Comments on: The Slow Decay of Freedom in “Free Countries” http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html Rantings of a Questionably Sane Chicken Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:50:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Goldhammer http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-646 Goldhammer Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:28:47 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-646 Hey, why are you so upset? I just want to have a rational discussion and understand your position. There's no need for name calling. I'm not trying to tell others what they have to do, or what they have to believe. I'm trying to tell others what they ought NOT to do - there's a difference. I'm also trying to help you see that, in the interests of not living in a cesspool society of savages, the government had better well enforce a certain standard of behavior. You, however, seem to be frothing at the mouth for the idea of trampling on my freedoms in order to advance your morally relativist doctrines of a completely self-autonomous citizenship, and a freedom to act with impunity. In effect, it's actually you who thinks he has the right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe, isn't it? Hey, why are you so upset? I just want to have a rational discussion and understand your position. There’s no need for name calling.

I’m not trying to tell others what they have to do, or what they have to believe. I’m trying to tell others what they ought NOT to do – there’s a difference. I’m also trying to help you see that, in the interests of not living in a cesspool society of savages, the government had better well enforce a certain standard of behavior.

You, however, seem to be frothing at the mouth for the idea of trampling on my freedoms in order to advance your morally relativist doctrines of a completely self-autonomous citizenship, and a freedom to act with impunity. In effect, it’s actually you who thinks he has the right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe, isn’t it?

]]> By: manchicken http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-641 manchicken Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:57:55 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-641 No, the problem lies with uppity jerks who think they have a right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe. This discussion has come to a conclusion. No, the problem lies with uppity jerks who think they have a right to tell others what they have to do and what they have to believe. This discussion has come to a conclusion.

]]> By: Goldhammer http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-640 Goldhammer Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:56:16 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-640 Come now! Of course not. The problem clearly lies with the individual or company who thinks they are, and should be, able to do whatever they want. Come now! Of course not.

The problem clearly lies with the individual or company who thinks they are, and should be, able to do whatever they want.

]]> By: manchicken http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-636 manchicken Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:24:40 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-636 If someone releasing a piece of software or a video game that you find offensive affects you so greatly then don't that it's society that has the problem. If someone releasing a piece of software or a video game that you find offensive affects you so greatly then don’t that it’s society that has the problem.

]]> By: Goldhammer http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-634 Goldhammer Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:10:42 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-634 <i>"...in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to."</i> I would imagine it's acceptable and necessary if you are to get to church on Sundays without some psycho hacking your head off, or if your kids are to play in the street without being openly molested. <i>"Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. ... Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man ..."</i> No, it's a reflection of the fact that America is not a Christian nation. There are a lot of people here who are amoral, hell-bent, pagans, and would have Christians fed to the lions if they could. Why are you advocating a eunuch government that would be absolved from such matters? I think you're confused between freedom of speech and the freedom to act with impunity. The former does not imply the latter. When an individual or company "expresses" themselves in an official, public way, say, by releasing a piece of software or offering a product for sale, this does not fall under the realm of "free speech", but is an <b>act</b> which affects society as a whole. As such, it falls within the realm of governmental and judicial control structures. Otherwise, if that wasn't and as you believe, shouldn't be the case, society would fall apart. Your pie-in-the-sky ideals don't match up with reality. “…in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to.”

I would imagine it’s acceptable and necessary if you are to get to church on Sundays without some psycho hacking your head off, or if your kids are to play in the street without being openly molested.

“Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. … Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man …”

No, it’s a reflection of the fact that America is not a Christian nation. There are a lot of people here who are amoral, hell-bent, pagans, and would have Christians fed to the lions if they could. Why are you advocating a eunuch government that would be absolved from such matters?

I think you’re confused between freedom of speech and the freedom to act with impunity. The former does not imply the latter. When an individual or company “expresses” themselves in an official, public way, say, by releasing a piece of software or offering a product for sale, this does not fall under the realm of “free speech”, but is an act which affects society as a whole. As such, it falls within the realm of governmental and judicial control structures.

Otherwise, if that wasn’t and as you believe, shouldn’t be the case, society would fall apart. Your pie-in-the-sky ideals don’t match up with reality.

]]> By: manchicken http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-612 manchicken Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:41:41 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-612 I don't think that we're moving towards a society of savages. I have more respect for my fellow man than that, and I think that people deserve the right to express themselves how they see fit. Your fascist ideal of government-enforced morality is pathetic. The only reason why you are for this control is because you happen to agree with it at this moment. If the government had declared that religious speech was immoral and that it was prohibited then you'd be right here next to me calling for freedom of expression. Ignorance such as yours is dangerous because freedom goes both ways. If I have the freedom to act in a way that I find appropriate, others will need to have the same freedom to act in the way that they find appropriate. I have a duty to disagree where I do disagree with their definition of propriety, but in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to. As far as I'm concerned you are a black-eye on the face of Christianity. Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. It is a faith where freedom and love for one another is supposed to supercede all. Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man, and I find it disappointing. This discussion is obviously going nowhere, so I think it's time for it to end. Have a good day, and I pray that your lust for control over the lives of others comes to an end soon. I don’t think that we’re moving towards a society of savages. I have more respect for my fellow man than that, and I think that people deserve the right to express themselves how they see fit. Your fascist ideal of government-enforced morality is pathetic.

The only reason why you are for this control is because you happen to agree with it at this moment. If the government had declared that religious speech was immoral and that it was prohibited then you’d be right here next to me calling for freedom of expression.

Ignorance such as yours is dangerous because freedom goes both ways. If I have the freedom to act in a way that I find appropriate, others will need to have the same freedom to act in the way that they find appropriate. I have a duty to disagree where I do disagree with their definition of propriety, but in no way shape or form is it acceptable for the government to get into the mix and dictate what moral standards society is to adhere to.

As far as I’m concerned you are a black-eye on the face of Christianity. Christianity is a faith where we are free from our sin, and free from the law. It is a faith where freedom and love for one another is supposed to supercede all. Your desire to restrict freedom shows contempt for your fellow man, and I find it disappointing.

This discussion is obviously going nowhere, so I think it’s time for it to end. Have a good day, and I pray that your lust for control over the lives of others comes to an end soon.

]]> By: Goldhammer http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-611 Goldhammer Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:57:33 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-611 <i>"In what way is it the government’s responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard?"</i> Maybe when its citizens start behaving like ferile babies? <i>"I thought that the Bible contained God’s law."</i> No, the Bible says God's laws are written on the hearts of Man. And, as you said earlier, God has given us the free will to heed those laws or... not. If people were heeding those laws, or if God was enforcing them Himself, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the truth of the matter is that society is on the decline because people want to be completely self-autonomous, and God is respecting their free-will decision to live in moral decadence. <i>"When you insist on government-enforcement of God’s law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself."</i> Nonsense. The authorities of the land have been instituted by God Himself. We are to obey them. Government-enforced morality is becoming necessary because people are losing their moral compass. Do you really want to live in a society of savages? That is the inevitable conclusion of your position... “In what way is it the government’s responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard?”

Maybe when its citizens start behaving like ferile babies?

“I thought that the Bible contained God’s law.”

No, the Bible says God’s laws are written on the hearts of Man. And, as you said earlier, God has given us the free will to heed those laws or… not. If people were heeding those laws, or if God was enforcing them Himself, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

But the truth of the matter is that society is on the decline because people want to be completely self-autonomous, and God is respecting their free-will decision to live in moral decadence.

“When you insist on government-enforcement of God’s law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself.”

Nonsense. The authorities of the land have been instituted by God Himself. We are to obey them. Government-enforced morality is becoming necessary because people are losing their moral compass.

Do you really want to live in a society of savages? That is the inevitable conclusion of your position…

]]> By: manchicken http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-610 manchicken Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:56:46 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-610 In what way is it the government's responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard? I thought that the Bible contained God's law. Do you doubt God's ability to enforce His own law? Why should the US or UK government enforce this law when God is perfectly capable of enforcing it Himself. When you insist on government-enforcement of God's law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself. You may want to rethink that argument as well. In what way is it the government’s responsibility to babysit its citizens or enforce a moral standard? I thought that the Bible contained God’s law. Do you doubt God’s ability to enforce His own law? Why should the US or UK government enforce this law when God is perfectly capable of enforcing it Himself.

When you insist on government-enforcement of God’s law, you are implicitly questioning His ability to do so Himself. You may want to rethink that argument as well.

]]> By: Goldhammer http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-608 Goldhammer Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:18:17 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-608 <i>"The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do."</i> In what way is allowing complete self-autonomy a moral imperative, or even beneficial to the common good? Not even the Bible goes that far... “The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do.”

In what way is allowing complete self-autonomy a moral imperative, or even beneficial to the common good? Not even the Bible goes that far…

]]> By: manchicken http://www.manchicken.com/2007/ranting/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html/comment-page-1#comment-572 manchicken Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:24:40 +0000 http://blog.notsosoft.net/2007/politics/the-slow-decay-of-freedom-in-free-countries.html#comment-572 Are you seriously going to continue to sit here and say that the government should be able to dictate what media I can watch, what media I can produce, and what I do in my own home? I believe morality is objective, and I hold freedom as one of the highest moral imperatives. If our people are not free to choose what they do and do not want, and if they're not free to choose what they do and do not wish to do, then we are an amoral dictatorship that should be wiped off of God's green Earth. God gave us free will. The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do. That way, one is free to make the right decisions, and it is a moral good. If you force people to do a moral good, it is not a moral good. It is only the status quo. I doubt I'll be able to persuade you that you are wrong here, and that's fine. I respect your right to express your opinion as you see fit. I just really wish that you and others like yourself would allow others the same freedoms that you enjoy. Are you seriously going to continue to sit here and say that the government should be able to dictate what media I can watch, what media I can produce, and what I do in my own home?

I believe morality is objective, and I hold freedom as one of the highest moral imperatives. If our people are not free to choose what they do and do not want, and if they’re not free to choose what they do and do not wish to do, then we are an amoral dictatorship that should be wiped off of God’s green Earth. God gave us free will. The government should respect our right to choose to do and see what we want to do.

That way, one is free to make the right decisions, and it is a moral good. If you force people to do a moral good, it is not a moral good. It is only the status quo.

I doubt I’ll be able to persuade you that you are wrong here, and that’s fine. I respect your right to express your opinion as you see fit. I just really wish that you and others like yourself would allow others the same freedoms that you enjoy.

]]>