2 ms·
Thank you, that was a very clear and succinct rebuttal. I would add to it, that "advancing freedom" is one of those phrases that is, when you examine it, quite
by drunkpotato 16y ago
Thank you, that was a very clear and succinct rebuttal.
I would add to it, that "advancing freedom" is one of those phrases that is, when you examine it, quite poorly defined. Freedom is more a set of associations than a strict definition, though I'm sure one can find philosophers who have attempted to strictly define it, so you get "freedom sub Professor X". Freedom is much easier to talk about in the abstract than to define, and lends itself to pithy (or, less charitably, glib) phrases that can be twisted to whatever one's own definition of freedom is.
My original post was flippant and lacking in nuance, to be sure (still not warranting the personal attack; I do, in fact, attempt to point out logical fallacies and bring about reasonable discourse). I am not immune to making the odd sound-bite myself, though calling my post cynical and then making a strawman attack also does not advance the cause of rationality.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago"advancing freedom" is one of those phrases that is, when you examine it, quite poorly defined I agree, which is why I instead used the term "liberty" in some places. While the term "freedom" has in modern times become clouded particularly with the notion of "positive" freedoms, I believe that the term "liberty" tends to be more strongly associated with the more traditional notions of "negative" liberty. But I must concede that even this difference is at the grossest level, and there remain much more nuanced differences in definition beyond the negative/positive distinction.