Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2013, 01:35 AM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(09-10-2013 03:25 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  The problem lies with portions of society who DO take it literally.
You mean....you?

(09-10-2013 03:33 PM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  The first part without the, “as far as by it if he does not hurt or control the right of another”

Freedom is absolute. Any restriction ends freedom.

And as far as examples about waving your hands in front of someone's face. Until there's a real victim, who's the victim? And which agent of the government would you call to demand intervention? Or does hand waving equal violence, and violence should always be met with violence, so just punch a guy in the mouth for waving his arms?

No, second part is essential, your freedom stops when it starts to interfere with other people's freedom. And vice versa.

Quote: Until there's a real victim, who's the victim?
So if I shoot at you with intent to kill you but I miss your head by an inch...no harm, no foul?
If someone is waving his hands in an attempt to hit someone on the nose, yes you should stop him, and if that means punching him in the mouth, punch him in the mouth.

You know, when somebody is carrying a backpack full of explosives in the subway, it's would be kind off too late if you wait for him to use it and produce real victims, before you stop him.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:40 AM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
You should change your signature line.

Until there's a victim, there is no crime. Pre-crime is no crime. Thought crime is no crime.

If someone shoots at me in an attempt to kill but does not kill me, there is no crime. I am not injured and there's no thing I can be compensated for.

When it comes to speech, feel free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. Most humans don't have the capacity to determine when they're being propogandized to aanyways so unless the speech is so blatant "Fire, fire, fire" they don't pick up on the inherent danger in message "We gotta kill them other there before they kill us over here".

The word freedom is an explicit word. It means "without condition".

Here's the good news, I never intend to wave my arms in your face, shoot at you with the intent to kill, carry a bag of explosives onto a subway, or punch you in the nose. I hope you'll do the same for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 04:48 AM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 01:35 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(09-10-2013 03:25 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  The problem lies with portions of society who DO take it literally.
You mean....you?

Did you even read what you're quoting? My posts have been AGAINST taking it literally - to not interpret "freedom"/secular morality like that. Which people do and make arguments for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 05:08 AM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 04:40 AM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  You should change your signature line.

Until there's a victim, there is no crime. Pre-crime is no crime. Thought crime is no crime.

If someone shoots at me in an attempt to kill but does not kill me, there is no crime. I am not injured and there's no thing I can be compensated for.

When it comes to speech, feel free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. Most humans don't have the capacity to determine when they're being propogandized to aanyways so unless the speech is so blatant "Fire, fire, fire" they don't pick up on the inherent danger in message "We gotta kill them other there before they kill us over here".

The word freedom is an explicit word. It means "without condition".

Here's the good news, I never intend to wave my arms in your face, shoot at you with the intent to kill, carry a bag of explosives onto a subway, or punch you in the nose. I hope you'll do the same for me.

If someone shoots at you it is definitely a crime - it is called assault.

Where did you get your understanding of the law? Or ethics? Get your money back.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 01:28 PM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 04:40 AM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  You should change your signature line.

Until there's a victim, there is no crime. Pre-crime is no crime. Thought crime is no crime.

If someone shoots at me in an attempt to kill but does not kill me, there is no crime. I am not injured and there's no thing I can be compensated for.

When it comes to speech, feel free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. Most humans don't have the capacity to determine when they're being propogandized to aanyways so unless the speech is so blatant "Fire, fire, fire" they don't pick up on the inherent danger in message "We gotta kill them other there before they kill us over here".

The word freedom is an explicit word. It means "without condition".

Here's the good news, I never intend to wave my arms in your face, shoot at you with the intent to kill, carry a bag of explosives onto a subway, or punch you in the nose. I hope you'll do the same for me.

Attempted murder is what I believe they'd class that as, which is most certainly a crime. Also depending on where the person is it could be discharging a firearm and even purhaps brandishing a firearm.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 01:32 PM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  If someone shoots at you it is definitely a crime - it is called assault.

Obviously I agree with you Chas. But do you concede that it is VERY subjective what is considered a crime, and that not all societies agree? For Texans, shooting at someone who has entered your house without authorization may not be a crime. For New Yorkers, it may be considered criminal assault.

My question to you Chas is: Do you have any logical way of proving that your definition of a 'crime' is the right one? If not, if you're views are based on faith, rather than logic, just like religion is based on faith, then will you agree that what constitutes a crime should be left to each local community, instead of being imposed by a central-authority that claims to have all the right answers?

This is, after all, how the US is supposed to function if we follow the Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution against murder, rape, burglary, etc. It's entirely left up to the states. This doesn't mean the founders thought such things were ok. They just had the humility to admit they didn't know everything and that every state had it's own moral code.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like frankksj's post
10-10-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 04:40 AM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  You should change your signature line.

Until there's a victim, there is no crime. Pre-crime is no crime. Thought crime is no crime.

If someone shoots at me in an attempt to kill but does not kill me, there is no crime. I am not injured and there's no thing I can be compensated for.

When it comes to speech, feel free to say whatever you want, whenever you want. Most humans don't have the capacity to determine when they're being propogandized to aanyways so unless the speech is so blatant "Fire, fire, fire" they don't pick up on the inherent danger in message "We gotta kill them other there before they kill us over here".

The word freedom is an explicit word. It means "without condition".

Here's the good news, I never intend to wave my arms in your face, shoot at you with the intent to kill, carry a bag of explosives onto a subway, or punch you in the nose. I hope you'll do the same for me.

If someone shoots at you it is definitely a crime - it is called assault.

Where did you get your understanding of the law? Or ethics? Get your money back.


The law and ethics have nothing to do with each other.

Which government agent would you call and how many years would you have someone incarcerated for this "crime" of shooting a gun?

I don't live with fear nor an impulse for retribution over restitution. If someone shoots in your general direction, what is the to restore? What's the crime besides "creating fear"? And if creating fear is a crime, we should all be careful because telling someone to be careful could cause them fear, and make you guilty of some crime, too.

Either way, this thread is hyperbolic. If you want to wave your hands in front someone's face, come find me, I'll let you do it until your shoulders ache and you fingers turn blue, it's okay.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Questions about a piece of Benjamin Franklin's quotation
(10-10-2013 01:32 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 05:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  If someone shoots at you it is definitely a crime - it is called assault.

Obviously I agree with you Chas. But do you concede that it is VERY subjective what is considered a crime, and that not all societies agree? For Texans, shooting at someone who has entered your house without authorization may not be a crime. For New Yorkers, it may be considered criminal assault.

My question to you Chas is: Do you have any logical way of proving that your definition of a 'crime' is the right one? If not, if you're views are based on faith, rather than logic, just like religion is based on faith, then will you agree that what constitutes a crime should be left to each local community, instead of being imposed by a central-authority that claims to have all the right answers?

This is, after all, how the US is supposed to function if we follow the Constitution. There's nothing in the constitution against murder, rape, burglary, etc. It's entirely left up to the states. This doesn't mean the founders thought such things were ok. They just had the humility to admit they didn't know everything and that every state had it's own moral code.

It's based on the law. The particulars of the act weren't spelled out, it would in almost all cases be assault and probably assault with intent to kill.

No, the founders were balancing political realities; they weren't libertarians.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: