Talking racism with cusomers

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm more interested in a free country than an empathetic country.

Freedom is for all. Empathy is for only certain points of view.

On the contrary, freedom, in countries devoid of empathy *cough*USA*cough* is only for those who can afford to buy it. Empathy with the poor and the suppressed? Well, pardner, that just ain't free. Youse gotta pay for it. Youse can't pay, youse don't get no freedom.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
On the contrary, freedom, in countries devoid of empathy *cough*USA*cough* is only for those who can afford to buy it. Empathy with the poor and the suppressed? Well, pardner, that just ain't free. Youse gotta pay for it. Youse can't pay, youse don't get no freedom.

That's a crock.

Freedom is free, it can't be bought except by blood by killing those that would take it away.

Safety is not freedom. As a matter of fact, safety comes at the cost of giving up freedom.

Originally posted by Eladar
That's a crock.

Freedom is free, it can't be bought except by blood by killing those that would take it away.

Safety is not freedom. As a matter of fact, safety comes at the cost of giving up freedom.

Freedom is free, it can't be bought except by blood by killing those that would take it away.

So in a world where other people most definitely do act to take away our freedoms, and where killing such people is not - certainly for individuals - a realistic prospect, then it is clearly the case that freedom is not free at all: it is very hard to obtain and very hard to retain but very easily sacrificed or plain lost in the absence of vigilance and struggle. Most of our political freedoms were not given to us free, let alone fallen from a tree, but were fought for and cost countless lives. Most of our personal freedoms can be ruined and taken from us either by our own self abuse or negligence or by misfortune such as ill health.


This is such a neat example of what I mean when I say that too many maths teachers, taking Eladar as an example, are poorly educated about social issues. He thinks he can argue furiously on a topic, "freedom," about which he demonstrates only the weakest and most puerile grasp.

If you think the concept of freedom is so simple and self evident, you might be interested in an Open University discussion of the topic or you might be threatened to discover that a seemingly simple topic is quite complex. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/two-concepts-freedom/content-section-1

For instance

Freedom’ can mean many different things; the word can have a powerful emotive force. We're concerned here with political freedom. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between a concept of negative freedom and a concept of positive freedom. Negative freedom is freedom from interference, it is a matter of the opportunities that lie open to you. Positive freedom is the capability of doing what you really want to do. Historically, according to Berlin, the concept of positive freedom has been used to justify various kinds of oppression. Berlin also believes that there is no ‘final solution’, no simple way of reconciling the different goals that different people have. Berlin's view, that there are two concepts of freedom, has been attacked by Gerald MacCallum who thinks there is only one concept. Berlin has provided several counter-examples to MacCallum's point.Freedom’ can mean many different things; the word can have a powerful emotive force. We're concerned here with political freedom. Isaiah Berlin distinguished between a concept of negative freedom and a concept of positive freedom. Negative freedom is freedom from interference, it is a matter of the opportunities that lie open to you. Positive freedom is the capability of doing what you really want to do. Historically, according to Berlin, the concept of positive freedom has been used to justify various kinds of oppression. Berlin also believes that there is no ‘final solution’, no simple way of reconciling the different goals that different people have. Berlin's view, that there are two concepts of freedom, has been attacked by Gerald MacCallum who thinks there is only one concept. Berlin has provided several counter-examples to MacCallum's point.

i predict you will just take the anti education line as usual and say this is all a matter of opinion and belief on which there can be no discussion or debate so that your opinion is as good as any other and incapable of refutation.

Originally posted by finnegan
then that is obviously just a rude way of being unpleasant.

Whether you are persuaded or refuted is, in this situation, not uppermost in my mind.

So true. You might be concerned that your name calling isn't persuasive to even people favorably inclined to your position. It is rude, unpleasant, and persuasive to nobody, in fact it may invalidate your position to sensible people.

Originally posted by normbenign
So true. You might be concerned that your name calling isn't persuasive to even people favorably inclined to your position. It is rude, unpleasant, and persuasive to nobody, in fact it may invalidate your position to sensible people.

Whether sensible people like, dislike, ignore or respond to my posts is a moot point, since the posts you refer to are not addressed to sensible people, but rather to certain individuals whose ideological blinkers coupled with limited comprehension skills reduce any effort at discussion to nonsense.

So let's take a Starbucks racial quiz that they are handing out.

1. How many black folk do you know?
2. Do you have any black friends?
3. Do you ever travel to black neighborhoods where there are no Starbucks coffee shops?
4. Have you ever even seen a person of color?
5. What would you do if a Black man entered a Starbucks?
6. Do you oppose Barak Obama? If so, when did you realize you were a racist cracker?

Take your tablets whodey. You need them. We need you to take them.

Originally posted by finnegan

Freedom is free, it can't be bought except by blood by killing those that would take it away.

So in a world where other people most definitely do act to take away our freedoms, and where killing such people is not - certainly for individuals - a realistic prospect, then it is clearly the case that freedom is not free at all: it is very hard to ...[text shortened]... o discussion or debate so that your opinion is as good as any other and incapable of refutation.

Yes, in this world people do actively work to take away our freedom. They do it through the power of the government.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes, in this world people do actively work to take away our freedom. They do it through the power of the government.

Yes government can give and take away many forms of freedom. It is the social mechanism by which human society is organised and requires never ceasing vigilance and struggle to secure the best balance of interests. We are social creatures and any individualist ideology that fails to appreciate this is nonsensical.

Originally posted by finnegan
Yes government can give and take away many forms of freedom. It is the social mechanism by which human society is organised and requires never ceasing vigilance and struggle to secure the best balance of interests. We are social creatures and any individualist ideology that fails to appreciate this is nonsensical.

Society is made up of individuals.

Originally posted by normbenign
Society is made up of individuals.

Correct and society displays emergent properties that are not properties of any individual. Many matters can only be examined and only make sense at the level of society. In addition, the notion of an individual outside of social relations is nonsensical from the moment of conception.

If you think about it, even the idea of freedom makes no sense for individuals, it only makes sense when the individual is in a social setting. On a desert island, freedom is the last of our worries.

Originally posted by finnegan
Correct and society displays emergent properties that are not properties of any individual. Many matters can only be examined and only make sense at the level of society. In addition, the notion of an individual outside of social relations is nonsensical from the moment of conception.

If you think about it, even the idea of freedom makes no sense for in ...[text shortened]... n the individual is in a social setting. On a desert island, freedom is the last of our worries.

Social thinking is an excuse for some members of society to dictate to others. For most of history, Kings, Chieftains, Emperors, Pharaohs, and the like convinced the masses that their power to rule was justified by God or community good. In some cases, benevolent rulers fulfilled this notion. For the great majority of humans, rulers have been abusive and motivated by self interest. Millions have been killed by their rulers directly, or allowed to die, despite good intentions. Even relatively decent governments have favored some over others, and still do.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your analogy is faulty. Humans are rational individual beings. Atoms are not.