A Statement

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Sunday, August 17, 2025 15:39
VIEWED: 7074
PAGE 1 of 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:10 PM

"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

YINYANG

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:46 AM

I have a few ideas, but first I want to make sure I understand what the statement means. Is this statement saying that loss of freedom or loss of privacy are higher wrongs than the loss of life? Because the loss of life is the greatest loss of freedom possible. Although I guess it is pretty bad to lose freedom and privacy while still being alive, I believe death is worse because without life freedom and privacy don't and can't exist. Also, if you're alive, you can fight to gain or re-gain freedom and privacy - and even if you don't succeed you still have choices, however limited.

Another way I've interpreted the statement is that, no matter how many lives will be lost, no one should have their freedom or privacy taken away. I agree to an extent. Voluntary and temporary loss of freedom and privacy is acceptable for preservation of life, and even involuntary could be okay except in cases of misuse. (For example: as much as I understand why, some of the things done during the Civil War by the Union were awful.) This is an "the ends don't justify the means" statement, and I agree with it more than I disagree.

My $0.02 (not adjusted for inflation)

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 1:34 AM

Hello,

Well gee... If we take that statement as the absolute that it presents itself...

We could no longer put dangerous criminals in jail. Their freedom and privacy would be worth more than the lives of their victims.

I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:09 AM

Like most sweeping absolute statements it sounds good on paper but fails in practice.

LEADB

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 2:39 AM

If everyone is dead, I guess then they are -really- free.

If one person is left alive, I suppose he/she is truly free. Unless aliens come down or something ;-)

So, since I have no interest in seeing everyone on the planet dead except for me, I'm prepared to accept some limitations on my freedoms (eg: I agree to have my freedom to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater -severely- restricted)

GEEZER

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"The loss of life, no matter the amount, is not worth the loss of ONE mans freedom OR privacy"

Statements? Arguments? Ideas?

Someone decides to kill me and steal my stuff. If I kill him in self-defense, I'm pretty much depriving him of his freedom. This does not compute.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:50 AM

"I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far into the Probability Broach just yet."

I am.

Quit outlawing and vilifying self defense, and put em in the morgue instead.
Problem solved.

"Anything is possible, if you're free."

-Frem

PS. And if you're wondering what the heck we're talking about... here.
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=0

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 8:02 AM

If it saves one life it's worth it all...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 3:18 PM

I believe this statement refers to the idea that the loss of life (say in a terrorist attack) is not worth the loss of privacy and freedom (as say in cell phone monitoring, cameras on every corner, email monitoring ect ect).

Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

I dont believe it refers to the criminal/victim relationship.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 6:11 PM

Quote:
Maybe Im wrong, but how can we honestly call ourselves a free country if the government is involved in every aspect of our lives, both professional AND private?

You can't, and a lot of people think that's why the terrorists attacked. I think that's part of it. But I think mostly they just wanted to give us a taste of what they face every day - i.e. living in fear.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE