What is 'freedom'?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hey, don't worry about my extremisms and idiosyncrasies: this question is for you; it's about what you think...

Why is slavery wrong?

Why do you assume I think it's 'wrong'?

I know it's wrong. A person belongs to himself. You belong to you. To enslave you, to view you as, treat you as, property, is to ignore your self-possession. No one -- not you, me, not anyone -- believes it's their lot to be property. It's the single universal feature of all people. Even the slaver won't willingly accept enslavement.

Whether this universal feature reflects a moral reality or is just some evolutionary trait is irrelevant. What is relevant is no human being craves enslavement. Freedom (self-directing, self-relying, bein' self-responsible) is as necessary to us, as individuals, as food, water, and air.

Hah! You are from the deep south. The bible belt. Do you really think you would have thought this way if you were living in the 1850s?

[Age]

if you want to BELIEVE that you do not 'follow orders', then please feel 'FREE' to continue on doing so.

where's my water bottle...

So, you ADMIT that you DO and HAVE TO 'follow' orders, just like a 'slave' HAS TO, correct?

For this has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True.

[Age]

Freedom is not doing what you please, but instead, doing what you must.

Not bad. Any intelligent being would enjoy doing as they please. Doing what you must, in order to survive, is not very pleasant.

The wisdom that [should] arrive with maturity shifts people from the child-perspective [that it's about about themselves] to the adult-perspective [where it is about taking responsibility]. Unfortunately we live in an era where a great percentage of children never grow-up.

In the days when this was being written I did NOT OBSERVE ANY adult human being who 'took' FULL RESPONSIBILITY.

In fact, except for SOME, I did NOT OBSERVE ANY "others" who even considered the DIFFERENCE between 'accepting' RESPONSIBILITY and 'taking' RESPONSIBILITY, let alone even KNOWING what thee ACTUAL DIFFERENCE IS, EXACTLY.

[Age]

What does 'freedom' even mean?

Self-direction, self-reliance, self-responsibility.

But one can be 'self-directed', have 'self-reliance', and be 'self-responsible', but STILL NOT have 'freedom' and be Truly 'FREE'.

There's a moral aspect as well, but nobody wants to talk about that.

WHY do you CLAIM that "NOBODY" wants to talk about the 'moral aspect' to 'freedom' or to 'self-direction', 'self-reliance' and/or 'self-responsibility'.

By the way, when when is 'self-directed', 'self-reliant', and/or 'self-responsible', then who and/or what is the 'self' in this regard?

[Age]

simplicity,

Freedom is not doing what you please, but instead, doing what you must.

What must one do?

Ah...this is what your life's work is about.

Everybody must peel the layers back and get to their core...to find out who they are and what their purpose is on this planet.

Already done.

And, by the way, ONLY LOOKING as far as 'this planet', REVEALS a VERY NARROWED, SHALLOW, and SHORT-SIGHTED VIEW of 'things'. This Truly 'human being-centered' approach to 'things' is WHY, in the days when this was being written, most of 'you' were STILL trying to work out and understand Thy True Self, and what Its purpose Truly IS.

[Age]

simplicity,

Freedom is not doing what you please, but instead, doing what you must.

What must one do?

Ah...this is what your life's work is about.

Everybody must peel the layers back and get to their core...to find out who they are and what their purpose is on this planet.

Done that: livin' that life right now.

WHO are 'you', and WHAT is your purpose, on this planet?

[Age]

Not bad. Any intelligent being would enjoy doing as they please. Doing what you must, in order to survive, is not very pleasant.

The wisdom that [should] arrive with maturity shifts people from the child-perspective [that it's about about themselves] to the adult-perspective [where it is about taking responsibility]. Unfortunately we live in an era where a great percentage of children never grow-up.

Exactly. A 'certain poster' on here clearly never matured emotionally past the age of 12. It's all 'me me me' with him, and no fore(or in)sight whatsoever.

Will 'you' REVEAL who that 'certain poster' IS, EXACTLY?

And if no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

Done that: livin' that life right now.

Good for you!!

I think a great many people live true: they're not the ones gettin the press, though

"live true" to 'what', EXACTLY?

[Age]

The wisdom that [should] arrive with maturity shifts people from the child-perspective [that it's about about themselves] to the adult-perspective [where it is about taking responsibility]. Unfortunately we live in an era where a great percentage of children never grow-up.

Exactly. A 'certain poster' on here clearly never matured emotionally past the age of 12. It's all 'me me me' with him, and no fore(or in)sight whatsoever.

It appears as if there are quite a few younger people who post here.

Like the saying goes...at 21 I knew everything, then I knew less and less every year after.

It's not what you know, instead, it's what you know you cannot know.

AND, what do 'you' "know" 'you' can NOT KNOW?

[Age]

Henry would rather sit in his hovel with his gun collection, defending his toothpicks to the death...

house, one shotgun, currently out of toothpicks (and, yes, I'd rather be free than in a naturalistic enclosure)

-----

'what', EXACTLY, do you think or BELIEVE you are 'free' of "henry quirk"?

'you' HAVE TO live and abide by the EXACT SAME 'rules' as ALL "others" do. Or, are you under some DELUSION that 'you' do NOT 'have to'?

at 21 I knew everything,

this is true

It's not what you know, instead, it's what you know you cannot know.

true too

WHY did BOTH of 'you' have the DELUSION, and BELIEVE, that 'you' knew EVERY thing, when 'you' were 21?

Also, are 'you', "henry quirk", ABLE TO INFORM us of 'what', EXACTLY, 'it' is that 'you', supposedly, "know" 'you' can NOT KNOW?

If yes, then WILL YOU?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Age]

How ironic (but typical) that the one who bleats on about his 'freedom' wants to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies...

you ladies can do as you like with your bodies

you ought, however, not do as you like with the bodies of other folks

But 'you', "henry quirk", are "allowed" to BLOW AWAY the bodies of "others", whenever you BELIEVE you can, correct?

[Age]

How ironic (but typical) that the one who bleats on about his 'freedom' wants to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies...

you ladies can do as you like with your bodies

you ought, however, not do as you like with the bodies of other folks

So, if a person within a female gendered body CHOSE to do what they like with say the child of that "mother", WHY do you TELL that "mother", "not do as you like with the body of that child"?

WHO gave 'you' the "right" to DICTATE to that 'woman/mother' what they can or can NOT do to the bodies of their "own" children?

You continually go on about how people are "their own" but then you TELL, and DICTATE TO, 'woman' what they "ought" to be doing. As you have done, ONCE AGAIN, here now.

It is like "ladies" have to get PERMISSION, from 'you', BEFORE they can CHOOSE "to do as they like with their bodies, and, WAIT to RECEIVE 'orders' from 'you' about whether they 'ought' to "do as they like with the bodies of "their own" children or not.

The HYPOCRISY here is as close to DEAFENING and BLINDING as can be, well to me anyway.

[Age]

How ironic (but typical) that the one who bleats on about his 'freedom' wants to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies...

you ladies can do as you like with your bodies

you ought, however, not do as you like with the bodies of other folks

It's part of THEIR body, and ENTIRELY dependent for its survival on THEIR body. Once it becomes independent of THEIR body then it can enjoy the rights of humans to be self reliant and to defend its toothpicks to the death. Until there is even the remotest chance of you being in that situation then you really should shut the fuck up about it.

But "henry quirk" is NOT just talking "the bodies of other folks" within the womb but of "the bodies of ANY others".

"henry quirk" does not just BELIEVE 'it' can DICTATE to "ladies" what they can NOT do, but also BELIEVES 'it' can INSTRUCT "ladies" to what they OUGHT TO BE DOING.

[Age]

Until there is even the remotest chance of you being in that situation then you really should shut the fuck up about it.

hey, in this thread, you brought it up, not me

don't open the door: I won't walk thru

Yet it neutralises pretty much everything you say on any thread.

nah, if it did, you'd never open your mouth about men, christians, americans, and a whole whack of other stuff...you aren't those things, will never be those things, have no idea what it is to be those things, so you ought keep your trap shut about 'em...

'you' ALSO "henry quirk" are NONE of those 'things' and NEVER could be, let alone will be.

And, if ANY one would like to CHALLENGE 'me' on this, then PLEASE feel absolutely FREE TO.

but, you never do...so you're a double-standard hypocrite, who knows the you ain't a woman spiel ain't worth spit

as I say: don't open the door: I won't walk thru

Are 'you' ABLE to 'walk through' RESPECTFULLY and POLITELY with Truth, with SUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS, and without YELLING and SCREAMING?

Or, is this NOT POSSIBLE?

[Age]

I don't bleat on constantly about my 'freedoms'.

we talk about the things that interest us: me, it's stuff like free will, personhood, life-liberty-property; you, it's yanks, worthless old folks, and baby-killin'

I'm not a big, fat hypocrite

yeah, you're a hypocrite: that's a given

I'm far more pro 'freedom' than you will ever be.

you can't even define it: What does 'freedom' even mean?

You can't even define it, except by using a lot of meaningless jargon.

self-directing, self-relying, bein' self-responsible is about about as basic, plain, and concrete as it gets, and the morality behind it is equally concrete...

The CONTRADICTION and HYPOCRISY here could NOT get ANYMORE BLATANT, again well to me anyway.

you know this: that's why you never counter my positions (unless you think insults and diversions are counters, in which case: good job)

But are you even OPEN to 'counters' to YOUR POSITION?

You have CLEARLY STATED PREVIOUSLY that NO 'counters' HAD BEEN GIVEN, YET the EXACT OPPOSITE WAS and STILL IS ACTUALLY True.

but: let's test it...

here's a fundamental question, one illustratin', in the answer, what freedom is: why is slavery wrong?

answer, veggie: show me you still got a lil sumthin'-sumthin' under the hood