The debate "Freedom has limits too" was started by
May 22, 2015, 10:23 pm.
83 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
evamara posted 2 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 2 arguments, I_Voyager posted 5 arguments, toughgamer posted 1 argument, Lane posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
tr posted 1 argument, soullesschicken posted 1 argument, GetRekt posted 1 argument, amanofprogress posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
evamara, PsychDave, Sosocratese, Damn3d, soullesschicken, ibrahim, sdiop, toughgamerjerry, queenmar497, I_Voyager, WordSpeller, invincible_01, jj_jaim, DarkAngelAnarchist, DanielleR123, barca_paaras11, Sashn, PhoenixF1re, Ashna, Trance, musejay1, Sumerian, aceofhearts, Lane, sidhant, wayneSPEC, Tristanzee, Hellrazor, Katana_MC, fabby, athinus, steady_current, shawncola, Dysfunctional, srishti_pinkleaves, AngryBlogger, Alex, Dhruv, TheControversy and 44 visitors agree.
GetRekt, tr, jedty, amanofprogress, denno27, M and 7 visitors disagree.
@ GetRekt Freedom is a totally idealistic man-made concept. Because it is man-made, it is limited. That does not mean that a person or a thing cannot move outside of the limit, hence the point amanofprogress makes. Freedom from a government-people view is definitely limited though, due to the fact that a government's job is supposed to be to make communities safer and comfortable for it's people. When the USA was first born and it was "the land of opportunity" due to how much freedom was given, that did not mean that everyone was free to do what they wanted. It just meant more freedom than what other countries offered, such as freedom from religious prosecution. 100% freedom cannot exist, except in anarchy, because 100% freedom would mean no rules, no regulations, everyone do what you want. So freedom is limited(it is man-made), but that does not mean that somebody or something cannot pass the limit.
"The implication that the implication of divided matter from a singularity is an expanding fabric of spacetime that is moving matter both in space and time, with an upper limit in speeds and lower limit in scales and a possible reliance on other hithertoo unobserved dimensions and physics bring up more questions than can be answered. " was unclear. I should have wrote,
"The implication that dimension is an implication of matter divided from the state of a singularity into forms of matter or quantized energy expanding from that single point along the fabric of spacetime with an upper of speeds there-in and lower limit in scales, is that there may be dimensions unrelated with our matter upon which our universe rests. This raises more questions than have yet been asked, let alone answers. More realities which are currently unknown than have been observed or even rationalized."
You must misunderstand that our statement of "laws" are fallible. The object of inquiry exists and its nature is finite, our laws are a representation of our understanding. Apparent "laws" or restrictions can be pushed back, reduced, even change from strong influences to small influences. But there are finite thresholds of nature... Therefore if nebula grows to a size, that size is permitted by its nature. If our laws fail to describe it, our laws must be re-evaluated. Science is this process constantly of informing ourselves of the universe by observing it, and then remodeling our thought-concepts of it by the fact of that observation related to thers.
As for your last statement about light, you must understand is it's not the matter of the universe that's expanding faster than the speed of light, it's the fabric of spacetime. Being a mere dimension it is not constrained to the laws of matter. Matter cannot move faster than the speed of light. When the the galaxies of the universe are moving away from each other, it is in part because of the spreading of the fabric of spacetime. Personally I find thinking about this dizzying. The implication that the implication of divided matter from a singularity is an expanding fabric of spacetime that is moving matter both in space and time, with an upper limit in speeds and lower limit in scales and a possible reliance on other hithertoo unobserved dimensions and physics bring up more questions than can be answered. But such is the beauty of the mystery of the cosmos.
Mind you I'm not a physicist so I don't have all this broken down to the math, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about the relationship between matter and force and space. Keep in mind that for all our physics knowledge, these three things have schools of physics studying them which are distinct from eachother and we don't yet know how their relationship truly works. Yet we know that they are together, for all matter at any scale exists in a position of spacetime and is moving in relation to other matter and the forces they push upon eachother inform eachother of their position and their movement, their attraction or their momentum.
nothing in he cosmos has limts. this is proven as many nebulae expqnd more than the laws of physics say that a single entity can be. also the universe expands at the speed of ligt, yet the universe itself is not light. this breaks he laws of physics AGAIN as anything traveling at the speed of ligt must become light. therefore freedom has no limits as the pan-ultimate limit, the limits of physics, are broken.
Jerry, are you asking me this or GetRekt?
That's an impossible statement GetRekt. Because by our nature we live in a universe with limits. You'll never escape them, so a philosophy of freedom which claims "freedom is to have no limits" cannot accurately capture what freedom must be in the real, objective universe. Therefore for freedom to be true, the definition of freedom must fit within the fact of limitations.
Yes it is still freedom. Like evamara said, our freedom ends, where someone else's begins. They have the freedom to live so we do not have the freedom to murder them. Freedom is being able to live without being in fear for your life from the government. The laws are put in place to protect us. If someone is disobeying those laws then they will be punished. Not through torture but through doing time in jail. I don't see how not being able to murder someone without consequences is saying that we are not free. If you could please elaborate on how you see not being able to murder someone means that we are not free.
well, its not "freedom" if it has limits. very simple
This is incorrect.
Rights are things we are all owed in order for them to be viable to any of us. Consider murder. You cannot be free to murder people. You can murder people. But you won't be free to do it, because once you've murdered a person you've challenged all their loved ones and anyone else who feels obligated to achieve justice, be it the personal justice, filial justice or social justice that they are free to engage in. You are now no longer free, but rather, you are prey hunted by those you wronged.
True laws and rights are justified by the physics of social relationships. You are free if everyone around you is free. You are not free when one of them takes liberties with your rights, nor are you free when you oppress others. The king is forced to fulfill the minimum conditions to protect his throne to be king, and could not do otherwise.
Im totally agree with you
Does that give us the right to kill another person and not have discipline for doing so? no. We have laws and we have the freedom to make our own decisions but every decision has consequences whether they are good or bad. Those laws are the boundaries of our freedom. The freedom that your talking about is not freedom, it's chaos.
@tr freedom has also limits, our freedom ends when the freedom of another person begins.
Freedom has no limits, the limits you're referring to are the invisible barriers enforced by society, allowing us to see right from wrong and normal from abnormal.