Quote from: GameDaddy;1085083Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of moral obligation or moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of freedom.

...I don't think I did, because that was certainly not in my intent. Can you show me where so I don't make that mistake again?

When I speak of moral responsibility, that's always an internal thing and does not care whether or not you have an audience.

QuoteIf one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.

For me, this is where it passes into the realm of the religious though, as I believe we cannot be truly free while a slave to sin, which required me to become a slave to something else so I could be free of that sin, and in becoming a slave to that something else, He truly set me free as His child.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1085028Originally Posted by GeekyBugle View Post
I'm Maya, Born, raised and Living in México City, I'm not a "Person of Color".

Of course not...

...because you're a "Non-Black Person of Color"

Yeah, fuckers want to classify us by race, gender, etc and then to discriminate based on that. They can go eff themselves. With a Sahuaro cactus.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085083Almost. Here is the notable difference in our approach to Freedom... When you speak of moral obligation or moral responsibility in upholding Freedom, both of those events require an audience or third party to witness, because the audience is making the judgement whether your definition of freedom is correct, or you are are fulfilling the goal of ensuring freedom for others.

If one is truly free, an individual would automatically do the right thing even if a witness were not present, and ensure the freedom of everyone else around them.

This is the difference between a leader and a follower. A leader does what is right, because it is the right thing to do. A follower does what is right, because someone else is watching, and judging them, and thus they have the obligation to behave correctly or right. Whether they really believe or not that what they are doing is ensuring freedom, or believe in the freedom or in doing the right thing, is still open for debate.

Au contraire, if you're not free to commit a crime, and suffer the consequences of your actions you're not free. Both of you are arguing about the moral obligation not to transgress other people's rights.

How would the government or anybody go about stopping criminals from committing crimes? It's impossible, because they aren't criminals until they commit a crime. Unless you think precrime is a good idea.

Pedos go in the internet searching for Pr0n that floats their boat. Without infringing the rights of people that haven't committed a crime (yet), how do you stop pedo-X who has never before gone searching for those materials to do so? You can't and worst, trying to do so only makes it harder to get the sickos who produce said material, prolonging their operation time and ensuring more kids will suffer at their hands.

Liberty is dangerous, but I rather live in a dangerous liberty than in a safe slavery (or dictatorship if you think them a different thing).

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085084For me, this is where it passes into the realm of the religious though, as I believe we cannot be truly free while a slave to sin, which required me to become a slave to something else so I could be free of that sin, and in becoming a slave to that something else, He truly set me free as His child.

This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).

To choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.

Do you believe living in a world without sin would be the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this? This question is for you as well Geeky Bugle.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085093This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).

To choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.

Do you believe living in a world without sin would the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this? This question is for you as well Geeky Bugle.

It would depend, is said world free of sin because you can't sin? Or is it free of sin because people can but don't? If you can't then we need to determine why you can't. Is there a perpetual big brother watching your every step and using algorythms to predict your sins and punishing you before you ever commit them? This would have a chilling effect and people would stop doing certain things. Therefore people aren't free.

If you can't because for some (non-coercive) reason you're unable to even think about it, then you're free.

This is like talking about Heaven as if it were Earth. Also it's almost denying that there are people sick in the head that truly can't see the difference between good and evil. Or that there are also people sick in the head who can but will do evil things anyway.

Does the end justify the means?

EDIT: I am free, because I do what I choose to do, it just happens that I don't choose to do evil shit. I'm fully capable of thinking about doing evil shit, but I choose not do do it and to not even think it, since it's a waste of time to fantasize abt taking revenge on X if you're not going to do it. There are better ways to vent steam.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095It would depend, is said world free of sin because you can't sin? Or is it free of sin because people can but don't? If you can't then we need to determine why you can't. Is there a perpetual big brother watching your every step and using algorythms to predict your sins and punishing you before you ever commit them? This would have a chilling effect and people would stop doing certain things. Therefore people aren't free.

I'm pretty sure I have already put to the rest the part moral obligations plays in determining whether or not a person is free. Is there some part of that you are not grokking?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095If you can't because for some (non-coercive) reason you're unable to even think about it, then you're free.

Not sure how one can be free without being able to think. please rephrase your question here.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095This is like talking about Heaven as if it were Earth. Also it's almost denying that there are people sick in the head that truly can't see the difference between good and evil. Or that there are also people sick in the head who can but will do evil things anyway.

From the Lords Prayer;
"Thy will be done, on earth, ...at it is in heaven."

When you refer to people who are sick, they are not always free, because they are often bound by their illness. However there are times when most of them are not bound and can see clearly, does their illness preclude them from making the right choices when they comprehend?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1085095Does the end justify the means?

EDIT: I am free, because I do what I choose to do, it just happens that I don't choose to do evil shit. I'm fully capable of thinking about doing evil shit, but I choose not do do it and to not even think it, since it's a waste of time to fantasize abt taking revenge on X if you're not going to do it. There are better ways to vent steam.

Now you are just adding time into the discussion to confuse things. Presume for a moment that the past, present, and future are all one. You have two simple choices to make? Do you live free, and also ensure the freedom of others, or not? Do you live in sin, or not? These are not mutually exclusive, you can have both, either, or neither. What do you choose? What should you choose?

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085093This is what the Angels say. Especially the fallen ones. To have free will means you are free to sin if you want. You are not required to sin though, nor are you responsible for the sins of your mothers and fathers, or your sons and daughters (so long as you teach your children when they are young).

Yet the concept of original sin itself makes us, in some way, responsible for the sin of our ultimate ancestor. We are born into the slavery of that sin through Adam's fault. If we are not bound by (responsible for) that original sin, then Christ's sacrifice is meaningless because I could choose to simply never sin and thus not need Christ.

QuoteTo choose freedom over slavery does not automatically make you a slave to freedom, because you always have the choice to change, ...if that is your desire.

I didn't choose to be a slave to freedom. I choose to be a slave to Christ (Ephesians and 1 Peter) because He chooses me and I have not rejected the gift.

QuoteDo you believe living in a world without sin would be the same as living in a world without freedom. ...If so, why do you believe this?

No. I believe it would be living in a world where you voluntarily enslave your will to the will of the Creator to do His will from your heart, and that the knowledge of what sin was like is such that a world remade without sin would know why having the freedom to choose to bind yourself to God is such a precious thing. No other choice really matters, and it is the only one from which all other freedoms flow.

...boy we went far afield quickly.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1085103Yet the concept of original sin itself makes us, in some way, responsible for the sin of our ultimate ancestor. We are born into the slavery of that sin through Adam's fault. If we are not bound by (responsible for) that original sin, then Christ's sacrifice is meaningless because I could choose to simply never sin and thus not need Christ.

 I didn't choose to be a slave to freedom. I choose to be a slave to Christ (Ephesians and 1 Peter) because He chooses me and I have not rejected the gift.

 No. I believe it would be living in a world where you voluntarily enslave your will to the will of the Creator to do His will from your heart, and that the knowledge of what sin was like is such that a world remade without sin would know why having the freedom to choose to bind yourself to God is such a precious thing. No other choice really matters, and it is the only one from which all other freedoms flow.

...boy we went far afield quickly.

Greetings!

Outstanding, Tanin Wulf.

"As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord."

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Thank you Shark, but if I speak truthfully about Him, thank Him, for it is not I who speaks but the Spirit who gives me His words.

Also, your quote from Joshua is one of my favorites for when it comes to explaining my stance on the law.

It was implied over at the other site that the woman who was assaulted posted a reply to Bill Webb's statement but that got redacted by the mods for including her name.  Since I couldn't see the post unredacted I couldn't tell if it was her original comments around the time of the assault or a new response.  Has anyone seen additional commentary from her?

As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)


Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109(To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)

I like that. And good essay too.

Anything to support that anyone is actually sueing anyone, other than hearsay and a vague tweet?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1085109As one of TheRPGSite's resident theologians, I'm going to try to minimize dragging this further off topic, but I recommend this essay by George Weigel--it might help folks understand why people seem to be talking at cross-purposes on the topic of freedom. (To give it some gaming relevance, it might be characterized as a Lawful vision of freedom in Thomas vs. a Chaotic vision of freedom in Ockham.)


Bunch, I saw it before it got redacted for violating the taboo, but it looked to be the original Paizo board posts from 2017.

Greetings!

Thank you, Armchair Gamer. I read the essay, and saved it to my computer. It's very interesting and thoughtful. I also enjoyed recognizing many names from celebrated scholars that I read while studying them in my philosophy and theology classes. Brilliant, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102I'm pretty sure I have already put to the rest the part moral obligations plays in determining whether or not a person is free. Is there some part of that you are not grokking?

Not sure how this relates to the part you're quoting.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Not sure how one can be free without being able to think. please rephrase your question here.

Let's say humanity has evolved to such a point and that there are no more Psychopaths or Sociopaths. Or that you're in Heaven. In the first case by natural means you can't think about such things and in the second case you're one with God and since there's no sin in Heaven (and I assume you agree there's such thing as sinfull toughts) you can't think such things.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102From the Lords Prayer;
"Thy will be done, on earth, ...at it is in heaven."

When you refer to people who are sick, they are not always free, because they are often bound by their illness. However there are times when most of them are not bound and can see clearly, does their illness preclude them from making the right choices when they comprehend?

I will never be okey with a theocracy.

There are people who can't see the difference, Citation about "most being able to see it at times".

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Now you are just adding time into the discussion to confuse things.

Never assume malice when it can be explained by other means. I don't add anything to confusse anything. I'm explaining that TO ME it's a waste of time to think in doing harm to others since I will not do it.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Presume for a moment that the past, present, and future are all one.

Sorry I can't, and I'm not sure it's even possible. Since it would require for me to have 20/20 vision of all the possible consecquences of my actions.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102You have two simple choices to make? Do you live free, and also ensure the freedom of others, or not?

Really? Only two simple choices uh? What happened to living free and not caring if others do so or not? Or to living free and only caring that my family and close friends do so?

I don't pressume to be the moral arbiter or to dictate to others how THEY have to live their lifes.

To trully respect other people's freedom you must allow for them to make choices that would limit their freedoms.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1085102Do you live in sin, or not? These are not mutually exclusive, you can have both, either, or neither. What do you choose? What should you choose?

Yes, you can be free and evil, free and good, a slave and evil or a slave and good.

What I or you choose and what we SHOULD choose are not always the same, and I'm not in the habit of trying to force other's to live as I see fit. In this world, to be free you HAVE to be able to commit evil acts, the morality comes into place when I make a judgment about one possible act and choose not to do it because I deem it evil. (Or in certain cases because the mere tought makes me puke).