I apologise if anything I said implied you did. I simply found the discussion interesting.Mr. Fancy Pants said:I'm just taking Franklin exactly at his word. Without adding my opinions to the mix, the quote means what I stated originally, and I have serious issues with any kind of anarchistic beliefs. I've got nothing against yours, mate.J03bot said:To use your specific example (i.e. killing some randomer), you've just removed their freedom to do... anything, really.Mr. Fancy Pants said:But balance is exactly what Franklin denies if that quote is to be taken seriously. It's an all or nothing situation. If I wanna kill someone, but the cops don't let me because they also stop people from killing me, my freedom is still being stifled, whether or not killing is deemed a part of civil liberty. If Franklin meant for balance, he wouldn't have said that.J03bot said:At some levels security is feasible without impinging on the freedoms of the secure, surely?Mr. Fancy Pants said:Man, that is such a load of anarchistic crap. So people who don't want to live in complete fear all the time don't deserve any kind of freedom? Franklin was an idealistic idiot.J03bot said:'He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither' - paraphrase of Benjamin Franklin
It all depends on your definition of freedom, and each individual's perception of what the correct balance between civil liberty and intrusive security is
And you've almost certainly done this for your own security, whether you feel threatened by them, feel your peace of mind would be improved by removal of that annoying influence, or feel a certain curiosity as to what extinguishing another human life would feel like (emotional/mental assurance).
It seems we have somewhat different views on what constitutes freedom and security...
...I'm really bored today, so thanks for alleviating that