Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Regarding bold #1
You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.
Regarding bold #2
Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.
Regarding bold #1
You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.
Regarding bold #2
Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.
We are at an impasse that cannot be broached. Your insistence to equate freedom with action is not only completely false, it makes no sense whatsoever. This debate cannot continue because you refuse to accept this simple fact: freedom =/= action. They are 2 different words. 2 different concepts. Your OP is based entirely on the idea that freedom does not exist because actions are not take and those actions are not taken because freedom does not exist. It is circular reasoning. I am no longer going to post on this subject as long as you insist on defining terms incorrectly.
Regarding bold #1
You are not free to scratch your nose because you were not compelled and even if you feel that you are free to, your ideas of inaction is not what I would call free.
Regarding bold #2
Again you are not free. By your own admission the fear, or the fear of consequence prevents you from smashing your own finger. The point is the consequence of a negative outcome restrains us from acting.
We are at an impasse that cannot be broached. Your insistence to equate freedom with action is not only completely false, it makes no sense whatsoever. This debate cannot continue because you refuse to accept this simple fact: freedom =/= action. They are 2 different words. 2 different concepts. Your OP is based entirely on the idea that freedom does not exist because actions are not take and those actions are not taken because freedom does not exist. It is circular reasoning. I am no longer going to post on this subject as long as you insist on defining terms incorrectly.
How is this not making sense...Did you even take philosophy before? Cause from what it sounds like you have not taken philosophy before.
The whole thread is about the concept of free speech and that there is no such thing as free speech because free speech is often misconstrued as protected speech. We cannot say what we want. what you and I are doing is discussing freedom of the will and determinism.
You can yell fire in a crowded movie theater but you'll be punished. That is not free, even if in that moment you yelled fire, even still consequences will occur. I look at freedom as without restriction. Not just in a social sphere but in all areas of society.
If you are non-black let me ask you, in the midst of a group of black guys that are muscular and angry are you free to call them the "N-word?" Your most common answer is no, because of the potential consequence. The potentiality of consequence alone is what restricts you from expression and if that is true then you do not have free speech. Point blank...Get it now?
Awaits for FA_Q2 response
How many times does this have to be said, FALSELY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
Free speech is the power you have to speak out against oppressive government and/or religion. It is not lying about people, threatening people, or trying to get people to commit criminal acts and/or violence. Until you grasp the concept that speech is not the same thing as free speech you cannot intelligently debate the existence, or non existence, of the concept ...
If we accept a deterministic universe that would invalidate free will, but you cannot reach that conclusion by arguing that fear makes the universe deterministic. In fact, by arguing that we are afraid, and that is the reason we make the choices we do, you are actually arguing in favor of free will.
Freedom and rights come with a responsibility. Liberty comes with responsibility.
This could be interpreted as making these things NOT free because they have a price.
On the other hand we are truly free to do whatever we want if we care not about the responsibility of the action. We can murder-we have that freedom, but most choose not to on moral grounds.
We are free to speed and most of us do exceed the legal limit for speed on the hiways of our states and sometimes some of us choose not to speed on moral grounds while other get tickets that they pay.
The only true "free FREEDOM" is the freedom of choice. We can truly freely choose what we will or will not do on any grounds we CHOOSE to use.
How many times does this have to be said, FALSELY YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE.
Free speech is the power you have to speak out against oppressive government and/or religion. It is not lying about people, threatening people, or trying to get people to commit criminal acts and/or violence. Until you grasp the concept that speech is not the same thing as free speech you cannot intelligently debate the existence, or non existence, of the concept ...
If we accept a deterministic universe that would invalidate free will, but you cannot reach that conclusion by arguing that fear makes the universe deterministic. In fact, by arguing that we are afraid, and that is the reason we make the choices we do, you are actually arguing in favor of free will.
Being sued for libel nullifies your argument, being imprisoned for activities of speech where not allowed nullifies your position. Free will doesn't exist, free speech doesn't exist. Will and speech only come in some circumstance, the choices are limited. No one arrives at a situation open to all possibilities, you come loaded with lots of stuff as your reply demonstrates.
"And what brings my deliberations on this matter to a close? This blog post must end sometime—and now I find that I want to get lunch. Am I free to resist this feeling? Well, yes, in the sense that no one is going to compel me at gunpoint to eat lunch this minute—but I’m hungry, and I want to eat it. Can I resist this feeling for a moment longer? Yes, of course—and for an indeterminate number of moments thereafter. But I am in no position to know why I make the effort in this instance but not in others. And why do my efforts cease precisely when they do? Now I feel that it is time for me to leave in any case. I’m hungry, yes, but it also seems like I’ve made my point. In fact, I can’t think of anything else to say on the subject. And where is the freedom in that?" FREE WILL : Sam Harris
Is this discussion about philosophy or semantics? Rather than the distinction between "free speech" and "protected speech," a more relevant question regards "offensive speech:" Should someone be prevented from or held liable for saying something because the listener (even a third party) might be offended? You might be surprised that the answer is yes, at least in a business setting.
Is this discussion about philosophy or semantics? Rather than the distinction between "free speech" and "protected speech," a more relevant question regards "offensive speech:" Should someone be prevented from or held liable for saying something because the listener (even a third party) might be offended? You might be surprised that the answer is yes, at least in a business setting.
"A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote against the fundamental idea of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering."
You mean government interfering in heathcare you want?
You mean interfering in getting government aid?
You mean interfering in being able to use negative comments about political views where the president is involved?
The government interfers in most every aspect of your life. What they can't control they tax. When they don't have enough money they tax and borrow more. The Dems want you to believe they are helping you by taxing businesses. Businesses get their money from the profits on what they sell to the public. Taxing businesses just means that they get to make a profit on charging you more than the tax that they pay. You in effect pay 50% more tax when the business passes the tax on to the consumer. We actually pay less if we paid the extra tax ourselves....