Religious Typology Quiz

[Commander Dutch]

Self defense is a natural right, but if there was a constitutional right to conceal and carry, one could walk into a courthouse, or onto a commerical plane packing a 9mm inside their jacket.

Yes, anyone convicted of a felony should permanently lose the right to purchase firearms, and I personally like the French law that anyone who wants to purchase a gun has to pass a mental health examination, and then be periodically reevaluated in the future

Notice that the courts and TSA provide security. Where is my government-provided security on the streets? In Walmart? If you want to provide me a professional, armed-guard, I agree there’s no need for me to be armed.

Broadbrush laws like permanently depriving felons of their rights seems wrong to me. A violent felon? Sure, but if that’s the case, why let them out? In fact, why not execute all violent felons?

Agreed on mental health but it should apply to everyone before they can be allowed to vote, drive, access the Internet, run for office, etc.

 

[Cypress]

I disagree. Freedom has plenty of physical analogues.



Let's take a "proton" as an example. Most protons don't exist nakedly out in the world. They are usually combined with something else: whether it's in a nucleus or as an H3O+ ion in acidic solutions. But in the large hadron collider they may strip protons from nuclei and accelerate them to immense speeds.

The protons can have a state of FREEDOM (ie not part of an assemblage of some sort) or NOT.

That FREEDOM is exactly the same as any other conception of freedom. Even HUMAN FREEDOM. Or "SPiritual Freedom" (still not sure what that is), but all of these things come down to one basic concept: "lack of constraint".

Artistic freedom? Same thing. Lack of requirements or rules to the art. Freedom of speech? Same thing. Lack of constraint on what can be said.

These concepts are intimately familiar even to wild animals who know the difference between their 'freedom' and a lack thereof. Hopefully raccoons and opossums didn't require the work of raccoon and opossum philosophers to explain it to them. (That was a joke, not intended to be an insult or mockery, just a bit of levity).

Just being able to do what you want, when you want, like a solitary foraging racoon, is not the type of freedom being discussed.

I am not going to indulge the attempt to conflate chemical properties with freedom.

That is prescisely why I had to compose the innate human ideas of freedom to a list. Because I literally have never heard someone compare the foraging of racoons or the chemical properties of molecules to innate human ideas of freedom

Jesus thought freedom meant freedom from ignorance and sin.

John Locke thought freedom essentially meant the protection of private property.

Martin Luther King thought freedom meant full, universal, and unobstructed access to institutions of power.

The Buddha thought freedom meant liberation from Samsara.

Marx thought freedom meant the ability to have control over one's creative capacity to create economic products.

Hegel conflated freedom with service to the nation.


I would love to know what are the test tubes and microscopes that would be amenable to studying that and giving us mathmatical laws of casuality to explain it.

 

[Commander Dutch]

No, but just listing them and saying "they think differently" is not a valid riposte.

Instead of just listing philosophers I have actually attempted to support my position.

Dude, you’re forgetting that this conversation has been going on for days.

If you want to view it only post by post, that’s your choice, but I’m a strong believer in seeing things in context meaning all the ripostes en masse.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Just being able to do what you want, when you want, like a solitary foraging racoon, is not freedom.

I disagree to the extreme. I think they are exactly the same.

I am not going to indulge the attempt to conflate chemical properties with freedom.

So long as you make unavailable to me any physical analogues then I guess I can't offer any physical analogues.

That is why I had to list the innate human ideas of freedom to a list. Because I literally have never heard someone compare the foraging of racoons or the chemical properties of molecules to innate human ideas of freedom

I can't understand this concept of "freedom" you are talking about if it isn't analogous to the physical examples I gave. Maybe the word doesn't mean the same in your examples.

Can you explain to me what it means to be "free from ignorance or sin"? Maybe you could explain to me what it means to have "unobstructed access to institutions of power" (that sounds a LOT like "lack of constraint" but again, maybe "unobstructed" has a different definition in this case?

What does the word "Freedom" even mean per your position?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Dude, you’re forgetting that this conversation has been going on for days.

If you want to view it only post by post, that’s your choice, but I’m a strong believer in seeing things in context meaning all the ripostes en masse.

Perhaps you can explain to me what the word "Freedom" means such that it cannot be understood with physical analogues. That seems to be the primary contention at this point of the discussion.

Every example of a physical "freedom" I provide is shot down as if it is fundamentally different. So I need to recalibrate using the same definition you two are using. That might help.

What is "freedom" per your position?

 

[Cypress]

I disagree to the extreme. I think they are exactly the same.



So long as you make unavailable to me any physical analogues then I guess I can't offer any physical analogues.



I can't understand this concept of "freedom" you are talking about if it isn't analogous to the physical examples I gave. Maybe the word doesn't mean the same in your examples.

Can you explain to me what it means to be "free from ignorance or sin"? Maybe you could explain to me what it means to have "unobstructed access to institutions of power" (that sounds a LOT like "lack of constraint" but again, maybe "unobstructed" has a different definition in this case?

What does the word "Freedom" even mean per your position?

I personally would like John Stuart Mills and Jesus' innate ideas about freedom


Please name a reputable scientist who is studying freedom in a test tube, a petri dish, a laboratory, a mass spectrometer, particle accelerator, ey al

 

[Commander Dutch]

Perhaps you can explain to me what the word "Freedom" means such that it cannot be understood with physical analogues. That seems to be the primary contention at this point of the discussion.

Every example of a physical "freedom" I provide is shot down as if it is fundamentally different. So I need to recalibrate using the same definition you two are using. That might help.

What is "freedom" per your position?

Perhaps you should scroll back a few dozen posts to understand that, while concepts like morality can be studied, there’s no such thing as a universal standard to morality. There’s not a single scientific standard for freedom or slavery because it’s a human social concept.

You and I can study the concepts in various cultures, but there is zero evidence of a universal standard. As mentioned to you a few times, killing people is a matter of morality, not science….except on how to do it most efficiently. Zyklon B is science, the morality of using it on people is not.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I personally would like John Stuart Mills and Jesus' innate ideas about freedom

Could you define these for me?

Please name a reputable scientist who is studying freedom in a test tube, a petri dish, a laboratory, a mass spectrometer, particle accelerator, ey al

Why do you think that science requires test tubes, mass specs, or particle accelerators? It seems, perhaps, to be mocking my position by using cartoon versions of my point. I am speaking about the physical world and observation/empirical assessment.

Even for one who is a materialist or a realist there are "verbs" and "adjectives".

What is this "freedom" of which you speak which has no physical analogues?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Perhaps you should scroll back a few dozen posts to understand that, while concepts like morality can be studied, there’s no such thing as a universal standard to morality. There’s not a single scientific standard for freedom or slavery because it’s a human social concept.

That is my very point. Morality is a human construct. I believe I've said several times almost that exact phrase.

And its value to us is one of evolutionary advantage, not some deeper understanding of the structure of the universe. There is no universal "right" or "wrong".

 

[Commander Dutch]

That is my very point. Morality is a human construct. I believe I've said several times almost that exact phrase.

And its value to us is one of evolutionary advantage, not some deeper understanding of the structure of the universe. There is no universal "right" or "wrong".

No shit, Jank. So why are you still whining about it?

Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of typing text walls with preconceived notions.

 

[Cypress]

Could you define these for me?



Why do you think that science requires test tubes, mass specs, or particle accelerators? It seems, perhaps, to be mocking my position by using cartoon versions of my point. I am speaking about the physical world and observation/empirical assessment.

Even for one who is a materialist or a realist there are "verbs" and "adjectives".

What is this "freedom" of which you speak which has no physical analogues?

John Stewart Mill is pretty much the most famous moral philosopher of the 19th century who was an advocate for a utilitarian theory of morality and freedom.

Before I continue answering your more of your queries please answer the one I already asked you.

Please name a reputable scientist studying freedom using the methods of the physical sciences

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

No shit, Jank. So why are you still whining about it?

Maybe you should start reading my posts instead of typing text walls with preconceived notions.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

John Stewart Mill is pretty much the most famous moral philosopher of the 19th century who was an advocate for a utilitarian theory of morality and freedom.

Before I continue answering your queries please answer the one previously asked

Please name a reputable scientist studying freedom using the methods of the physical sciences

I have attempted now to explain this a couple times and I keep failing to get my point across. Perhaps I should just leave it. If you wish to continue to hold your definitions of terms hostage I will let it go. My apologies for attempting to conduct a discussion without near constant "appeals to authority" as my basis.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Thanks for your input.

You’re most welcome.

 

[Cypress]

That is my very point. Morality is a human construct. I believe I've said several times almost that exact phrase.

And its value to us is one of evolutionary advantage, not some deeper understanding of the structure of the universe. There is no universal "right" or "wrong".

There is nothing that seems to point to the fact that laws of biology relentlessly drive us towards freedom and equality. Until the 20th century, all of human recorded history was based on heirarchy, social stratification, deep class divisions, oligarchy and totalitarianism, slavery, and patriarchy.

To the extent we have even taken modest steps to free ourselves from those conditions, freedom and equality had to be imposed and instituted at great cost and against stiff resistance.

 

[Cypress]

I have attempted now to explain this a couple times and I keep failing to get my point across. Perhaps I should just leave it. If you wish to continue to hold your definitions of terms hostage I will let it go. My apologies for attempting to conduct a discussion without near constant "appeals to authority" as my basis.

Okay, so I will accept that answer as meaning you can't think of a single scientist actually studying freedom using the methods of physical science.

I have read, but cannot indulge, your assertion that molecular chemistry and foraging animals are pretty much analogous to human freedom.

Freedom is an innate idea existing in the human mind - that is why you cannot think of any actual scientists studying it as a phenomena that's out there in the world.

And even if the fallback position becomes that sociologists study freedom, then that just becomes a blanket admission that freedom is an innate idea of the human mind, because social scientists study the ideas and consequences of the human mind.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Okay, so I will accept that answer as meaning you can't think of a single scientist actually studying freedom using the methods of physical science.

You are being quite disingenuous now. I asked the "unicorn question" and you took umbrage at the flippant characterization. I apologized profusely and agreed to use the word "widget" since I had not intended to offend. But yet you NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

Now you are here mocking my position with flippant language (test tubes and mass specs) and demanding I answer YOUR question.

Seems perhaps "fairness" is one of those concepts that we need to define here as well.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

There is nothing that seems to point to the fact that laws of biology relentlessly drive us towards freedom and equality.

Thank you for literally ignoring every single point I made in that regards. So long as you ignore my position it is easier to argue against its existence.

 

[Cypress]

You are being quite disingenuous now. I asked the "unicorn question" and you took umbrage at the flippant characterization. I apologized profusely and agreed to use the word "widget" since I had not intended to offend. But yet you NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

Now you are here mocking my position with flippant language (test tubes and mass specs) and demanding I answer YOUR question.

Seems perhaps "fairness" is one of those concepts that we need to define here as well.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Commander Dutch]

My result:

Your best fit is...
Solidly Secular
along with 17% of the public.

It’s the same fit as the majority of posters on this thread.