[Lord Dave]

With all the talk about the canadian trucker protests and the protests against American mandates, I see alot of "Fight for freedom" and "mandates are tyranny!"

And it got me thinking... What is freedom?  How do we define it?  Where is that line where you stop being free and start being a slave or oppressed?

Which got me to the hypothetical question: is a bear free?

The bear is a wild bear in the woods somewhere.  (So no zoo animals)
Beyond that is a normal bear in the world.
Does it have freedom?


Pro:
He can shit anywhere he wants.
He's large enough that few predators will mess with him.
He can eat what he wants when he wants.

Con:
Humans hunt him.
Other bears may kill him.
Humans are constantly taking land, making your area to roam smaller or more densely populates. (ie. More bears in an area)
He is bound by biological processes like hybernation. 
Lacks sentience. (Maybe)



So... Is a bear free?

[JSS]

In the most extreme interpretation nobody can be free unless they are alone in the universe.

If two beings with free will exist in the same location, they now are unable to do everything they want because there is another will to oppose them.

No freedom is absolute.

Even alone, you are not free to disobey the laws of physics.

Any debate on freedom is a actually a debate on the limits of that freedom, it's pretty self evident that freedom itself is never going to be complete.

[garygreen]

dave, you're getting at the difference between freedom and liberty.

[Rama Set]

dave, you're getting at the difference between freedom and liberty.

Or negative vs positive freedom

[Lord Dave]

dave, you're getting at the difference between freedom and liberty.

I know nothing of bear society so I figured freedom was the better word to use.

[AATW]

In the most extreme interpretation nobody can be free unless they are alone in the universe.

That is extreme. I have this debate with someone on another board.
They describe themselves as a libertarian, but their issues seem to be mostly ideological rather than practical.
In practice we are pretty much free to do as we please in most Western countries but there is a societal contract which limits that freedom.
For most people it's a fair exchange though - you give up some freedoms, you pay taxes but in exchange you get safety and infrastructure.
If you want to go live on a desert island then sure, you can pretty much do as you please then because your actions won't affect anyone else. But while you're living in a society freedom as he defines it doesn't exist - can't exist. And I suspect, for all his whining, he does actually want all the infrastructure and the comfort and safety that brings.

[Action80]

Free to communicate? - According to the OP and most others here, that should be done away with by any means possible, typically via the following methods: First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible. Second. label the communication as false. Repeat. Finally, if all else fails, demand harsh consequences be inflicted because the communication must be false...look who communicated it...
Free to defend? Not hardly.
Free assembly? Ha!

All these are inherent by nature, Providence, whatever you want to call it.

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

[Rama Set]

Free to communicate? - According to the OP and most others here, that should be done away with by any means possible, typically via the following methods: First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible. Second. label the communication as false. Repeat. Finally, if all else fails, demand harsh consequences be inflicted because the communication must be false...look who communicated it...
Free to defend? Not hardly.
Free assembly? Ha!

All these are inherent by nature, Providence, whatever you want to call it.

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

This sounds like you, to be honest.

[Action80]

Free to communicate? - According to the OP and most others here, that should be done away with by any means possible, typically via the following methods: First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible. Second. label the communication as false. Repeat. Finally, if all else fails, demand harsh consequences be inflicted because the communication must be false...look who communicated it...
Free to defend? Not hardly.
Free assembly? Ha!

All these are inherent by nature, Providence, whatever you want to call it.

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

This sounds like you, to be honest.

Hardly.

I did forget to add one thing.

Non-committal in written communication, with frequent displays of mental reservation and equivocation, are hallmarks of those who would most want actual freedom practiced.

Oh, let us not forget an oldie but a goody...

feigning tremendous personal harm has been done to themselves when simple, accurate words are used, such as normal and abnormal are used as accurate adjectives, and the person using such adjectives absolutely must be silenced.

[Rama Set]

Hardly.

Let’s go through your list:

First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible

From the banlist:

Action80   Repeated personal attacks. ~junker

Check.

Second. label the communication as false

Quit typing incorrect information and falsehoods.

Check.

Finally, if all else fails, demand harsh consequences be inflicted because the communication must be false

Kind of like your creepy list you were keeping or reporting me for asking that a detailed thread be split to the appropriate forum.

Yup. Definitely sounds like you.

[JSS]

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

That is some highly exaggerated hyperbole and it doesn't even matter who you're talking about.  Nobody here on any side is even close to being on the top 100 list of "most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed."

Read The Boy that Cried Wolf.  If everything is the "worst ever" then nobody will take you seriously someday when you really mean it.

[Action80]

Hardly.

Let’s go through your list:

First, denigrate the presenter by any means possible

From the banlist:

Action80   Repeated personal attacks. ~junker

Check.

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

This site contains some of the most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed.

That is some highly exaggerated hyperbole and it doesn't even matter who you're talking about.  Nobody here on any side is even close to being on the top 100 list of "most ardent anti-freedom entities ever witnessed."

Read The Boy that Cried Wolf.  If everything is the "worst ever" then nobody will take you seriously someday when you really mean it.

Wrong, most, including you, cheered on mask and vaccine mandates, mocking those opposed as anti-vaxxers, additionally adding the possible motivation for those opposed to such measures as being personal freedom.

You were correct in the assessment as to their motivation and then demonstrated your  opposition to their position by attributing a supposed quote, "muh freedoms."

[Rama Set]

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

It's you following your plan, according to your own criteria; that's pretty obvious.

[Action80]

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

It's you following your plan, according to your own criteria; that's pretty obvious.

Engagement of opposition within a defined enclosure =/= the parameters of the OP.  Anything obvious seems to be a matter of subjectivity on your part.

[Rama Set]

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

It's you following your plan, according to your own criteria; that's pretty obvious.

Engagement of opposition within a defined enclosure =/= the parameters of the OP.  Anything obvious seems to be a matter of subjectivity on your part.

This is the problem with your “plan” in the first place. It will always require considerable subjectivity. Regardless, you frequently attack the poster rather than the content, declare people’s statements as falsehoods and try and you have definitely tried to prompt moderator action on them. You fit your own description of someone who is anti-freedom. Seeing as this is not a public forum, it seems nonsensical to assert these freedoms here, but hey ho.

[Action80]

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

It's you following your plan, according to your own criteria; that's pretty obvious.

Engagement of opposition within a defined enclosure =/= the parameters of the OP.  Anything obvious seems to be a matter of subjectivity on your part.

This is the problem with your “plan” in the first place. It will always require considerable subjectivity. Regardless, you frequently attack the poster rather than the content, declare people’s statements as falsehoods and try and you have definitely tried to prompt moderator action on them. You fit your own description of someone who is anti-freedom. Seeing as this is not a public forum, it seems nonsensical to assert these freedoms here, but hey ho.

Thank you for pointing out the off topic nature of your reply.

Now, back to the subject of why personal liberties are being extinguished.

A great deal of the "why," is embodied by multiple entities present in this forum.

[Rama Set]

Explain how said denigrating in any particular instance you care to present is directed toward a purpose of eliminating personal liberty outside the confines of this forum.

Same goes for the rest of the issues you raise.

Answer- they don't.

It's you following your plan, according to your own criteria; that's pretty obvious.

Engagement of opposition within a defined enclosure =/= the parameters of the OP.  Anything obvious seems to be a matter of subjectivity on your part.

This is the problem with your “plan” in the first place. It will always require considerable subjectivity. Regardless, you frequently attack the poster rather than the content, declare people’s statements as falsehoods and try and you have definitely tried to prompt moderator action on them. You fit your own description of someone who is anti-freedom. Seeing as this is not a public forum, it seems nonsensical to assert these freedoms here, but hey ho.

Thank you for pointing out the off topic nature of your reply.

Now, back to the subject of why personal liberties are being extinguished.

A great deal of the "why," is embodied by multiple entities present in this forum.

Discussing an aspect of the freedoms being debated on this forum that may or may not result in a changing of one's worldview is perfectly in line with the OP.

Reported.

[Dr David Thork]

A bear is not subject to any laws. A bear is free.

Sure, the bear has rivals ... but that isn't the same thing. A King has rivals who may conquer his empire and kill him. Doesn't make the king subjugated.

[WTF_Seriously]

A bear is not subject to any laws. A bear is free.

A bear won't be allowed to set up life in the middle of your nearest park.  It will be either relocated or killed.

[Dr David Thork]

A bear is not subject to any laws. A bear is free.

A bear won't be allowed to set up life in the middle of your nearest park.  It will be either relocated or killed.

Because a bear has rivals. But it isn't avoiding the park because it respects other people's property rights and fears legal recompense. I could just as easily be forced from a park by an enormous aggressive dog that isn't on a lead. That doesn't mean the dog is my master.