Sorry David, I often don't read your messages, because they are visually (and mentally) stilted..
Seeing how you put so much time into making them pretty I thought making them readable would be something you would be interested in.
Clearly I was wrong. Carry on.
As life happened & I was busy doing other things - I grew up and the person I once was fell away - the person I became no longer was influenced by the beliefs, ideas & tenets held dear by my parents. In all due fairness to them, they held back greatly from attempting to force any particular religion or political viewpoints upon us. We attended a Presbyterian Church, altho neither was this the religion of my mother nor father. She was a lapsed Episcopalian whereas he was a believer in an old British Spiritualist movement began by Emanuel Swedenborg. But they did not teach us these things. Presbyterianism is a nice, lukewarm, easygoing religion, as religions go. In time, I wandered near & far and honestly all over the road, in my studies of what else was available that could satisfy my seeking. So no, my parents and I are not at all alike with respect to either religious beliefs or lack thereof and/or political ideology.
There's a new thread that ties nicely into this one which discusses how, upon the advent of adolescence, certain connections within the brain are ruptured. When you think about growing up and rejecting the values of your parents -- either temporarily or permanently -- you never think about changing brain chemistry. I say this shows that we are not supposed to follow in the footsteps of our parents but are made to strike out in new directions.
Hi David
You said- quote..
I grew up in such an environment of freedom
that it was impossible to rebel against anything, but my own decisions.- unquote.
The gun in hand and the aggressiveness of you posts, says a lot about you in more ways than one, for starers, perhaps, to much freedom?... in children this can lead to lack of discipline later in life.
Anton, happy- unarmed Australian
OmSigDAVID wrote:
There is no such thing as too much freedom.
Yes, there is.
When you consider your own "freedoms" so paramount that your are completely blind & insensitive about the rights of others to a fair go.
First of all, when I read David's comment that he grew up with so much freedom . . ., I immediately thought of all those nice, traditional blue collar parents who raised kids during the 1950s according to the traditional plan of spare the rod and spoil the child and who were appalled by the parents raising kids according to what everyone assumed Dr. Spock said. I wondered, "Did David's parents take Spock to extremes? And, if so, why is he a right-winger?"
Second, I continually think of the manner in which foundational liberalism, the product of the enlightment, was defined to me as a student in late elementary school: The right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins and when two 'rights' are in conflict, one of them is not a right.
Third, I think of my right to be comfortable while reading these threads and not having to deal with David's obnoxious multi-colored, overly large type faces (which I asked him not to use) and how he continues to upset us with his colorful, large responses. I wonder if he realizes what courtesy is -- the ultimate granting of freedom in the form of respect to others.
Fourth, now that I read David's post (why do I assume David is in his late 70s?) about government taking away his freedoms, I wonder what he means by government and by freedoms. I wonder if he considers that some of his alleged rights are in conflict with almost all of ours.
Finally, David proclaimed that he writes the truth but I wonder which archangel revealed the guarantee of truth to him that he can state this with such certainty.
msolga wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:
There is no such thing as too much freedom.
Yes, there is.
When you consider your own "freedoms" so paramount that your are completely blind & insensitive about the rights of others to a fair go.
So, resorting to the classical counterpoint to such a statement, do you have the freedom to drive your car at any speed you wish, regardless of road conditions, the presence of playing children or running pets? And, if you say yes, when a drunk runs over your child or when a speeding driver leaves the road and crashes into your living room, do you simply shrug it off as an expression of his freedom or do you sue -- using a government institution -- for damages -- thereby limiting said driver's ability to spend his money as he wishes?
cjhsa wrote:plainoldme wrote:msolga wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:
There is no such thing as too much freedom.
Yes, there is.
When you consider your own "freedoms" so paramount that your are completely blind & insensitive about the rights of others to a fair go.
So, resorting to the classical counterpoint to such a statement, do you have the freedom to drive your car at any speed you wish, regardless of road conditions, the presence of playing children or running pets? And, if you say yes, when a drunk runs over your child or when a speeding driver leaves the road and crashes into your living room, do you simply shrug it off as an expression of his freedom or do you sue -- using a government institution -- for damages -- thereby limiting said driver's ability to spend his money as he wishes?
So, ban cars. idiot.
Read the comment again.
And even if you disagree, there's no need for such rudeness.
OK, are you going to tell us why?
I'm genuinely interested to know.
I don't like lawsuits. If the law itself cannot adequately punish the criminal and compensate the victim, then the victim should be able to take execution of the law upon themselves. To me, it just seems more civilized. I like deterrents. But that's just me.
Me, I whole-heartedly agree with the notion that folk should modify their "freedoms" (take responsibilty for their own actions) when necessary, for the good of everyone. POM was simply asking David how he would feel if the consequences of someone else exercising their "freedom of choice" to speed in their car was the death of a child.
I believe in RATIONAL self interest. When another person becomes involved, the entire equation changes. I have no problem with a person who owns a huge ranch to ride his car at 110 mph on that property, as long as there is no danger of hurting another person. It might be a stupid thing to do, but I think that a person has the right to drive at 110 mph on his own property.
If he runs into a tree, that's his lookout. I think that it is inappropriate for the guy to take the same car, at that speed on the interstate, where other people could be involved.
"The right to swing your arm, ends at the other fellow's nose"!
