I\'ve been Thinking
 

You are going to be appalled. If you do not want to be appalled, stop reading now.

I have been thinking. I have put myself in harms way in my life for things I believe in. Before I resolved to put myself in harms way, I had to reconcile what I would be willing to die for. Putting myself in jeapordy was an act of freedom. I did it of my own free will under no duress or coersion. Basically, I resolved that I would be willing to die in an attempt to kill someone whose goal it was to deprive me of my freedom. If I could not kill someone in the process of dying to preserve my freedom, I would be unwilling to die and probably choose a path that would allow me to live so that I might attempt to kill someone denying me my freedom at a later time. That pretty much sums up what I would be willing to die for.

Killing someone else is another matter. It is much easier. What would I be willing to kill for? I basically come up with the tenents of English law. Being I would kill to preserve the life of myself, someone else, my property, someone elses property, or my country. By necessity that would mean someone who was jeapordizing life, property, or country.

Every other Sapiens Sapiens on the planet, to me, then became a human being worth defending and protecting. Each one having the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, BTW, are in my view only guaranteed by a free market.

Now, what makes a human being? This becomes a sticky point. I can only define it one way. An inborn desire to be free. My life is about freedom. My entire existance can be framed in the motif of seeking greater freedom. I cannot concieve of another human being on the face of the Earth who would seek a life leading to less freedom. To me, the inborn desire to make choices for yourself and seek, as much as you can, to determine your own fate ecompasses everything I can concieve as the human spirit. The freedom to worship what you want, [censored] who you want, marry who you want, be friends with who you want, buy what you want, do business as you want, think what you want, and most importantly learn what you want, define, for me, a human being.

What about a human being who seeks less freedom? Is that possible? What is the point of a life in which all the decisions are made for you? What is enriched by that life? What is learned in that life? What is the value of that life? All I can answer is nothing. Does that mean that anyone who actively seeks to have less freedom is less than human?

I think it was Jefferson of Franklin who said "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."

What does it mean? Does it mean that our great nemesis in this era, instead of godless communists, but devaut Sharia practicing Muslims are less than human? Is the idealogy of freedom that sewn up and watertight? Do we, as a society, not yet realize it? When will we?

Please, if you are going to give me some Liberal-Socialist Non-Producer-Hate-America-Anti Capitialist tripe about the US being the biggest threat to "human rights" by being the oil fueled fast food economy that is going to rape the planet until the human race is extinct, don't bother replying. If you want to discuss this from a stand point of being a freedom loving freedom seeking human soul, I want to hear from you.

My own logic disturbs me on a basic level. The classification of other members of the species as sub human smacks of racist or religious propaganda, without the race or religion. In fact, you could use this logic to justify the extermination of a whole belief system, an entire civilization. The word Islam literally means "submit."

There is another step to be taken in the logic, I just am so totally blown away by this train of thought I can barely comprehend the implications. Can you force freedom on those who don't want it?

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Part of the problem is freedom in many parts of the world has become synonymous with American Culture,specifically those parts of our culture as seen on TV or in movies and heard in music. It then becomes very easy for totaltarian leaders to convince people they don't want freedom, which in reality what they don't want it to lose their own cultural identity and values.

Thus it may not be correct to say these people do not want freedom.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would I be willing to kill for? I basically come up with the tenents of English law. Being I would kill to preserve the life of myself, someone else, my property, someone elses property, or my country.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're willing to kill someone to preserve the right of someone's elses property?

I better return that stapler to work ASAP...

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Pretty sure I wouldn't kill to protect property, but I can sympathise with a lot of what you say. I have had similar thoughts about Muslims several times, they make me ashamed so I push them into the back of my thoughts and excuse myself as feeling threatened, which is true.

At some point I think people have to sit down and talk, it's the only real alternative from the US and allies to keep attacking rogue nations one at a time, if we do that then we creep towards a global war against Muslims. I feel like there is a real chance of losing everything we in the West hold dear, either by legislation or by waiting and doing nothing. We are basically caught between a rock and a hard place, negotiate with terror or go to war.

Regards Mack

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

Yes, this is a big big conundrum. That poses the problem of how do you educate a population about democracy who have no understanding or frame of reference for the idea that no one is forcing them to participate in an immoral culture. I think of religious groups in America who do not let their kids watch TV or go to public schools. No one forces them to participate in what they consider an immoral culture. Their rights recieve equal protection.

The concept of equal protection even is foriegn to Sharia practicing Muslims. There is no penalty for killing a non muslim, etc.....

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

I'm talking about dehumanizing other people and all you can do is be appalled about killing for the protection of property? How revealing.....

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about dehumanizing other people and all you can do is be appalled about killing for the protection of property? How revealing.....

[/ QUOTE ]

How revealing of what? That you wouldn't (don't) actually kill to protect other's property? Yeah, I guess that was revealing (if it wasn't already obvious).

And who said I was appalled? I actually laughed when I read it; do you think anyone really believes you kill to protect other's property?

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have had similar thoughts about Muslims several times, they make me ashamed so I push them into the back of my thoughts and excuse myself as feeling threatened, which is true

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to be ashamed. You're human. You're allowed to feel threatened and make yourself comfortable about dealing with the threat in any way you need to.

[ QUOTE ]
At some point I think people have to sit down and talk

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck. How do you make someone sit down and negotiate with the "Great Satan?"

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like there is a real chance of losing everything we in the West hold dear, either by legislation or by waiting and doing nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

If you were looting my neighbors house, I'd happily kill you. Obviously, there are degrees. You should be able to appreciate the differences, being the subtle, nuanced mind that you are.

Convienent you forget all about the arguements of degree when they don't suit you.

X

Re: I\'ve been Thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you were looting my neighbors house, I'd happily kill you. Obviously, there are degrees. You should be able to appreciate the differences, being the subtle, nuanced mind that you are.

Convienent you forget all about the arguements of degree when they don't suit you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're claiming that there's some variables that go into your thought process of whether or not to kill to protect other's property, than your axiom/claim (you would kill to protect other's property) has no real normativity and is just empty noise. But since you admitted this already, I'm not sure why you're even bothering trying to defend it.