Random Thoughts of Members (anything goes...well with in forum rules)

[Darth Logos]

Both.

Can't have both.

I wonder if it's a sign that the forum ate my first reply....

You mean this reply?

While Logos question could be discussed in a political context I can think of several other avenues where the question is pertinent, but has nothing to do with politics. Either way, I don't think that superficially discussing it would violate the rules, but that's just my two copper pennies.

That being said I'll echo precisely what Tepes said, have a point man. 

Second, for me personally, the question cannot be answered because it's too vague. I can think of multiple real life scenarios where each would be preferable. But then again, what is the definition of "free" and "safe?"

I guess that's something each of us defines for ourselves.

Third, again in my opinion, the question cannot be answered as an absolute one or the other. (I know someone's going to give the Obi-Wan "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" response to this, to which I'm going to give the meme response "That statement itself is an absolute.")

To which I respond "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." is in fact an absolute statement. My question is not an absolute, it is a choice.

Fourth, while I can see where this could become a political discussion, I think it should be possible to keep it as simply a Psychological/Sociological discussion.

Yes, this is merely a philosophical quandary.

[Sakura No Kaze]

Yes.  Before the world became so spread out that is what would happen for the majority of people...even as recent as a few decades ago.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts, and the history behind them.

My next argument then would be that the more responsibilities one has, the less free one is (providing one meets those responsibilities). Doing what someone is required to do means they are less free to do what they want to do. But in that process, the group is kept safe. Therefore, from your argument that it is the responsibility for those who can to keep those who cannot safe, being safe is more important than being free.

Can't have both.

Keeping this here for reference.

You mean this reply?

No, the one I typed out before that one that no one got to see because the forum ate it.

I guess that's something each of us defines for ourselves.

Then it's impossible to answer your question as stated. (And for anyone who has already posted an answer that disagrees with this, I will point out that you did not answer the question as it's stated, you answered a slightly modified version, which, given human nature and general psychology, is not a surprise. Nor is it a bad thing, per se.)

To which I respond "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." is in fact an absolute statement. My question is not an absolute, it is a choice.

But, by your original statement in your post (see first quote from you above), it is an absolute. You said "Can't have both." Therefore it is a choice of one absolute or the other absolute.

Yes, this is merely a philosophical quandary.

Yes, and I'm having fun with it despite not actually answering it.

[Maestro Jones]

Can't have both.

Sure I can.  Picking one is an absolute.  It's a choice that becomes an absolute if the other is not allowed.  I can live free by following the safety rules and laws in place.  I am required to wear a seat belt when I travel in a car (driving or a passenger in any seat).  That doesn't limit my freedom to go where I please.  I'm free to walk down the street but I'm not allowed to walk in the street.  This is how you can have both.  But, I know what you are asking and why.  To that, I still say both.  But, I also say I'd rather be safe now so I can LIVE free later.  I'll leave it at that since anything else would lead into a "political" debate.

[Darth Logos]

Then it's impossible to answer your question as stated. (And for anyone who has already posted an answer that disagrees with this, I will point out that you did not answer the question as it's stated, you answered a slightly modified version, which, given human nature and general psychology, is not a surprise. Nor is it a bad thing, per se.)

It is only a simple question to gauge people's thoughts on the subject. It's like asking what is more important: food or water? Both are necessary, but what do individuals think is the more important.

But, by your original statement in your post (see first quote from you above), it is an absolute. You said "Can't have both." Therefore it is a choice of one absolute or the other absolute.
Yes, and I'm having fun with it despite not actually answering it.

No, I asked people to tell me what they thought was superior, not the only thing that mattered. "What is more important?" My phrasing clearly states that both are important. If it were an "absolute" then I would not have phrased it as a question. It would be absolute and beyond contestation. "Everyone believes safety is more important than freedom." is an absolute. (I underlined what makes it absolute.)

Sure I can.  Picking one is an absolute.  It's a choice that becomes an absolute if the other is not allowed.  I can live free by following the safety rules and laws in place.  I am required to wear a seat belt when I travel in a car (driving or a passenger in any seat).  That doesn't limit my freedom to go where I please.  I'm free to walk down the street but I'm not allowed to walk in the street.  This is how you can have both.  But, I know what you are asking and why.  To that, I still say both.  But, I also say I'd rather be safe now so I can LIVE free later.  I'll leave it at that since anything else would lead into a "political" debate.

As previously stated, no you can't. Both can't be "more", unless being compared to a 3rd option. Your only option to declare equality on the choice is to renounce that you have an opinion. This exercise is effectively a poll.

Your example is contradictory.

[Sakura No Kaze]

It is only a simple question to gauge people's thoughts on the subject. It's like asking what is more important: food or water? Both are necessary, but what do individuals think is the more important.

Just because a question is simple doesn't mean that the answer is.

No, I asked people to tell me what they thought was superior, not the only thing that mattered. "What is more important?" My phrasing clearly states that both are important. If it were an "absolute" then I would not have phrased it as a question. It would be absolute and beyond contestation. "Everyone believes safety is more important than freedom." is an absolute. (I underlined what makes it absolute.)

*sigh* For all of my observation that people were not answering the actual question, I also was not answering the actual question (although in a different way).

However, I maintain that the question is unanswerable as originally asked, as it is both subjective and situational. (And, unintentional or not, you left out an important part of the question.)

[Darth Tepes]

Yes, I'm familiar with the concepts, and the history behind them.

My next argument then would be that the more responsibilities one has, the less free one is (providing one meets those responsibilities). Doing what someone is required to do means they are less free to do what they want to do. But in that process, the group is kept safe. Therefore, from your argument that it is the responsibility for those who can to keep those who cannot safe, being safe is more important than being free.

It is still a choice to not take up those responsibilities though...a choice.  Which is the ultimate declaration of freedom but more often than not those that believe in freedom will use their freedom to make sure others have theirs.

[Darth Logos]

Just because a question is simple doesn't mean that the answer is.

Exactly

*sigh* For all of my observation that people were not answering the actual question, I also was not answering the actual question (although in a different way).

However, I maintain that the question is unanswerable as originally asked, as it is both subjective and situational. (And, unintentional or not, you left out an important part of the question.)

My observation has been quite different. In my experience, avoidance of voicing an opinion shows fear; fear of being judged. Case in point: escaping judgement is a kind of safety. So by not answering, they are in fact answering because they opt for the safety of neutrality instead of exercising freedom to choose. Now there is nothing wrong with exercising your freedom and choosing safety. Safety comes in many different forms.

It is very answerable, Tepes already answered.

It is still a choice to not take up those responsibilities though...a choice.  Which is the ultimate declaration of freedom but more often than not those that believe in freedom will use their freedom to make sure others have theirs.

Well said.

[Infinit01]

Happy Friday Eve, everyone!

[Maestro Jones]

As previously stated, no you can't. Both can't be "more", unless being compared to a 3rd option. Your only option to declare equality on the choice is to renounce that you have an opinion. This exercise is effectively a poll.

Then neither, as I value freedom and safety equally, which is an implied choice in your question since your are asking about value.  See, you're asking which is more important.  Both can be of equal importance.  I believe the question you really meant to ask is "Which would you rather have: freedom or safety?"  That is an entirely different question and is a "choice" question (you can have "this" or "this", but not both).  Your question assigns a values (more vs less), and things (whether tangible or abstract) can have equal value.  But, the value of freedom and safety are also situationally influenced.  As an adult, those two things meant something different to me on September 10, 2001 then they have every day after.  That doesn't mean I value one more or less than the other; I view then as two side of the same coin.  My outlook towards each just changed.  You can't have one without the other and if you value one more than the other the you are in trouble.  So, I choose both or neither. 

[Sakura No Kaze]

My observation has been quite different. In my experience, avoidance of voicing an opinion shows fear; fear of being judged. Case in point: escaping judgement is a kind of safety. So by not answering, they are in fact answering because they opt for the safety of neutrality instead of exercising freedom to choose. Now there is nothing wrong with exercising your freedom and choosing safety. Safety comes in many different forms.

And this is why I find talking to people with different experiences than mine to be a very good thing. My personal experience is that I won't express an opinion if either 1) I wasn't asked for my opinion, or 2) I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to give one. Case in point, if you were to ask "what's my opinion on the validity the effects of changing small airway mechanics and inspiratory flow waveforms on pulmonary ventilation" I would answer the question, and the answer would be "I don't have an opinion because I don't know anything at all about the subject." (It is a real thing, if anyone happens to care: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19387-8_84 )

It is very answerable, Tepes already answered.

No he didn't, at least not with his first answer.

Here is what you asked: What is more important: being free or being safe?

That's not the question Tepes answered. He, and everyone after him, answered the question: What's more important [to you]: being free or being safe? Which is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the question, but it's not what you asked.

Like I said, you left out, intentionally or not, a very important part of the question: to whom is the importance attached. What's more important [to you]...? What's more important [to the survival of a society]....? What's more important [to the continuation of a culture] What's more important [to the survival of the species]...? What's more important [to a dog]...? What's more important [to social versus non-social animals]...? What's more important [to introverts versus extroverts]...?

This is why, to me, the question is not answerable as asked, it's too non-specific. For me, in order for the question to be answerable, you need to state the "to whom" the importance is attached, and I personally would prefer that "free" and "safe" be much more clearly defined. Either that, or your "poll" is actually a study in human nature and psychology in regards to how they view those two concepts and in what manner they interpret open ended questions. In which case all of my answers should be qualified with the knowledge that I have ASD, and see the world very differently from most people. That I struggle to answer, and am over analyzing, your "simple" question is an example of this.

However, as everyone has done an excellent job keeping politics out of the discussion, and because this is my 500th post, I will give you my answer.

As I interpret the question as broadly as possible, since there are no qualifiers as to who it applies to, I would say this: Being safe is more important, because you can never be free if you live in fear.

I would also love to do a completely comprehensive quantitative study, taking into account all possible definitions of "free" and "safe," to include, but not be limited to, personal physical freedom/safety, personal mental freedom/safety, the impact those have on a society/culture, societal/cultural freedom/safety, and the impact those have on personal physical/mental freedom/safety. And probably a hundred other definitions/applications of "free" and "safe." I think if it were possible to add everything up quantitatively, overall, we'd find that being safe gives more freedom as opposed to being free giving more safety. But then that also probably varies between individual and society.

[Darth Logos]

Then neither, as I value freedom and safety equally, which is an implied choice in your question since your are asking about value.  See, you're asking which is more important.  Both can be of equal importance.  I believe the question you really meant to ask is "Which would you rather have: freedom or safety?"  That is an entirely different question and is a "choice" question (you can have "this" or "this", but not both).  Your question assigns a values (more vs less), and things (whether tangible or abstract) can have equal value.  But, the value of freedom and safety are also situationally influenced.  As an adult, those two things meant something different to me on September 10, 2001 then they have every day after.  That doesn't mean I value one more or less than the other; I view then as two side of the same coin.  My outlook towards each just changed.  You can't have one without the other and if you value one more than the other the you are in trouble.  So, I choose both or neither. 

Value is a quality ascribed by the individual. Something about one man's trash yadda yadda. Rephrasing the question still implies greater personal value. The obvious choice one would inevitably make is the option of highest value, ergo "more important". Humans by their very nature are somewhat greedy. They will always be drawn to what they place a higher value on; even if they value not being viewed as "greedy".

[PsychoSith]

Since this thread is still-a-truckin and has managed to stay in the green with this discussion I'll pitch in and elaborate more on my previous answer.

Being free is more important than safety with the stipulation that your expression of freedom does not inhibit the safety or freedom of others. Since as Logos said, these values boil down to the individual person, your freedom must not affect the safety of a person who values the inverse. Your freedom must never be a prison to another, and as Maestro pointed out, someong living in fear is not free, thus if your expression of freedom induces fear in another, a closer look at these actions must be taken.

[Darth Logos]

And this is why I find talking to people with different experiences than mine to be a very good thing. My personal experience is that I won't express an opinion if either 1) I wasn't asked for my opinion, or 2) I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to give one. Case in point, if you were to ask "what's my opinion on the validity the effects of changing small airway mechanics and inspiratory flow waveforms on pulmonary ventilation" I would answer the question, and the answer would be "I don't have an opinion because I don't know anything at all about the subject." (It is a real thing, if anyone happens to care: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19387-8_84 )

Asked or not you still will have an opinion, and I clearly asked for it. AND if it were down to you had no experience, you would have declined having an opinion for said reason. So by this logic, you well within YOUR parameters to voice your opinion on the matter.

No he didn't, at least not with his first answer.

Ahem. You mean this isn't his answer; replied only 4min after I posted the question?

Free.  If I am free to do what I wish (within reason of course) I can keep myself safe.

If you're going to highlight, don't use yellow over white.

Here is what you asked: What is more important: being free or being safe?

That's not the question Tepes answered. He, and everyone after him, answered the question: What's more important [to you]: being free or being safe? Which is a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the question, but it's not what you asked.

Like I said, you left out, intentionally or not, a very important part of the question: to whom is the importance attached. What's more important [to you]...? What's more important [to the survival of a society]....? What's more important [to the continuation of a culture] What's more important [to the survival of the species]...? What's more important [to a dog]...? What's more important [to social versus non-social animals]...? What's more important [to introverts versus extroverts]...?

This is why, to me, the question is not answerable as asked, it's too non-specific. For me, in order for the question to be answerable, you need to state the "to whom" the importance is attached, and I personally would prefer that "free" and "safe" be much more clearly defined. Either that, or your "poll" is actually a study in human nature and psychology in regards to how they view those two concepts and in what manner they interpret open ended questions. In which case all of my answers should be qualified with the knowledge that I have ASD, and see the world very differently from most people. That I struggle to answer, and am over analyzing, your "simple" question is an example of this.

However, as everyone has done an excellent job keeping politics out of the discussion, and because this is my 500th post, I will give you my answer.

I didn't want thoughts, I wanted opinions. An individual cannot answer for a group, particularly a group that they aren't a part of. This would have severely limited the responses to only those the question applied to. Also, import to a group (Society, culture, or species) is the very basis of politics. I hate to say it, but you are actually the one that is inadvertently steering the topic toward political context.

I would also love to do a completely comprehensive quantitative study, taking into account all possible definitions of "free" and "safe," to include, but not be limited to, personal physical freedom/safety, personal mental freedom/safety, the impact those have on a society/culture, societal/cultural freedom/safety, and the impact those have on personal physical/mental freedom/safety. And probably a hundred other definitions/applications of "free" and "safe." I think if it were possible to add everything up quantitatively, overall, we'd find that being safe gives more freedom as opposed to being free giving more safety. But then that also probably varies between individual and society.

That's a whole can of worms that I was looking to avoid.

[PsychoSith]

That's a whole can of worms that I was looking to avoid.

IMO its the discussion you have to have to discuss such things. If the previous comment dipped a little too into the political region, I apologize, and leave its' existence to the mods' discretion. Just my two cents on the matter

[Darth Logos]

IMO its the discussion you have to have to discuss such things. If the previous comment dipped a little too into the political region, I apologize, and leave its' existence to the mods' discretion. Just my two cents on the matter

I think you're good.