0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think it's all a load of old rowlocks.There is no such thing as "neagative freedom". Freedom can only have a positive value. Seems to me these socialist scientist types need to crack the old math books a bit more.
A freedom to kill, surely would have a negative value.
Freedom ranges from total freedom (totally unconstrained) to almost no freedom.How can it be negative?
I was relating it to your statement, under berlin a freedom to kill is a positive freedom. I said neagtive value interms of it being bad and so negative. under that positive freedom are good freedoms used for the benefit of others and society and negative freedoms the reverse.
Fine very well I do ofcourse have an issue with the idea that calling the people incharge pigs is a justification for having the thread locked, George Orwell did the same!
Quote from: Littlestone on 13/08/2010 11:31:54Fine very well I do ofcourse have an issue with the idea that calling the people incharge pigs is a justification for having the thread locked, George Orwell did the same!I was under the impression that Orwell chose pigs as the animal villains because they are considered the smartest of farmyard animals. Obviously, Pigs is slang for police in some places, which may have influenced him (or is it visa versa?).I didn't see the post that got your thread locked, but it wouldn't seem too bright to call the moderators (on any site) derogatory names [Except JimBob. I've heard he's except! [:0]]
They can do anything, with complete immunity!
Quote from: Littlestone on 13/08/2010 15:52:55They can do anything, with complete immunity!Then I'd stop sticking your head above the parapet, if I were you!I think you're talking aboutConspiracy_theorynotnegative liberty (or negative freedom)
Quote from: peppercorn on 13/08/2010 16:23:14Quote from: Littlestone on 13/08/2010 15:52:55They can do anything, with complete immunity!Then I'd stop sticking your head above the parapet, if I were you!thats a threat, threats do not scare me little boy and I think you have just acted against the rules of the fourm!
Quote from: Littlestone on 13/08/2010 15:52:55They can do anything, with complete immunity!Then I'd stop sticking your head above the parapet, if I were you!
At the heart of his theories lies the idea that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke[NB: that's wikipedia not uncyclopedia ]
OK. I am going to try and be reasoned and reasonable...1. Littlestone - you're ranting and raving. calm down, stop casting aspersions, and I, at least, would prefer it if you were more measured in your replies. your ideas are not without merit; Variola and I have both tried to be open to this discussion and yet your response has been derision and scorn. If you do really care about this topic, you will serve your end better by cool debate rather than barely coherent polemic. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph I would be happy to continue this discussion as I believe it has areas of truth and you express it with gusto.2. Jimbob - to defend the concept slightly I would have to point out that hard concrete evidence in an arena constrained by subjectivity is difficult to obtain. Even more so in a particular subject area like this one; if objective evidence was available (or perhaps more pertinently accepted by protagonists) then a conspiracy theory would no longer be a conspiracy theory. To an extent, as much as can be done is to provide a set of ideas that are logically coherent and do not raise more objections than they settle. Suffice it to say at present that states have existed that exercised control over the populace through mental health medication, physical repression and ideology to a lesser and greater extent. In general; discussion upon these ideas are fraught and the participants must take care not to alienate and antagonise. It is quite possible that every proposition will challenge much that the other members of the debate hold dear - this is the case with much of the critical studies realm. critical theory involves challenging that which is held as axiomatic - sometimes this is very enlightening, other times it is total bollox. unfortunately objective division of the elucidating from the balls is nigh impossible.I hope the great scientific intellects of this forum (and I mean that most sincerely ladies and gentlemen) will cut the odd social scientist a little slack on this matter - there is just no point asking for the scientific method in this form of theory; but please do not think this means that academically the subject is shorn of rigour.Ok - that's off my chest. Pub-bound soonMatthew