Another view into the mind of an eco-Socialist on Freedom with a full showing of how they would restrict your Freedom but still call it good. Freedom, the word and the ideal, is being turned onto its head – YOUR Freedom is always dependent from MY viewpoint and my feelings of how it is offending. And it is ALWAYS about the redefinition of a word to fit the Narrative. Reformatted, emphasis mine.
And yes, these people are not kidding:
rooster1957
We need to develop a timetable to ensure that all petrol burning vehicles are illegal. The hellcat can be in the first wave banned. I whacked a hellcat challenger a couple of years ago in a 1/8 mile sprint to the freeway ramp, and my Tesla isn’t a ludicrous hot rod. Hellcats aren’t even competitive in the real world. We can get by without them.
E.g., the Progressive “tell” sticks up its head – “you don’t need that (I say so)”. And these folks can’t get out of their own bubble to recognize what they are saying: We will take things away from you for the Greater Good
GraniteGrok
Worldview discrimination at work…
And in return was the obvious:
Ladeek GraniteGrok • 3 days ago
That’s what you’ve been doing in all your responses.
Of COURSE it is – with one BIG different – Freedom to decide for one’s self:
GraniteGrok Ladeek • 3 days ago • edited
Everyone is entitled to an opinion – that’s Free Speech. That’s what I advocate for all the time – let people make their OWN decisions.A lot of people here at TH, over the years, have shown that they have no problem in removing that Freedom because they believe other people don’t need something (as in “YOU don’t need that” or “NO ONE I know has one or needs that” so just take it away).
Remember, ox goring can happen both ways once Govt is unleashed to make such types of decisions.
And right on cue, we see that eco-Socialists and Progressives having no problem, yet again, in redefining our common language right out from underneath us. Like “Freedom” which is defined as:
the quality or state of being free: such as
a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : INDEPENDENCE
And ctromley shows us a great example of this redefining:
ctromley
You continue to believe (mistakenly) that freedom must be granted even when it puts others at risk. You know that the definition of freedom is doing what you want without without harming others, yet you continue to ignore freedom’s definition.Some will argue that their freedom ends at someone else’s nose (as in throwing a punch but not delivering), but that has been rejected time and time again, just as an assault does not require contact. Risk or the threat of harm are also verboten.
So to those who buy a big manly-man truck because it’s cool and makes them feel like a manly-man, even though they use it only for commuting and maybe towing a trailer once a year for their vacation, get used to the idea that you consuming resources unnecessarily and accelerating the entire planet into a climate crisis from which we may never fully recover is unacceptable behavior and subject to regulation. Not to mention increasing the risk to others around you every time you drive.
That’s always the talking point with them – we’re killing GAIA. Yet, when I ask for definitive proof that *I* am causing harm simply because I drive an F-150, they can’t except for an explosion of platitudes (except, those came first this time).
Forcing you (yes, I used that word on purpose, because there are some situations where it’s entirely appropriate) to rent a truck once a year to haul your trailer is in fact a thoroughly reasonable thing to do. Because your ‘freedom’ is NOT being able to do whatever the [bleep] you want, and everyone else can take a hike. Actions have consequences, and we all need to take responsibility for the consequences we cause.
Having just thought about the immediate above had me reply:
Forcing you (yes, I used that word on purpose, because there are some situations where it’s entirely appropriate) to rent a truck
So if you, via Government, is going to FORCE me to do something that otherwise I would not do is NOT Freedom – the real definition of Freedom is “liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another” (and I am talking about the latter phrase). You would use Power to restrain my decisions. THerefore, by definition, you have no problem in withdrawing my Freedom simply because you don’t agree with my life’s decisions.
There’s a word that describes that…
Let’s see if he even figures out that I just insulted him by calling out his political leanings. After all, Socialists are totalitarian leaning to the max.
Sadly for you, but better for those with a fully-developed sense of responsibility, humankind is getting much better at identifying those consequences and the cause-and-effect relationships that lead to them. You see that as a loss of your ‘freedom’. We see it as being better able to finally allow humanity to act more responsibly, to allow humanity to advance without feeding on itself.
It is no longer workable for anyone to live in a way that is isolated from others or does not influence others. This ain’t the Wild West anymore. Get used to it.
The moral of the story is to ALWAYS demand that the other side define their terms – there is NOTHING in the definition of Freedom that contains the presumption of “without without harming others“. I truly believe he has no idea of what his bubble, and the distorting effects of that bubble, have on both his thoughts and speech.
And this is typical. I wound up with this:
GraniteGrok:
that freedom must be granted
Here in the States, our Founders recognized, being the real radicals they were, is that Freedom is innate – Govt doesn’t GRANT Freedom, it can only remove it. They rejected the Hobbesian philosophy of Govt completely.
Translation: Govt can’t give you freedom, it can only take it away. And once having done that, rarely gives it back in full measure.
And yes, I do reject your definition of Freedom. What you are defining, as Freedom, is really libertine which is a “I can do anything I want” and has little to no moral principles at all leading to no believe in a “right and wrong”.
And in which, I totally reject as well.
So, all in all, I reject your Hobbesian derived argument.
