flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > what is freedom?

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
I will defer to your greater knowledge of china tom.

Quote:

The strongest, and wealthiest absolutely dominate everyone else, and the poorest are enslaved.


Although you seem to possess the most amazing ability to wade through U.S propaganda and come to your own conclusion, statements like this show you're not immune from it altogether. You fail to consider that a population of a billion plus may be the reason that the great majority of people are enslaved by poverty and it's got nothing to do with the rich enslaving the poor. Add a billion people to the U.S population and probably the same would occur. China and India have billion plus populations, India is a democracy, yet it isn't immune to a billion people being enslaved by poverty.


To restate my original point in a different way, china shuns religion and in thousands of years of history, they've never invaded another country. The U.S promotes religion and they invade other countries all the time .... conclusion, religion makes people prisoners to hatred, hence no freedom!
Post 19 Jun 2007, 22:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
MichaelH wrote:
...they've [China] never invaded another country....

http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white2.html
Post 20 Jun 2007, 12:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
MichaelH wrote:
china shuns religion and in thousands of years of history, they've never invaded another country. The U.S promotes religion and they invade other countries all the time .... conclusion, religion makes people prisoners to hatred, hence no freedom!
That is some seriously bad reasoning.

I eat meat and I've never committed genocide. Hitler was a vegetarian and he killed 6 million Jews .... conclusion, vegetarianism makes you a genocidal dictator!
Post 20 Jun 2007, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Quote:

That is some seriously bad reasoning.


Thousands of years of religious wars as my evidence tells me my reasoning is sound. It's totally clear to me that any religion that states it's god is the one and only true god will do nothing more that alienate those who follow a different religion ...... my reasoning is sound!


Well tom if we're gonna get down to debates like Tibet which china views as part of china, maybe we should also suggest the U.S gives California back to Mexico!
Post 20 Jun 2007, 21:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
MichaelH wrote:
suggest the U.S gives California back to Mexico!
You won't find me arguing that point. The USA stole California, Texas, N.Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada from Mexico. I was always puzzled by one thing though. Cinco de Mayo is a HUGE holiday in Mexico, portraying the heroism and sacrifices of the soldiers against the tyrants who invaded Mexico. Only problem is that the tryrants were FRENCH, not the USA. Holy Cow!!! The French, gosh, what a tiny incursion, NOTHING compared to the terrible destruction of Mexico wrought by USA.
Well, anyway, back to Freedom:
THE FASM BOARD represents freedom. We could not have discussions like these, without that Freedom.
China and Tibet: Sorry, I cannot agree with you, at all, on these three "invasions", (1) TaiWan, invaded by BeiJing in the late 19th century, to impose tax collection on the island which had been a refuge from civil wars on the mainland for MILLENIA. When the Japanese invaded in 1895, the population REJOICED, because of the expulsion of the detested BeiJing tax collectors. TaiWan, during the next 50 years NEVER rebelled against Japanese authority, in part because of linguistic similartities between the Japanese language, and the language of MANY, but not all, of the "indigenous" inhabitants of TaiWan is Hakka, the language which also represented that of many of the boatloads of immigrants to Japan 2000 years ago, when Hakka (KeJiaHua, in PuTongHua) was THE DOMINANT language of "China".
(2) Tibet was NEVER a part of China. It's invasion by China was pure naked aggression, and the justification identical to Hitler's claim upon the Balkans, Ukraine, and parts of Russia, because of 17 century immigrations by German traders, craftsmen, and farmers. Linguistically, Tibetan has as much in common with Chinese as English has with Persian.
(3) VietNam, which was invaded SEVERAL times by various CHinese emperors, most recently, in 1979, or so, memory is fading, I am not certain of the exact dates.....

If you wish to include Tibet with China, then, you must also include Mongolia, oops, what about Ghenghis Khan???? Or his grandson Kublai????
Or his son in law, Timur the lame?? Those three guys laid waste to an awful lot of land between "China" and the Seine River in Paris.
About logic: I concur with Goplat, that your reasoning is in error. I am in sympathy with your fundamental perspective, i.e. religion is harmful, however, OUTLAWING a particular type of thinking seems to me to be also not productive. Better, in my opinion, is to demonstrate the fallacies of all religions, and then let folks make up their own minds.
Post 20 Jun 2007, 22:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Indeed your points about who owns what piece of land and who invaded who to steel that land are all valid. I guess it all comes down to lines on a map and who is looking at what map .... in the end it turns into a pointless argument.



Quote:

About logic: I concur with Goplat, that your reasoning is in error.


That's fine, usually when I state my opinion on this subject, I'm a lone voice.


Quote:

I am in sympathy with your fundamental perspective, i.e. religion is harmful, however, OUTLAWING a particular type of thinking seems to me to be also not productive. Better, in my opinion, is to demonstrate the fallacies of all religions, and then let folks make up their own minds.



Your reasoning is flawed by the fact that when is comes to religion, the human mind stops reasoning. The only way I can see for a country to stop parents teaching their children the "US and THEM" teachings that all religions teach, is to outlaw such teachings. I'm not holding China up as a perfect state at all, just saying that in my opinion outlawing religion is a good thing, not a bad thing as the western world teaches.

You know as well as I do tom, the crusades of the U.S are not about democracy against communism but rather religion against the typical communism view that religion should be outlawed. If it was about democracy then I guess Humas, having won the last election in Palestine, would still be in power.
Post 20 Jun 2007, 23:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
The USA stole California, Texas, N.Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Nevada from Mexico.


Santa Anna did sign over Texas. Pressure or not, he did sign it over.

Now for the rest. See, one problem. Technically, no one owns any land. If you give back all land that was concured, we not only have people who have been whiped out to give it back to, but no one has any land if you go further back than that. The US conqured the indians to get the land they didn't take from mexico and the british. The british took land from the indians. Canada... They did, too, but that was before they got their indipendance, though they were welcomed by the indians (indians in referance to the native americans). Israel was conqured a long time ago by the Hebrew (now called the Jews). Later it was taken from them, but now they have it back again. Gauls (french) conqured land likely. Briton (britain) probably conqured that island. And many more examples. Technically, settling is also conquring. You're conquring the animals out of their homes, but since i'm not big on animals having equal or better rights than humans i won't sit and argue that. Are we going to give the United States back to the extinct tribes and stuff? I don't think so. I do believe that when you conqure something you inherit their land, but, on the contrary, i don't believe people should go out and conqure just for land. It has been a system that has guided us before we had the UN making politics (instead of results) all the time. I believe in it. I say that if a country goes out and conqures another country and takes their land, yea it was wrong, but tough noogies. If you don't run over, get a bunch of big allies. It's as simple as that. Right now it's a bunch of politics, and that'll end up ruining us because eventually some one will turn back to that system again and take over alot of land while we sit there and say "heeeeeey, you can't do that." Well apparently they have. Problem with the new system such as the UN that people love so dear is that it's all talk and no results. The talk only works when the ones you're talking to do what they say they're going to do. The reality of how things are isn't as simple as all the talk. Yea, going to war for no reson is wrong, but we must remember that what is right and wrong isn't always. And that's all my opinion on things, and if you want to differ, fine, but i am sure things will change eventually. I belive it's only a matter of time.

Quote:
Your reasoning is flawed by the fact that when is comes to religion, the human mind stops reasoning. The only way I can see for a country to stop parents teaching their children the "US and THEM" teachings that all religions teach, is to outlaw such teachings.


In most religions, the only "US and THEM" is how you shouldn't think. The problem is religion becomes used for propoganda. Some people have a tendancy to forget the "love thy neighbor" part of all religions and listen to the "we have more rights than them" BS that politics hand us. Now is the same as before, only we have athiesm to add to the propoganda and it's now "self defence" and "self preservation" rather than "we have more rights."

Quote:
I'm not holding China up as a perfect state at all, just saying that in my opinion outlawing religion is a good thing, not a bad thing as the western world teaches.


Even asia thinks it's a bad thing. Many asian countries are also very religious. Especially the Middle east asia region. I don't know if they are classified as western or not. Now personally i do believe that China has some advantages over the United States and other countries in their government, but i don't believe the banning of religion is one of them.

Quote:
You know as well as I do tom, the crusades of the U.S are not about democracy against communism but rather religion against the typical communism view that religion should be outlawed. If it was about democracy then I guess Humas, having won the last election in Palestine, would still be in power.


The US spreads Republics not Democracy. The "Red Scare" has ended, btw. It's actually conservative US against the conservative middle east (they have dictatorships which are on the right wing, rather than the left which is where communism is) while the liberals are just caught in the crossfire by shooting off their mouths. When two conservative ideas collide, there isn't much talking can do. Conservative clashes can only be served with conservative answers, while liberal clashes can only be solved with liberal answers. That's what people don't see. By the way, the moderates are just sick of the whole thing, which isn't an entirely new concept.
Post 21 Jun 2007, 07:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
freedom is a word
Post 26 Jun 2007, 23:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
right, and we were trying to describe common meaning of that word as good as we could
Post 27 Jun 2007, 00:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
yeah i'll drink a beer and find the solution
glup glup glup
for me freedom is a floating point value in 1024bit and for governments, company mafia and other it must become a single bit

really freedom is the choise of the instant
it is the possibility to choose
and the possibility to don't choose
it's a value that ends where begins the freedom of the others

la liberté des uns s'arrete là où celle des autres commence
Post 22 Sep 2007, 01:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
xanatose



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 57
xanatose
Vikings believe that the only free man is the one able to protect themselves. For that reason, when the people are not allowed to carry weapons they are not free, since people must be able to overthrow their goverment when the needs arises. Otherwise they live in a fantasy of freedom. Like sheeps waithing for the slaughter.

It have always amused me how is that people fighting wars for the state (in reality for economical elites) are believe to be heroes. And people that fight their own wars are believed as criminals or terrorists. It takes more courage to fight ones wars than to go and fight others people wars.

As for land. In reality nobody owns the land, instead control by force the land. Either by one self, or utilizing the help of goverment. Goverments are like gangs protecting their turf. When they cannot protect it, some other gang takes control, and so on.
Post 09 Oct 2007, 17:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
Xanatose Wink

My congratulations... you are getting so very close to the truth ...

Hence, because no single man ca stand on his own (and win or at least do not lose ground) in front of a full US Army or in front of a national army, or even in front of an lightly armed policeman...

Nobody if free anymore...
Post 09 Oct 2007, 22:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8864
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
or there is not greater enemy other than fear, once you win the battle, you win the freedom...
Post 09 Oct 2007, 23:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Post 13 Oct 2007, 21:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
"Your software must be free as in beard." Stallman

I guess this is freedom. Razz
Post 13 Oct 2007, 23:17
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
vid wrote:
...we were trying to describe common meaning of that word as good as we could...

Key words are "common meaning":
edfed wrote:
...really freedom is the choise of the instant
it is the possibility to choose and the possibility to don't choose ...

not quite adequate, in my opinion, for example, consider breathing. Imagine having a terminal disease, say cancer, and wanting to terminate one's own life, rather than suffer needless pain. How to accomplish this? Easy, right? One simply stops breathing. Try it. Hold your breath. You cannot choose to stop breathing. But, does that mean, since we lack the choice to stop breathing, or, we lack the ability to choose to not breathe, that we lack freedom? I don't think so.
xanatose wrote:
...Vikings believe that the only free man is the one able to protect themselves...
Hmm. Sadly, circumstances arise, where ownership of an ARSENAL of weapons will not suffice to "protect" oneself against harmful disease--a stroke for example, or epilepsy, or presbyacusis. Does that mean that a person with cataracts is not free? What about the heavily armed man living alone in the woods with hand grenades and tomahawks and machine guns? What happens when he falls asleep? Will not someone stealthily strangle him with a simple piece of twine, in the dead of night, notwithstanding all of his many weapons? Imagine a heavily armed Viking, with laser guided missiles, walking through the forest. What about a simple bow and arrow, aimed at the knee? A little poison on the arrow, and down goes the mighty warrior, permanently.
xanatose wrote:

It have always amused me how is that people fighting wars for the state (in reality for economical elites) are believe to be heroes. And people that fight their own wars are believed as criminals or terrorists. It takes more courage to fight ones wars than to go and fight others people wars.
I agree with everything you have written, save "amuse", for it SADDENS me, not amuses me, when I see men and women with artificial limbs in Korea, VietNam, and Iraq.
bogdan wrote:
...you are getting so very close to the truth ...

OOPS. Wow. How do we know "the truth"? As vid pointed out, we seek to clarify "freedom", by attempting to explain it. I cannot fathom any explanation, no matter how profound, representing "the truth", regarding the definition of this word. But, I do agree with you, xanatose' writing is right on target, according to my perspective.
sleepsleep wrote:
or there is not greater enemy other than fear, once you win the battle, you win the freedom...
I am sure many will agree with you, I however do not, for I think there are certainly enemies far more significant than fear. I am afraid of disease, let us say, for example, and with counseling, help from friends, neighbors, or various kinds of books, maybe even so called "holy" books, perhaps I overcome this fear of disease and venture out into the world, where I come into contact with illness, filth, poverty, etc. Now I am free??? I don't think so. I have managed to overcome my fear, I have left my safe, sterile home, and mingled with others, contaminating my environment, sure now to become ill, but I am just as enslaved or free, as I was, prior to leaving the house: I still cannot stop the senseless brutality and killing in Iraq, for example. I lack the freedom to compel intelligence, honesty, and empathy on the part of other human beings who behave with brutishness. I am still trapped with the same incapacity to commence creative thought.

rugxulo's brilliant and humorous rejoinder is appreciated!
Ozzy's skepticism is justified, in my opinion.

I would point to three great monuments in the history of mankind:
Taj Mahal, for me the most beautiful building I have ever seen;
Great Wall of China, maybe the largest manmade structure;
Pyramids of Egypt, probably the most famous human accomplishment.
What do all three have in common?
answer: built with slave labor.
Thousands and thousands of people died constructing these huge monuments. Almost all of the people enslaved to carry out the tasks associated with construction of these huge buildings, did so involuntarily. Was their freedom denied? I would argue that it was. But, consider the alternative: no compulsion, no death, no enslavement of those multitudes, AND NO MONUMENTS. At least those who died, enslaved, suffering terribly at the hands and whips of their "masters" created something of great beauty, and lasting accomplishment.

What about creativity? Was J.S. Bach FREE to compose whatever he wanted? Not really, was he? He had constraints imposed upon him, by the Christian church (Protestant, Lutheran). Those "fantastic" cantatas and organ works, which I adore, represent LACK of freedom. He was OBLIGED by church officials to compose, weekly, these lyrical masterpieces for the celebration of various aspects of the religious ceremony. If he did not compose, he did not eat. (Bach ALSO wrote non-religious works, for example, the Brandenburg Concerti, also masterpieces, in my opinion, so, yes, one can argue that he did enjoy freedom.) What if Bach had not been obliged to work in Leipzig, at St. Thomas Kirche, would he still have created those same wonderful compositions? Maybe not, since it was economic imperative, to feed his family, that led to his compostions in that genre. Is there any circumstance where LACK of freedom leads to increased productivity, increased accomplishment, overall gain for society?

What about children? What happens when they grow up in an environment which does not demand LACK OF FREEDOM, requirement to attend school, not freedom to choose whether or not to study? Look about you: how many FASM forum members play musical instruments? Your parents had FREEDOM to give you a terrific education, or, contrarily, to ignore your education. Did you acquire greater skills, by virtue of having the choice whether or not to study? Was that freedom?
Post 14 Oct 2007, 09:00
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
xanatose



Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 57
xanatose
tom tobias
I see your point.

But one thing is dicipline. And another slavery. Rules should have a reason to be, the default should be freedom, not slavery.

Ideally, rules should be decided and understood by the people. not by a small group. In reality, lack of dicipline by the people stops this from happening. So interesting enough, its the freedom not to know or choose and lack of dicipline, that brings slavery and a police state.

With todays technology, is possible for the people to decide over and propose laws by themselves. There is no real need for the middle man in creating our laws. However there will always be need for a general administrator (ADMINISTRATOR, not RULER), since it will be impractical to have the people vote for administrative measures. Think of the people as the owner of the company. And goverment just an administrator. If the administrator is not doing well, the owner should have the right to fire him at any moment. Also, the contract of services, should be done by the owner, not by the administrator. As well as the decission on salary.

Quote:
People should not be afraid of goverment; Goverment should be afraid of the people.

Learn this sentence in V for vendetta (not sure if its originally from it), and its truth.
Post 14 Oct 2007, 16:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.