3 ms·
I don't think your examples really count as freedoms. I agree with your point, but I don't think you need to stretch the definition of a word to make it.
by dec0dedab0de 8y ago
I don't think your examples really count as freedoms. I agree with your point, but I don't think you need to stretch the definition of a word to make it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Sharlin 8y agoBut how is the right to drive anywhere more of a freedom than those other things?
- dec0dedab0de 8y agoBecause it is told from the perspective of the activity that is allowed. Now they could have technically been stated as the freedom from {Annoying/Harmful thing}* but thats still weak. The only reason to it is to take away power from the original argument by watering down the language it used. I'm sure the op didn't mean anything by it, I just happened to be listening to a conference call with a lot of corporate speak and was particular sensitive to how words are (mis)used The actual point is that freedoms should be curtailed when they cause harm to others. In this case unchecked freedom of movement can cause harm to society in different ways, so some forms of movement are restricted. Which is already true, we have signs, lights walls, fences, licenses, etc to restrict our movement. So the argument is really about how much more should they be restricted. * EDIT, Zarath already called me out on that, but I still think it's a stretch
- Zarath 8y agoPositive freedom: Freedom to do something Negative freedom: Freedom from something
- Xylakant 8y agoMy parent made that stretch. I explicitly included other people’s freedom to do the same thing as they want to do in the list of freedoms that their freedom collides with. So call them out. I agree with your more general point though: framing the entire matter in terms of freedom is detrimental to the debate. However, it’s almost always initially done by the side that wants to retain the status quo.