Hostage situation taking place now in Orlando. [50+ dead, suspect killed]
916 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539475]There's some schools of philosophy that would argue that you really just enslaved yourself to the idea of needing a gun to feel safe and so you are still imprisoned by the gun in itself. You think that having a gun gives you freedom when actually you feel dependent on it and so are enslaved by it[/QUOTE]
Okay, but back in the real world, gun ownership is a freedom.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539487]Okay, but back in the real world, gun ownership is a freedom.[/QUOTE]
Desire to live in a gun-free society is also a freedom.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50539497]Desire to live in a gun-free society is also a freedom.[/QUOTE]
Of the many ridiculous and unnecessary philosophical debates I've seen on Facepunch.. Arguing that being legally prohibited from owning something is a freedom has to be up near the top of the list..
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
I'm not saying owning guns is better than not, I'm just saying it's quite literally a freedom.. Something you are free to do? Lol
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
"Some would argue that choosing when to go to sleep is actually a form of enslavement.. True freedom is having your mother set your bed time for you."
[QUOTE=srobins;50539487]Okay, but back in the real world, gun ownership is a freedom.[/QUOTE]
it's more the fact that some people /feel/ the need to /own/ a gun before they feel free
like, let's say for the sake of argument that a man who owns a gun leaves it at home accidentally when he drives to work or the shops or something. does he become unfree for that time by virtue of the fact he doesn't have a gun?
like, it seems to me that you need to possess something physical so that you can feel /free/? That freedom is dependent upon what you own?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539534]it's more the fact that some people /feel/ the need to /own/ a gun before they feel free
like, let's say for the sake of argument that a man who owns a gun leaves it at home accidentally when he drives to work or the shops or something. does he become unfree for that time by virtue of the fact he doesn't have a gun?[/QUOTE]
Uh, no? It's not about physically holding a weapon its about having the freedom to own one.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539504]Of the many ridiculous and unnecessary philosophical debates I've seen on Facepunch.. Arguing that being legally prohibited from owning something is a freedom has to be up near the top of the list..
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
I'm not saying owning guns is better than not, I'm just saying it's quite literally a freedom.. Something you are free to do? Lol
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
"Some would argue that choosing when to go to sleep is actually a form of enslavement.. True freedom is having your mother set your bed time for you."[/QUOTE]
You're not seeing things from others' perspective. Some people wish to live in a gun-free society. Your desire to possess firearms is preventing them from making that choice.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539547]Uh, no? It's not about physically holding a weapon its about having the freedom to own one.[/QUOTE]
But the argument I have seen being made is that unless you have a gun, you aren't free because you won't have the ability to contest the government when it (inexplicably) comes knocking at your door.
It implies that unless you have a physical gun in your possession then you aren't really the arbiter of your destiny because you're still as vulnerable in a gun-permissive society than one in which the laws are strict if such an argument is made.
Let's imagine for the sake of argument that America has the most loosest and open interpretation of the second amendment possible. Now let's imagine that (again for the sake of argument) that nobody in the USA owns a gun at all, despite having the freedom to. They make the choice not to.
Are they free, or are they actually extremely vulnerable to tyranny as nobody wishes to have a gun?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539569]But the argument I have seen being made is that unless you have a gun, you aren't free because you won't have the ability to contest the government when it (inexplicably) comes knocking at your door.
It implies that unless you have a physical gun in your possession then you aren't really the arbiter of your destiny because you're still as vulnerable in a gun-permissive society than one in which the laws are strict if such an argument is made.[/QUOTE]
Okay well that's a stupid argument that I haven't personally seen mentioned here.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50539563]You're not seeing things from others' perspective. Some people wish to live in a gun-free society. Your desire to possess firearms is preventing them from making that choice.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I totally agree but I couldn't really prove I'm right either.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539580]Okay well that's a stupid argument that I haven't personally seen mentioned here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;50521432]If your government shows up at your door to take you away to a death camp, if you do not have a gun, you have no choice. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539599]:snip:[/QUOTE]
I think you're very clearly misrepresenting what that post means.. MaverickIB seems to be saying pretty much what I said, freedom is about choice. If you choose not to own a gun you don't magically lose 10 freedom points dude.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539616]I think you're very clearly misrepresenting what that post means.. MaverickIB seems to be saying pretty much what I said, freedom is about choice. If you choose not to own a gun you don't magically lose 10 freedom points dude.[/QUOTE]
[quote]then let's imagine for the sake of argument that America has the most loosest and open interpretation of the second amendment possible. Now let's imagine that (again for the sake of argument) that nobody in the USA owns a gun at all, despite having the freedom to. They make the choice not to.
Are they free, or are they actually extremely vulnerable to tyranny as nobody wishes to have a gun?[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539644][/QUOTE]
Yes they're free.. I've made my point fairly obvious, I don't understand why you need repeated affirmation through detailed examples.
[QUOTE=srobins;50539651]Yes they're free.. I've made my point fairly obvious, I don't understand why you need repeated affirmation through detailed examples.[/QUOTE]
But would they not be extremely vulnerable to tyranny (and thus will have no ability to resist) when the government comes to kill them for some unspecified reason?
They don't have guns and they choose not to have any, so how safe are they from tyranny? Are they really free or are they not free in such circumstances?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539665]But would they not be extremely vulnerable to tyranny (and thus will have no ability to resist) when the government comes to kill them for some unspecified reason?
They don't have guns and they choose not to have any, so how safe are they from tyranny? Are they really free or are they not free in such circumstances?[/QUOTE]
Why do you condescend and joke about the government killing people for an "unspecified reason" when I've already acknowledged that fear is stupid? Can you please just be straightforward and make your point? The hypotheticals are seriously draining me.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
Yes, they would be free. For like, the third time, yes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539665]But would they not be extremely vulnerable to tyranny (and thus will have no ability to resist) when the government comes to kill them for some unspecified reason?
They don't have guns and they choose not to have any, so how safe are they from tyranny? Are they really free or are they not free in such circumstances?[/QUOTE]
come on, you're just being obtuse
even if firearms were completely useless and every argument Maverick made is complete bullshit, having the choice to own one is still a freedom
like that doesn't make it inherently good or bad but it's clearly a freedom
[QUOTE=srobins;50539688]Yes, they would be free. For like, the third time, yes.[/QUOTE]
So essentially it defeats the entire point of the second amendment?
People in other countries /chose/ to not have guns through democratic institutions, and yet somehow they aren't free?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539742]So essentially it defeats the entire point of the second amendment?
People in other countries /chose/ to not have guns through democratic institutions, and yet somehow they aren't free?[/QUOTE]
Yes! You can choose to be less free. That is a thing. Sometimes it's even better to choose to be less free.
The dumb part is when people pretend that they aren't less free when they've clearly restricted their freedom.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50539834]Yes! You can choose to be less free. That is a thing. Sometimes it's even better to choose to be less free.
The dumb part is when people pretend that they aren't less free when they've clearly restricted their freedom.[/QUOTE]
positive versus negative freedom is a thing, you know
[QUOTE=sgman91;50539834]Yes! You can choose to be less free. That is a thing. Sometimes it's even better to choose to be less free.
The dumb part is when people pretend that they aren't less free when they've clearly restricted their freedom.[/QUOTE]
What does it mean to be free? As I pointed out earlier, increasing freedom to own guns will curtail the freedom to live in a gun-free society. Similarly, increasing freedom of speech will decrease the freedom of some to live in a society free of harassment and defamation.
My point is that there are usually two sides to a coin when it comes to issues like this, you can't always objectively say that "doing X will result in more freedom for all".
This isn't a good/bad dichotomy. Everyone agrees that freedom needs limits. No one wants everyone to be able to buy anthrax over the counter.
Everyone believes there's a point where freedoms need to be limited for public safety. The US just draws that line in a different place.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50539854]What does it mean to be free? As I pointed out earlier, increasing freedom to own guns will curtail the freedom to live in a gun-free society. Similarly, increasing freedom of speech will decrease the freedom of some to live in a society free of harassment and defamation.
My point is that there are usually two sides to a coin when it comes to issues like this, you can't always objectively say that "doing X will result in more freedom for all".[/QUOTE]
Freedom is generally the amount of autonomy a person has in their choices. Another way to put it would be the least amount of coercion for making choices.
Like I said earlier, your definition of freedom, one where being free from things matters just as much, leads to absurdities like living your entire life in solitary confinement being the most free way to live because you are free from most all of life's ills. It can be used to justify essentially anything as being in the name of 'freedom.'
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50539742]So essentially it defeats the entire point of the second amendment?
People in other countries /chose/ to not have guns through democratic institutions, and yet somehow they aren't free?[/QUOTE]
They're free, just not free to own guns lol. This isn't nearly as complicated as you're making it out to be.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
The "freedom to live in a gun-free society" thing seems sort of fallacious actually. Like sgman91 pointed out, that logic could be used to argue that obviously not free lifestyles are actually free. Like, we all agree that freedom of speech is important in a free society, but does that mean that freedom of speech is infringing on my freedom to live in a country without freedom of speech? I wasn't able to previously articulate why I disagreed but I feel like this is a reasonable example.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50539563]You're not seeing things from others' perspective. Some people wish to live in a gun-free society. Your desire to possess firearms is preventing them from making that choice.[/QUOTE]I want to live in a society free from people being terrified of inanimate objects. I want to live in a society free of idiots and fuckups. (not that you yourself qualify for any of this, but I'd wager you're an outlier)
We could really do this all day.
At the end of that day wanting a "gun-free society" means stepping on the rights of somebody else. (2nd Amendment, property rights, etc) One is advocating for the freedom to have, one is advocating for the freedom of everyone else being subject to a prohibition. It's ridiculous, it's like arguing that you want your rape rights restored.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
Freedom isn't being able to do and have whatever you want, (this is sadly not how the world works) it's simply not being forced into doing something you don't want to do. Our rights mirror this and the laws recognize these basic rights that we're endowed with by default, in fact my gun ownership makes it difficult for anyone to apply force against me and thus safeguards my liberty.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
Oh, and there isn't a freedom to take my freedom away. That's not how it works and that's what wanting to live in a "gun-free society" seeks to do; my guns do nothing to other people. They're mine. In [I]my[/I] life.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50541891]I want to live in a society free from people being terrified of inanimate objects. I want to live in a society free of idiots and fuckups. (not that you yourself qualify for any of this, but I'd wager you're an outlier)
We could really do this all day.
At the end of that day wanting a "gun-free society" means stepping on the rights of somebody else. (2nd Amendment, property rights, etc) One is advocating for the freedom to have, one is advocating for the freedom of everyone else being subject to a prohibition. It's ridiculous, it's like arguing that you want your rape rights restored.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
Freedom isn't being able to do and have whatever you want, (this is sadly not how the world works) it's simply not being forced into doing something you don't want to do. Our rights mirror this and the laws recognize these basic rights that we're endowed with by default, in fact my gun ownership makes it difficult for anyone to apply force against me and thus safeguards my liberty.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
Oh, and there isn't a freedom to take my freedom away. That's not how it works and that's what wanting to live in a "gun-free society" seeks to do; my guns do nothing to other people. They're mine. In [I]my[/I] life.[/QUOTE]
Rape inherently takes away the rights of other people. So it's really not comparable at all. Owning a gun doesn't infringe anyone else's right.
I also don't think you've understood the argument. All of the other examples you gave in your first paragraph are other examples of useless freedoms of the sort that would allow absolutely anything in the name of freedom.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50542027]Rape inherently takes away the rights of other people. So it's really not comparable at all. Owning a gun doesn't infringe anyone else's right.
I also don't think you've understood the argument. All of the other examples you gave in your first paragraph are other examples of useless freedoms of the sort that would allow absolutely anything in the name of freedom.[/QUOTE]
Advice: Dont use the term "useless freedoms", as it sets a precedent that can be abused to further the definition of what freedoms clasify as "useless" and be removed.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;50542053]Advice: Dont use the term "useless freedoms", as it sets a precedent that can be abused to further the definition of what freedoms clasify as "useless" and be removed.[/QUOTE]
It's a useless use of the word freedom. It makes the word mean essentially nothing because it can, with the same logic, be used to justify anything at all.
Whenever I talk about real freedoms, I'm talking about increasing personal autonomy or decreasing coercive forces as it relates to choice of action.
Other people seem to use the word as a meaningless term that works to falsely give importance to their point, but in such a way that it could be used for almost literally anything.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50542027]Rape inherently takes away the rights of other people. So it's really not comparable at all. Owning a gun doesn't infringe anyone else's right.
I also don't think you've understood the argument. All of the other examples you gave in your first paragraph are other examples of useless freedoms of the sort that would allow absolutely anything in the name of freedom.[/QUOTE]You're right, owning a gun doesn't infringe on the rights of others but I'm not sure why you bring that up since it reinforces what I've been saying.
I think you're misunderstanding something. The act of rape is a violation of consent, it's a forceful act of removing the ownership of somebody's sexual agency which I think we can all agree is a basic right. Infringing on this right is a crime that's sometimes punishable by death in certain societies because it's truly that unsettling. An act so disgusting the punishment is the termination of the perpetrator's life, and wouldn't you agree that this could be comparable to defense against tyranny? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment is merely a law that can be rewritten or repealed then you're forced to recognize it among it's peers: laws securing us from rape, murder, and other very personal assaults on our bodies and lives. Isn't revolution the act of punishing the rape of liberty itself?
I don't see how it's not comparable.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50542060]It's a useless use of the word freedom. It makes the word mean essentially nothing because it can, with the same logic, be used to justify anything at all.[/QUOTE]That was what I was getting at when I made those examples, nobody is owned a perfect life and we do not have freedom to step on the freedom of others.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50542273]You're right, owning a gun doesn't infringe on the rights of others but I'm not sure why you bring that up since it reinforces what I've been saying.
I think you're misunderstanding something. The act of rape is a violation of consent, it's a forceful act of removing the ownership of somebody's sexual agency which I think we can all agree is a basic right. Infringing on this right is a crime that's sometimes punishable by death in certain societies because it's truly that unsettling. An act so disgusting the punishment is the termination of the perpetrator's life, and wouldn't you agree that this could be comparable to defense against tyranny? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment is merely a law that can be rewritten or repealed then you're forced to recognize it among it's peers: laws securing us from rape, murder, and other very personal assaults on our bodies and lives. Isn't revolution the act of punishing the rape of liberty itself?
I don't see how it's not comparable.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
That was what I was getting at when I made those examples, nobody is owned a perfect life and we do not have freedom to step on the freedom of others.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I'm not even sure what your argument is.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50539497]Desire to live in a gun-free society is also a freedom.[/QUOTE]
Such a desire interferes with other's rights to own firearms. Its like saying, "Your speech offends me, thus infringing my freedom to not be offended."
Your rights end where my rights begin. Simply enough, this is what the United States of America is about. Individual's rights, and their right to choose, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another individual.
Im a little lost in this argument but i'll agree with you guys.
Like, "Freedom from other people having guns" is a straight up objectively wrong use of the term freedom. Thats just outright dumb to say. You cant give someone more freedom by restricting what they're able to do, not even in a philosophical sense, thats just incorrect.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.