People claim to believe in freedom, but most don't...

I have watched Youtube videos of people claiming to believe in freedom of speech and then blocking people, or putting comments to their video to be disabled.

This is not just a hypocritical person on Youtube, this is a social issue.

People claim to believe in freedom, but they don't allow two people who want to get married together to be married.

People claim to believe in freedom, but if someone says a politically "incorrect" word, they are so quick to sue.

People claim to believe in freedom, but then in relationship they are so controlling of their lover.

People claim to believe in freedom, but only in situations where THEY feel limited.

Most do not care about freedom, most only care about control, and in most people's eyes, control is success. If you have control over this person or that person, you are called "that dude" or you are called "a boss". There are many slang words associated with the idea that it is cool to control.

People get so angry when another person does not do what they want and yet they claim to believe in "freedom" when their hearts only believe in "control".

What do you think about this social issue of hypocrisy?

I think you're absolutely correct. People preach "freedom", but if they disagree with you, they want to make a law to stop you. If they agree, they they support your freedom, but if they disagree, the find a reason that it's "bad for society" or something to justify violating your freedom and forcing their beliefs on you.

Most people pay lip service to freedom without really knowing what it means.

reply to post by arpgme

People get so angry when another person does not do what they want and yet they claim to believe in "freedom" when their hearts only believe in "control".

What do you think about this social issue of hypocrisy?

I think it needs to be exposed.....and called out....and STOPPED.

Good thread topic. S/F

reply to post by arpgme


I've noticed it, too, and am guilty of it myself- while being fully aware that I'm guilty of it. lol

As another member once said, 'I prefer the word arbitrary instead of hypocrisy.'

Only the most extreme of libertarians have a true 'anything goes' in the name of freedom. The other 99.99999999% of us will support some things while crying foul over another.

Atheists might say 'FREEDOM!' then wince at a nativity scene at city hall. Christians may say 'FREEDOM!' then wince at same sex marriage.' Pro choice advocates may say 'FREEDOM!' for abortion but wince at unregulated gun ownership. A free speech advocate may say 'FREEDOM!' then wince at WBC's funeral protests.

Most sane people are against full anything goes no holds barred freedom. Society just has limits.

Well, all I can say is welcome to the human condition.

We all do it and will continue to do it. People are hypocritical all the time.

reply to post by AshleyD

Originally posted by AshleyD
Atheists might say 'FREEDOM!' then wince at a nativity scene at city hall.

I can understand why, it may seem like they are promoting one religion over another.

I really don't care about "nativity scenes" as long as the religion's rules aren't be forced upon others.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Pro choice advocates may say 'FREEDOM!' for abortion but wince at unregulated gun ownership.

This is a difficult situation. On the one hand, the woman has the right to her body and what is in her body or not, on the other hand, why get pregnant if you were just going to kill the fetus, and is killing the fetus being compassionate about the fetus's will to live? I don't want to get off topic though, so I'll continue responding.

Originally posted by AshleyD
A free speech advocate may say 'FREEDOM!' then wince at WBC's funeral protests.

Now, that is absolutely hypocrisy and I disagree with it. The WBC have the right to hate and protest who they wish (as long as they aren't harassing people - forcing themselves around people against their will). I'm aware that there is already a distance limit for where they can protest, though.

Just because people are saying something you don't like that does not mean that they shouldn't have freedom of speech. In fact, that was the whole point of freedom of speech.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Most sane people are against full anything goes no holds barred freedom. Society just has limits.

If you truly believe in freedom, the only limit should be limiting the freedom of others.

"No" means "no" and "yes" means "yes", those who believe in freedom shouldn't don't force others against their will.

reply to post by arpgme

I can understand why, it may seem like they are promoting one religion over another.

Yeah, but think of it as the religious freedom of the Christians expressing their views- what about their freedom to express themselves? Then, to some atheists, that display is against their freedom of religion.

The point of me pointing that out is to show that sometimes the freedom's of one are overshadowed by the freedom of another. So who wins? My point was to show that true 'FREEDOM!' It doesn't exist.

Everyone- you, me, the next person to reply to this thread, will all be guilty of this because it's an unavoidable paradox.

And this explanation is the same for my other points you broke down. We're all hypocrites because there is no way to avoid it.

My personal favorite here in AZ is drive around the U of A area and look at the "No More Deaths, No Borders" signs in yards that have chain link fences and locked gates on the drive ways.

Another delicious one are the people who say any woman has a right to kill a fetus but argue the State has no right to execute a murderer.

reply to post by AshleyD

Originally posted by AshleyD
Yeah, but think of it as the religious freedom of the Christians expressing their views- what about their freedom to express themselves? Then, to some atheists, that display is against their freedom of religion.

Yes, I understand that it is freedom of expression and religion of Christians which is why I already said they should be able to put a nativity symbol (cross, tree, whatever) as long as they don't force OTHERS to take on their religious rules or traditions.

A religious display is not against anyone's freedom. It is an expression of the person who put the display there. If you are not a part of the religion, you can choose to just see it as scenery. Nobody is forcing them to do anything against their will just because a nativity symbol is shown.

Originally posted by AshleyD
The point of me pointing that out is to show that sometimes the freedom's of one are overshadowed by the freedom of another. So who wins? My point was to show that true 'FREEDOM!' It doesn't exist.

Not really. It's just not understood sometimes. Forcing something upon another is going against their free-will. That is the only limit there should be (as I mentioned before).

Originally posted by AshleyD
Everyone- you, me, the next person to reply to this thread, will all be guilty of this because it's an unavoidable paradox.

I don't see how.

Originally posted by AshleyD
And this explanation is the same for my other points you broke down. We're all hypocrites because there is no way to avoid it.

Yes, there is. Express your views. Express yourself putting whatever religious symbols you want, but don't force people to do things against their will. This is the only limit/balance needed to keep freedom maintained.

reply to post by AshleyD

Originally posted by AshleyD
Yeah, but think of it as the religious freedom of the Christians expressing their views- what about their freedom to express themselves? Then, to some atheists, that display is against their freedom of religion.

Nativity scenes don't bother me. What bothers me is when other religious expressions are forbidden. To those atheists who say that a nativity scene is against their freedom of religion, they're the one's I'm talking about who pay lip service to freedom. The first amendment doesn't say that no one can express their religion. Just the opposite, in fact. It says (basically) that the government can't promote one religion. I would be fine with religious expression as long as ALL religious expression were promoted and allowed equally. But when atheists want to put up a bench with their thoughts about religion, people go ape-crazy and say horrible things.

Everyone- you, me, the next person to reply to this thread, will all be guilty of this because it's an unavoidable paradox.

I think you're right, but I'm not sure. I'd like to see us work toward that "perfection" even if it is impossible to attain. We could be doing a LOT better than we are. Just because it may be unavoidable, doesn't give us a good excuse to revel in it.

reply to post by arpgme


Gosh, I can't decide whether I agree with you or Ashley!

Ashley, give me an example of your position. When is it unavoidable to hypocritically limit someone's freedoms?

reply to post by arpgme


you are not free, you are a prisoner of repetition and routines.

I think one of the major issues is that most people who are discussing 'freedom' may not actually know what they're addressing. It seems so simple to say a word like 'freedom' or 'liberty'. It's like there should be an immediate understanding of what it is, but there isn't exactly.

If you look it as freedom to and freedom from then you have two distinct types of freedom. Freedom from being killed / Freedom to kill would be an example of an opposing freedom with an easy and clear choice as to which is more desirable for all persons involved.

I suppose it's simplifying it, but a lot of persons don't recognize this fundamental concept when they say that their freedoms are under attack. It's not hypocritical to deny someone's freedom to kill but extend their freedom to defend, it's just with our limited vocabulary and psychology it's difficult to explain why those two things are immediately different in so few words. Sometimes we can even convince ourselves of stupid things.

It's also a matter of history and point of view to see if certain freedoms conflict. I think as a modern society there are many historical examples of freedom that we no longer have to contend with a on a day to day basis, and therefore don't appreciate what we have.

As an example, Ancient peoples regulated their market places to ensure fair pricing and the flow of goods, but these days we would say ... if the merchant won't serve you, go to another store and don't shove your race / sexuality / oddness in my face! In an ancient multicultural city this could be a life or death situation.

As far back as 2000BC there is evidence of ancient governments preventing discrimination or advantage being taken for the good of society in market places. This simple freedom, of being able to turn up to a place of market and expect to be able to purchase or trade for an item equally, is completely unappreciated by the wealthy people of today; as is the damage its removal can have.

There are many freedoms we also don't have that we don't complain about. Freedom from slavery is also a lack of freedom to sell yourself as a slave. Around 500 - 600 BC in Athens this was made illegal, because even back then people understood that using yourself to secure a debt lead to an outcome that was not good for society.

If people had a better understanding of history, of what happens when simple freedoms are removed or extended, there would be a much better discussion about freedoms. The irony of the market place example: the reason our communities flourished to the point that merchants can complain about discrimination laws now, is because they were expected by law to engage in fair commerce in the past.

Read the Unabomber Manifesto (Industrial Society and it's Future).

That Kaczynski fella was made out to seem like he was completely mad, but he was just angry and expressed it in an inappropriate way. Maybe....

We only have indirect reports of who did what and how regarding the bombings he supposedly did, he may have been targeted for his views on society.

?

We are Over Socialized.

IMHO the only thing one is free to do is die, and only because a method for keeping one around after one dies has not been devised yet.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

I don't mean to quote Joplin, her voice gives me a migraine, she sounds just like someone I used to know that took me 4 years to get away from.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell


"Freedom" to some people means their freedom to repress others. You know who you are....

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by arpgme

 

you are not free, you are a prisoner of repetition and routines.

That's mind games and semantics.

It reminds me of those people who say "You are a slave to Jesus or a slave to Sin".

If "Sin" just means not following the rules of the strict religion, then they are basically saying

"You are a slave to Jesus or a slave to Freedom", which is just mind games and semantics.

If you choose something and are happy with that choice, then that is your FREEDOM.

If you are forced to do something against your will then that is your freedom being restricted by another.

reply to post by arpgme


Your a prisoner of a belief you are free when in reality you have no freedom. The illusion is a sanctuary of residence where you strategize different ways of asking the same questions in endless repetition. Surely that cant be freedom.