|
Saudi gang-rape victim is jailedt (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| lücid |
don't forget the snorkel.
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Point is, freedom ain't free..;) |
Ok Dick Cheney. If I ever had a pet peeve, this little phrase would be it. But now is not the time or the place to explain how idiotic that slogan truly is.
So let the ihop jokes continue! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
is jenny a squirter? |
None of your business!:whip:
Definitely wasn't pissin on the goggles:thepirate
All this sex talk has me HUNGRY:nervous: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Ok Dick Cheney. If I ever had a pet peeve, this little phrase would be it. But now is not the time or the place to explain how idiotic that slogan truly is.
So let the ihop jokes continue! |
sO, what, you wanna take this outside hombre? Meet me in the PDD at noon!!:toothless |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Krypton |
I don't know if you're really just not familiar with what happens to people who dissent in Islamic nations or what, but I bet it wouldn't show up on the news. Even in the US, people who are outspoken against the government are targeted and closely watched, if not worse.
I don't quite know what you are on about, drawing some distinction between revolutionary change and violence, but there is hardly such a thing as peaceful fighting. Not when it is to change a system of values that is thousands of years old. Waging war against ideas is not a non-violent operation, nor is it successful (see: war on terror).
And I wasn't even referring to the US helping people revolting against the Saudi government. Are you really not aware of exactly whom the US would even side with in such a scenario? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I don't know if you're really just not familiar with what happens to people who dissent in Islamic nations or what, but I bet it wouldn't show up on the news. Even in the US, people who are outspoken against the government are targeted and closely watched, if not worse.
I don't quite know what you are on about, drawing some distinction between revolutionary change and violence, but there is hardly such a thing as peaceful fighting. Not when it is to change a system of values that is thousands of years old. Waging war against ideas is not a non-violent operation, nor is it successful (see: war on terror).
And I wasn't even referring to the US helping people revolting against the Saudi government. Are you really not aware of exactly whom the US would even side with in such a scenario? |
I really don't care. My point is, we shouldn't be shocked by stories like this. Until they collectively decide the system needs to be changed, it'll always be like that. You guys are making out as if I'm advocating a violent overthrow of the Saudi government or something. NO. Just sayin, rights don't come a silver platter. And yes, it'll be DAMN hard for Saudi women to demonstrate for their rights, if they so choose to! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
And is it not clear by the very article that this thread is founded upon that ANY demonstration by dissenting Saudi women would be met with swift violence?
Oh, but until they are all ready to be gang-raped in the streets and FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OMFG they don't deserve it because freedom isn't free blah blah blah
Yes/no? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
And is it not clear by the very article that this thread is founded upon that ANY demonstration by dissenting Saudi women would be met with swift violence?
Oh, but until they are all ready to be gang-raped in the streets and FIGHT FOR FREEDOM OMFG they don't deserve it because freedom isn't free blah blah blah
Yes/no? |
Straw man argument after straw man argument... Listen. I don't give a flying whether they deserve the harsh treatment or not. It's not my decision. I think tyou agreed with me here. But until there is some sort of revolutionary change, and it will take revolutionary change in such a situation, things like this will continue. I've stated my point (numerous times). Why don't you state YOURS???? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
because freedom isn't free
|
Ahhhhhhhhhhh stop writing that! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Ahhhhhhhhhhh stop writing that! |
Lebez, this thread is already PDDized, so just say what you got ta say..:p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
re: freedom is not free.
I could literally write an essay on this, but I will keep it short and simple.
Anybody who tells you that freedom is not free has already sold their rights up the river. Freedom does not come with a cost or sacrifice. It is indeed free by definition. It is one of the few things in life that is. What else is free, you might ask? Life and the pursuit of property. Sound familiar?
Semantics aside, freedom is liberty. The ability to do as you choose - to act of your own volition. Every person on this green Earth is born with that ability. It is a natural right, and as John Locke surmised, natural rights are endowed by our creator, by it God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the head of the Branch Davidians himself, David Koresh(link). Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of property are inalienable rights - that is, they exist always in man's state of nature. If man exists, man lives. If man exists, man will pursue his own happiness. And if man exists, man is free.
Now, you might ask, what about all of these oppressive societies where people can't do everything they want? Well, in all actuality, there is no completely free society on this planet. So wherein, you may ask, lies the rub? How can we be given freedom for free but simultaneously not be free?
The answer lies in social contract theory. The creation of society and government by definition infringes upon freedom. But note well: it infringes upon freedom because freedom already exists. Because freedom is our natural position. Government exists to take away liberty in order to protect citizens from the liberty of others. If everyone were truly free, they would pursue their own interest at all times. And at times, their interest would be to harm those around them. Thomas Hobbes, anyone?
So in order to preserve the right to life, freedom is curtailed. It is a devil's bargain - to sacrifice one inalienable right for another. But it is one that all civilizations and cultures make.
So - to the current usage of the phrase "freedom is not free." It is often used to wrap oneself in the flag, and gain support for sacrificing for some political ideal of instilling democracy all across the world. Fine. But let's be clear about the meaning. "Freedom is not free." Ok, so you're saying that it is not an inherently natural right bestowed by God (or David Koresh). We have to fight against the inherent natural position (not free) in order to gain freedom? That doesn't make sense. Our natural position is not bondage. That's like saying that we were God's prisoners in the Garden of Eden. Or David Koresh's prisoners in Waco. Ok, bad example.
Freedom cannot be denied. But it can be both given and taken away. When we fight "for freedom" we are really fighting to reinstate it. We are not fighting to create an ideal that doesn't already exist. It exists, and we are merely freeing freedom from the illegitimate social contract that has held it hostage.
So anytime someone says that freedom is not free, they have already denied their god-given right to freedom. It's an inalienable right - it always exists. But sometimes it is suppressed. And for that, we fight.
The end.
PS. I'm sure that wasn't clear, but this is the c0r and clarity is not normal here. |
|
|
|
|
