Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one) - Page 6 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #51 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 02:51 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
dacia - 10/23/2004 1:09 AM
Good questions. Maybe I should start by defining "freedom" according to my understanding of course. [:D] I would say there are two basic types.

Absolute freedom and conditional or relative freedom. Absolute freedom is total independence from enviromental constraints. This is probably unattainable for humans.

Conditional freedom means that we are free to do whatever we want within certain limits. ...[/QUOTE]

There was just too much in your previous for me to fairly address, so I picked what I believe are the biggies. I hope we can go back and follow-up some of your other thoughts, too. Perhaps later.

I am struck by the idea of absolute freedom, using your definition, and its unattainability. This notion of freedom is what we might call, God. The freedom to act or be or do or not, without any constraint whatsoever in time or space or energy. Even a form would be a constraint on freedom. Perfect freedom.

A strange concept, difficult to get my mind around. What intrigues me is that it fits with the Genesis metaphor of Creation (what I consider a metaphor), in which Man was made in God's image. Constrained freedom being the image of perfect freedom. Does this formulation of perfect freedom fit other religious traditions?

We then seem to agree in some fashion that freedom has a human and a non-human component, though we are both kind of vague about that. My reason for being vague is that I am uncertain, entering new territory and not sure I am properly outfitted. So I'll just take a leap and assume that freedom only comes with the capacity for choosing between two or more outcomes and the ability to effect that choice. For example, I may choose to pole vault, but lacking ability, I may not have the ability to effect that choice.

That analogy doesn't seem quite adequate to me. I think its going the right direction though. What it misses is that failure itself is a ever-present part of freedom. For freedom carries risk, too. If risk were removed from the choice, then one's freedom would be diminished by somebody preventing one from assuming the full measure of one's freedom.

Bot
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #52 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 03:46 PM
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
GermanStar - 10/23/2004 4:45 PM

Quote:
webwench - 10/23/2004 12:17 PM

On the other hand, I do think there are certain actions that can be considered to be absolutely immoral, and that murder, particularly mass murder of citizens by their own state, falls into that category. By that measure I think we have some duty as humans to step in to stop massacres and genocide when we see them, and on that score alone I think we were justified in going into Iraq (although I know this wasn't the real justification we used, I feel it is a justifiable reason).
Perhaps -- I won't dispute the point, but the use of 9/11 as a springboard for our action in Iraq was loathesome. Had the current administration made a plea to intervene in Iraq based on your criteria, I'd have a lot more respect for them than I do. I think we both know that effort would have probably failed, and the only interest even remotely along those lines that might wash is protection of Kurdish oil fields.
I'll agree 9/11 was not a valid rationale to use to justify going into Iraq.

I always find myself making a distinction between how things should be (we should have made known a better reason for interfering with Iraq and Hussein, and that better reason should have been the actual reason, and not just a bunch of hand-waving to make ourselves feel better), and how things are (we went into Iraq because it seemed politically and economically expedient at the time, because we dislike them, and because we knew we could win).

How things are is just a big symptom of the nature of nationhood -- nations exist to safeguard whatever power and resources they contain, and to continue their own economic interests. I'm not sure who has the power to change that aspect of human nature.

All that said, I do think the world is better without Saddam in power than with him in power.
webperm is offline  
post #53 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 05:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
GermanStar - 10/23/2004 4:45 PM

Quote:
webwench - 10/23/2004 12:17 PM

On the other hand, I do think there are certain actions that can be considered to be absolutely immoral, and that murder, particularly mass murder of citizens by their own state, falls into that category. By that measure I think we have some duty as humans to step in to stop massacres and genocide when we see them, and on that score alone I think we were justified in going into Iraq (although I know this wasn't the real justification we used, I feel it is a justifiable reason).
Perhaps -- I won't dispute the point, but the use of 9/11 as a springboard for our action in Iraq was loathesome. Had the current administration made a plea to intervene in Iraq based on your criteria, I'd have a lot more respect for them than I do. I think we both know that effort would have probably failed, and the only interest even remotely along those lines that might wash is protection of Kurdish oil fields.
And here's a kicker - Zaqari, our current official boogeyman, was actually based in Kurdistan, a No_Fly-Zone area under our control. His orginal battle was with the democratic Kurdish forces. Bush could have made an excellent case for an invasion of Kurdistan, and the Kurds would have actually welcomed us with the flowers we expected in Bagdad. He could have crushed an actual terrorist organization, established a base smack dab in the Middle East where we would have been welcome, and used it as a staging area for an invasion of our real enemy who we now know was complicent in 9-11, something Bush knew at the time he invaded Iraq. Instead, he wanted something else, something that had nothing to do with 9-11, a continous land mass stretching from the Mediterrean to the Persian Gulf that sat on top of a sea of oil. A shameless land and oil grab, thats all it ever was, using your kids life as payment for the real estate.



FeelTheLove is offline  
post #54 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 05:08 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
webwench -.....All that said, I do think the world is better without Saddam in power than with him in power.
Do you think these people would agree? :

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #55 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 05:44 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

There's another bifurcation in this thread. I am withdrawing from both. Jugurba & Dacia, if you want to continue the original thread elsewhere I'd be delighted.

I'm tired of the same ol' carousel and its coming to this thread.

Any second I expect to see folks calling each other Nazis and talking accusing each other's candidates of lies, cowardice, desertion, stupidity, arrogance, etc.
Botnst is offline  
post #56 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 07:23 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
webwench - 10/23/2004 2:46 PM

I always find myself making a distinction between how things should be (we should have made known a better reason for interfering with Iraq and Hussein, and that better reason should have been the actual reason, and not just a bunch of hand-waving to make ourselves feel better), and how things are (we went into Iraq because it seemed politically and economically expedient at the time, because we dislike them, and because we knew we could win).

How things are is just a big symptom of the nature of nationhood -- nations exist to safeguard whatever power and resources they contain, and to continue their own economic interests. I'm not sure who has the power to change that aspect of human nature.
Either I'm naive or you're a bit of a pessimist, perhaps a bit of both -- I'm not sure. I've always tried to do the right thing in my life just because it's the right thing, and that's how I want my country to behave. Since we're essentially an unchallenged world power, I see no excuse not to behave that way. One of my favorites quotes from Reagan: "There are no easy answers ... but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right". But, as I said, I'm probably just naive...

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #57 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 07:40 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2003
Vehicle: 300d, 409d
Location: Denver, CO USA
Posts: 440
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
GermanStar - 10/23/2004 9:23 PM
Either I'm naive or you're a bit of a pessimist, perhaps a bit of both -- I'm not sure. I've always tried to do the right thing in my life just because it's the right thing, and that's how I want my country to behave. Since we're essentially an unchallenged world power, I see no excuse not to behave that way. One of my favorites quotes from Reagan: "There are no easy answers ... but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right". But, as I said, I'm probably just naive...[/QUOTE]

Like corporations, States have no consciences. I believe they generally function on the Will to Power. However, unlike corporations, monarchies, and fascist states, democracies do turn to their citizens periodically for approval. Those moments are when citizens can have a voice in what the power elites do. It's the closest thing to a conscience a State will ever have.
kerry edwards is offline  
post #58 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-23-2004, 08:29 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

I certainly think this election is going to show whether this nation has a conscience. The message we are sending the world if we re-elect Bush will have tremendous consequences.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #59 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-24-2004, 12:41 PM
Administratoris Emeritus
 
GeeS's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2021 SL770
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Posts: 44,915
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 591 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
dacia - 10/22/2004 10:09 PM

Good questions. Maybe I should start by defining "freedom" according to my understanding of course.
You raise some interesting points and I essentially concur with your conclusion, but the perspective seems a bit unproductive. I only say that because "free society" is another one of those oxymorons, isn't it? Remove the constraints from society and society eventually reasserts those constraints or extinguishes itself.

Perhaps the other side of the coin provides a better perspective, that being the perspective of constraint. For much of my lifetime the defining characteristic of a so-called free society has been the freedom of its members to leave that society. Cuba are China are glaring counter-examples. If you're free to leave and you choose to stay, you choose to relinquish your freedom according the rules of that society. Isn't the rest just incidental? If Iraq is ruled by a brutal fascist dictator, but Iraqi citizens are free to leave, doesn't this fit the mold of a "free society" or is there another set of criteria that has to be met? Once you get past the basics, it all gets increasingly subjective, doesn't it?

"If spending money you don't have is the height of stupidity, borrowing money to give it away is the height of insanity." -- anon
GeeS is offline  
post #60 of 60 (permalink) Old 10-24-2004, 01:41 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
RE: Bot's new thread (so as not to hijack the other one)

Quote:
kerry edwards - 10/18/2004 3:04 PM

Please forgive me, but I think I have some agreement with B here. There are some justifiable wars that are not in self-defense. For instance, I think if the US went to war against Rwanda when the ruling elite (Hutus?) were committing genocide, I think it would have been justifiable.
The fact that the US and UN did not get involved is evidence that self-interest is the driving factor in US foreign policy and not some noble ideal of providing freedom to oppressed peoples.
Since you are a philosopher and I am a programmer, it is interesting we would have two different viewpoints on it based on profession - myself, I don't see it in terms of justification or noble ideals, for me it is simply a question of process. No matter what the rightness or wrongness of the circumstances, it is the act of achieving world consensus that will ultimately lead to success in a given international endeavor, with the least possible amount of loss of national stature, along with the best prospects for rebuilding something from the ashes. The 20th Century is repleat with examples. IMHO, if Bush had been able to get UN consensus, a lot of this could have been avoided. I doubt if things would have been much different if we had nobly and unilaterally intervened in Rwanda.


FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome