn't mean that science is necessarily false or misleading. Just because some science may not seem to be as believable or have as much hard evidence, doesn't mean the possibility for vailidity in their experiments does not exist. I read somewhere that Harvard University has been able to stop light, which ultimately means that the theory of the speed of light isn't real. If you can alter and change the speed of light and make it stop at a standstill, then how do we really know how far things are in the universe. Something that was 1000 light years away could be close ror way farther than we imagine. SO to say all this stuff about dark matter and stuff, and all these THEORIES that your using in your argument doesn't say anything. Your talking about how you can't believe alot of science and all this crap, but your basing opinions on it and taking it into consideration. Whether eligion r science has drilled anything into your brain, the educated people who spend their lives trying to uncover the answer to some of life's mysteries are MOST LIKELY more knowledgeable 99.9% of the time than any of us. 

Many things are up in the air, time travel, worm holes, black holes ( where do they go?) , the human brain ( the most complex thing in the Universe). 

"Another disadvantage is that science seems to rely on making its subjects of study visible or audible in some way.  According to physicists and cosmologists, we have been able to very indirectly detect something in the universe that we are currently calling "dark matter," "

You say here that science has disadvantages and are arguing against validity. But aren't cosmologists and physicists both studying a branch of science as well? Thus deeming them scientists? So how can you base your argument on something your arguing against? 

Because my argument is that science disagrees with itself as much as religion. Their contradictory views are no different than the differences between eternal damnation and reincarnation. I read a paper recently that identified a problematic pattern in ununiformity with galactic redshift: our entire basis for an expanding universe, and the big bang. It suggests that the speed of redshift appears dependant on the type of galaxy, which does not agree with the expanding universe belief.

Also, I would point out that the different subjects one can study in science tend to shape one's views on the universe. A cosmologist isn't going to be an expert in biology, and so may disagree with biologists about certain scientific facts. I've been following the experiments done by scientists who study metaphysics, and the possible quantum entanglement of consciousness. These scientists seem to lean toward the belief that there is some truth to spiritualism. Why would I trust the biologist's or the cosmologist's views on spirituality, when metaphysics isn't the subject he studies?

well why would your trust metaphysics? It's the same as asking me why I would trust a cosmologist or a dentist, or a lawyer, or whoever. Because they study the ares and are mosre knowldgeable. Just because you study metaphysics doesn't mean that your beliefs cannot be affected by others areas of science. Without other areas of science whether they agree or disagree, your area of science would have nothing to base argument against. You would trust them based on your own shaped opinion, in what you have decided to belive and not believe. And this whole thing about being unsupportive of the big bang. IM not saying I do or don't believe in it. But, you said "appears dependant" in your point when talking about the redshift. Being someone who claims they argue based on fact and knowledge, you seem to be using a sort of uncertainty in the words you choose. There is a difference when something "is" or "appears to be." You just like to argue and it doesn't matter what anyone says. You've turned this whole comment board into something about the big bang when it started out saying that people who fight for freedom desrve respect. Whether it be soldiers, or rebelling anarchists. Those who fight for the freedom of individuals, deserve respect from the people who don't have the courage to stand up themselves.

"my argument is that science disagrees with itself as much as religion" well obviosuly people should be disagreeing with you? I dont know who your arguing against to even have an argument about that with.  And if your talking about all sciences and all religions, i entirely disagree. Religion isnt based on science its based on beliefs and faith. It has nothing to do with scientific evidence or truths that go against themsleves. IF you don't believe and follow the religion and practice it, well than your not part of the religion. No arguing or disagreeing, its one way or the other. Looking at religion with science aside there is NO disagreement. When you start to use science to try and prove religion, disagreement occurs. In order for Religion to disagree with itself it MUST coexist with Science. But to say that they both disagree with themsleves is wrong. Science disgarees with religion, and religion disagrees with science. But Religion does not disagree with itself.

I personally don't believe people fight with courage, but fear. Peaceful martyrs are far more admirable than are warriors, on an emotional level.

Religion does disagree with itself. If it didn't there would not be so many of them.