Are Freedom And Security Mutually Exclusive?

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Freedom and security go hand in hand, they are not exclusive from one another. Freedom is the only rational choice. Leaving your 'security' up to a fascistic government does not make you secure or safe from criminal violation. The government becomes the criminal. For instance that government may incarcerate an additional child molester or murderer here and there under totalitarian martial law, but how many people does that fascistic government abuse, murder, and falsely imprison in return for this enhanced state of 'security'?

 

[-SD-]

dood, threads like this require teh brains and shit, i think thats why no ones posted hahaha.

 

[Razorguns]

Leaving your 'security' up to a fascistic government

Your question is already slanted and opinionated towards one side from the get-go. Disguised as "question".

Reword it. You're simply trying to influence the answer. Common lousy debate tactic.

r

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

Your question is already slanted and opinionated towards one side from the get-go. Disguised as "question".

Reword it. You're simply trying to influence the answer. Common lousy debate tactic.

r

Please do point out the slant built into the question. Feel free to reword it to open the floor to a more free debate as I have no clue how. The question is meant to invite the opinions of others. Of course I am trying to influence the opinions of others with my answer as would anyone providing an answer to such a question in a public forum. I don't see how my answer is automatically built into the question though. I welcome debate from those who hold a different opinion.

I think you believe that your powers of perception allowed you to see through a manipulative facade of deceit. What really happened is that you saw what I intended to make completely apparent: my personal opinion in an answer to the question. Whether my answer to my own question influences their decision making process is entirely up to the reader.

The question is open ended enough to allow someone of a different opinion to chime in. My answer to this question was originally derived when somebody on a blog posted a different answer to this very question. That tends to nullify your observation about the inherent slant built into the question.

My own observations tell me that many people seem to think that you have to sacrifice freedom for security, making them mutually exclusive. Another common answer seems to be that freedom invites a lack of security, but freedom is worth the lack of security. Again this defines security and freedom as mutually exclusive. I disagree with both opinions.

So in your opinion razorguns are freedom and security mutually exclusive?

 

[Razorguns]

Please do point out the slant built into the question. Feel free to reword it to open the floor to a more free debate as I have no clue how. The question is meant to invite the opinions of others. Of course I am trying to influence the opinions of others with my answer as would anyone providing an answer to such a question in a public forum. I don't see how my answer is automatically built into the question though. I welcome debate from those who hold a different opinion.

I think you believe that your powers of perception allowed you to see through a manipulative facade of deceit. What really happened is that you saw what I intended to make completely apparent: my personal opinion in an answer to the question. Whether my answer to my own question influences their decision making process is entirely up to the reader.

The question is open ended enough to allow someone of a different opinion to chime in. My answer to this question was originally derived when somebody on a blog posted a different answer to this very question. That tends to nullify your observation about the inherent slant built into the question.

My own observations tell me that many people seem to think that you have to sacrifice freedom for security, making them mutually exclusive. Another common answer seems to be that freedom invites a lack of security, but freedom is worth the lack of security. Again this defines security and freedom as mutually exclusive. I disagree with both opinions.

So in your opinion razorguns are freedom and security mutually exclusive?

When you can pose your question without throwing your slant into it, let me know.

It's like me asking: Abortion? Should it be legal or should it be outlawed like the disgusting murder of babies that it is. (And why do you ask? Are we helping you do your college thesis for you? )

btw: here's your question if you asked with NO BIAS intended:

Ready?

"Is freedom and security mutually exclusive?"

Wow. Now that wasn't hard now was it??! lol. And no i'm not going to answer because I already know your bias on this already. You were horrible at hiding it. So I know what you're going to say before you even start typing.

r

 

[nimbus]

Freedom and security go hand in hand, they are not exclusive from one another. Freedom is the only rational choice. Leaving your 'security' up to a fascistic government does not make you secure or safe from criminal violation. The government becomes the criminal. For instance that government may incarcerate an additional child molester or murderer here and there under totalitarian martial law, but how many people does that fascistic government abuse, murder, and falsely imprison in return for this enhanced state of 'security'?

this argument is flawed, because you are assuming the mutual exclusivity implies that the absence of one guarantees the other. which is not the case.


also you're question is really vague unless you specify whose security and whose freedom you are referring to.


I believe that you can only achieve security by restricting freedoms. So in that sense they are mutually exclusive.

 

[chris302001]

this is riveting......really...

 

[PICK3]

I'm going to go with "yes".

I don't have the intellect to fully understand the question, but I understand by selecting either "yes" or "no" I have a 50% chance of being correct.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

When you can pose your question without throwing your slant into it, let me know.

It's like me asking: Abortion? Should it be legal or should it be outlawed like the disgusting murder of babies that it is. (And why do you ask? Are we helping you do your college thesis for you? )

btw: here's your question if you asked with NO BIAS intended:

Ready?

"Is freedom and security mutually exclusive?"

Wow. Now that wasn't hard now was it??! lol. And no i'm not going to answer because I already know your bias on this already. You were horrible at hiding it. So I know what you're going to say before you even start typing.

r

I think a great addition to EF C&C would be an "Argutron". Argutron would most likely be a Java-based plugin and would work kinda like the forum over at newegg.com where you can tick a box saying whether an issue has been solved or not, only it would be automatic and purely argument-based (because it's a favorite pastime here at EF!). Argutron would track stats below the user's karma bar with an "arguments won/lost" meter, and could also comment on what type of victory/defeat a user racks up, such as logical wins, humiliating defeats, etc.
I think Razor would dish out the most humiliations lol.

 

[nimbus]

I think a great addition to EF C&C would be an "Argutron". Argutron would most likely be a Java-based plugin and would work kinda like the forum over at newegg.com where you can tick a box saying whether an issue has been solved or not, only it would be automatic and purely argument-based (because it's a favorite pastime here at EF!). Argutron would track stats below the user's karma bar with an "arguments won/lost" meter, and could also comment on what type of victory/defeat a user racks up, such as logical wins, humiliating defeats, etc.
I think Razor would dish out the most humiliations lol.

EF-ers are too dumb for a credible argutron. and who is razor dishing humiliations out to? himself?

 

[-SD-]

EF-ers are too dumb for a credible argutron. and who is razor dishing humiliations out to? himself?

to all of america, dumbass!

 

[Razorguns]

EF-ers are too dumb for a credible argutron. and who is razor dishing humiliations out to? himself?

99% of the time "debates" are useless because you already know what the other person's position is. And you spend 99% of your time fighting their ego because they have ZERO desire to learn, listen or even acknowledge they may be wrong about something.

So basically, like every other internet 'debate', it turns into a big fat penis fight.

I got shit to do. Others I guess have tons of free time to kill. Stop focusing on tihs shit and get back to your jobs and kids!

r

 

[nimbus]

99% of the time "debates" are useless because you already know what the other person's position is. And you spend 99% of your time fighting their ego because they have ZERO desire to learn, listen or even acknowledge they may be wrong about something.


r

this is a really good point. i still enjoy debating because that is how i learn best

 

[Razorguns]

this is a really good point. i still enjoy debating because that is how i learn best

All you learn in the end -- is that the other person doesn't want you to have the last word and doesn't want to look like the 'loser' on the internet. lol!

Not to mention, everyone just makes up facts, assumptions, uses personal insults, attacks your personal history and on top of that - think the whole WOLRD revolves around THEIER limited experiences on this planet.

eg: A cop was a dick to me last week, so All COPS are jerks.

eg: You weren't a soldier, therefore you you know NOTHIGN ABOUT WAR.

That's the kind of shit logic you see on the internet - and why I don't even bother. If people know soo much about the planet, then clearly they must be kicking ass in life, so I don't need to enlighten them on anything. They clearly know everything and don't need other peoples opinions.

eg3: When in the history of the internet - has someone gone "Yeah you're right. I see your logic. I was wrong. Thanks". Yeah Right! It's just a battle of egos fueled with insults and name calling. (and yes, I have acknowledged when someone was correct and I wasn't. I don't debate based on ego). I think we all know a few people here who have no problem lowering themselves to insults, anger and personal attacks if someone dare disagrees with them.

r

 

[nimbus]

All you learn is that the other person doesn't want you to have the last word and doesn't want to look like the 'loser' on the internet. lol!

Not to mention, everyone just makes up facts, assumptions, uses personal insults, attacks your personal history and on top of that - think the whole WOLRD revolves around THEIER limited experiences on this planet.

eg: A cop was a dick to me last week, so All COPS are jerks.

eg: You weren't a soldier, therefore you you know NOTHIGN ABOUT WAR.

That's the kind of shit logic you see on the internet - and why I don't even bother. If people know soo much about the planet, then clearly they must be kicking ass in life, so I don't need to enlighten them on anything. They clearly know everything and don't need other peoples opinions.

eg3: When in the history of the internet - has someone gone "Yeah you're right. I see your logic. I was wrong. Thanks". Yeah Right! It's just a battle of egos fueled with insults and name calling. (and yes, I have acknowledged when someone was correct and I wasn't. I don't debate based on ego). I think we all know a few people here who have no problem lowering themselves to insults, anger and personal attacks if someone dare disagrees with them.

r

good stuff right here

 

[pin]

Bomb our enemies into submission. Problem solved.

 

[stosstruppe]

99% of the time "debates" are useless because you already know what the other person's position is. And you spend 99% of your time fighting their ego because they have ZERO desire to learn, listen or even acknowledge they may be wrong about something.

+ infinity

eg: You weren't a soldier, therefore you you know NOTHIGN ABOUT WAR.[/B]

That's the kind of shit logic you see on the internet

True, though the weight of your perspective / opinion will amount to fuck all in the eyes of those that do perform that job role or did so at an earlier time in their life if you're discussing something very specific / current like SOP when your Warrior APC gets hit by an IED carrying out a QRF role to a nearby Afghan village.


BTW, I'm like all totally for a V for Vendetta level of freedom & subsequent security!!11