The philosophy of freedom

Doc Dutch said:
That's a crime, not "free speech", Sybil.

https://www.defendyourbrowardcase.com/blog/2022/august/is-threatening-someone-a-criminal-offense-/
WHEN THREATS BECOME A CRIME
Technically, you could be charged with a crime for verbally threatening someone. Making threats is a form of assault. You could face criminal charges for assault if it can be proven that you made a threat of violence and had the ability or intent to see it through.

You may also face charges for written threats. Written threats could result in even more serious charges or penalties for cyberstalking, harassment, abuse, or even terrorism depending on the nature of the threat.

DEFENSES FOR ASSAULT CHARGES AFTER A THREAT
There are many defense strategies available if you are charged for making a threat:

  • Not Going to Follow Through: Your defense could be that although you made a threat, you had no actual intent of following through.
  • No Means To Follow Through: You may also prove that you did not have any way to act on the threat you made, and therefore had no intention to actually cause harm.
  • Self-Defense: Many people face charges after acting in self-defense. You can prove that you did not start the incident that led to a threat being made.
  • Wrong Perception: Perhaps the alleged victim misunderstood what you said and no genuine threat was actually made.
  • Unreasonable Fear: Another common defense is that the victim’s fear of harm is not reasonable or justified based on the alleged threat.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't, Sock. Pay attention.
 
Into the Night said:
I never said it wasn't, Sock. Pay attention.
Click to expand...
YALSA....and you're a well known liar, Sybil.
Into the Night said:
YALSA
Click to expand...
gfm7175 said:
YALSA.
Click to expand...
4ddlj6.jpg
 
Into the Night said:
RAAA.

The liberal philosophy is tyranny. Tyranny is not freedom. Democrats fear and try to outlaw freedom of speech, freedom of religion, cause shortages and economic depressions (producing want), and live in fear of CO2, ozone holes, guns, freedom of expression, anyone speaking out against them, even of someone flying the American flag.
Click to expand...

Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
 
Cypress said:
About 1000 B.C., the Indian Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita set forth a dual idea of freedom defined in two senses.Both meanings are contained in the word swaraj. Philosophers conceived of swaraj in a strict political sense of rule over one’s own land. Swaraj was also understood in a spiritual or psychological sense of rule over one’s soul or self. This second meaning should be taken to understand that through self-knowledge, one acquires freedom from ignorance, illusion, and fear. Therefore, one was unfree if obsessed with money or possessions. The Bhagavad Gita says that the truly free person acts without craving. The highest level of consciousness is learning that our being is at one with all beings, and spiritual liberation comes from unity with all beings. Understanding of unity brings liberation from alienation, divisiveness, and fear. The freest person sees all beings in himself, and himself in all beings.

In ancient Greece, the liberal/external idea of freedom is the key to what Pericles and most Greeks thought of freedom. In the writings of Greek historian Thucydides about the Peloponnesian war, the funeral oration of Pericles expounds the Athenian democracy of the 5th century B.C. In contrast to oppressive states of Sparta, Athenians were free and tolerant in their public and private lives. Pericles called the city “the apostle of freedom and an education to all of Greece.” Athens was the first democratic system at all and could claim a direct democracy whose citizens had a high level of involvement in public affairs.

The third view of freedom was the Christian view. This form of freedom depended on knowledge of a moral or spiritual truth, which was a religious truth. This truth led to freedom from sin, ignorance, and fear.

The problem John Stuart Mill sought to remedy was the attempt by society to force individuals to conform to a code of conduct that might be irrational. His solution was to preserve and enlarge the realm of individual freedom. Mill’s goal is to determine the limit beyond which the interference of collective opinion with individual independence cannot be legitimate. In his view, an individual’s freedom can be restricted only for the sake of preventing injury to another. Among the freedoms that Mill wanted to ensure were freedom of thought, opinion, conscience, and eccentric preferences.



^^ source credit: Dennis Dalton, political philosopher, Colombia University
Click to expand...

This explains you and yours. You can't progress without me wanting to.

I OTOH do not need you at all.
 
200w.webp
200w.webp
200w.webp

Cypress said:
Bulverism
Non sequitur fallacy
Hasty generalization fallacy
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
Click to expand...
Too funny! Cypress is so insecure about his ignorance being revealed that he resorts to trolling his own thread!

The hilarious part is that all of his trolling is so unnecessary. Everybody already knows that Cypress knows nothing. He is the only one he is fooling.

OK, who is going to tell him?

58feb77a98645e78338f5e3a017cb0d3.jpg
 
IBDaMann said:
200w.webp
200w.webp
200w.webp


Too funny! Cypress is so insecure about his ignorance being revealed that he resorts to trolling his own thread!

The hilarious part is that all of his trolling is so unnecessary. Everybody already knows that Cypress knows nothing. He is the only one he is fooling.

OK, who is going to tell him?

58feb77a98645e78338f5e3a017cb0d3.jpg
Click to expand...

One of his other socks? :D
 
IBDaMann said:
200w.webp
200w.webp
200w.webp


Too funny! Cypress is so insecure about his ignorance being revealed that he resorts to trolling his own thread!

The hilarious part is that all of his trolling is so unnecessary. Everybody already knows that Cypress knows nothing. He is the only one he is fooling.

OK, who is going to tell him?

58feb77a98645e78338f5e3a017cb0d3.jpg
Click to expand...

Cypress is a world class name dropper! Some how that doesn't impress anyone.
 
8ff26a0a36773ea9fa84a4b49575a4a8.jpg

Margot said:
Cypress is a world class name dropper! Some how that doesn't impress anyone.
Click to expand...
There's one name he never drops, i.e. his own. He can't post "What I say/think on the matter is ... " because he would 1. need to understand the material and 2. he would need to be able to think independently instead of having his position handed to him. I goaded him into hazarding a guess about the reason for one of his statements, i.e. why quantum mechanics is not classically deterministic, knowing that the answer is not prominently presented on the internet. He tried guessing something that someone wrote on the subject that, in no way, even addressed the question, all the while feigning mockery that the question was somehow beneath him and that answer was totally obvious. If he tries to guess, he gets it horribly wrong because he doesn't understand the prerequisites needed to understand the prerequisites needed to understand the material.

Another name he never drops is mine. Throughout JPP and other sites where I post, I provide all the correct answers to the topics and questions Cypress just happens to be getting around to discussing. Cypress never writes "IBDaMann already clarified this as ..." or "IBDaMann has already explained this in this way ..." He'd be getting everything correct if he would. Instead, he's content to getting everything wrong as long as everyone simply follows Terry's example and simply "Agrees."

@Cypress, just for laughs (mine in particular), what does "classically deterministic" mean? Here's an opportunity for you to perhaps save a little face.

801322c6e5f2997b2960bab87c5041e6.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top