search results matching tag: freedom of choice

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (9)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (73)   

Before Are "Friends" Electric?

eric3579 says...

I loved "Cars" when it came out. I have a vivid memory of hearing it for the first time at a record store in the mall. I think my first New Wave (Synth-Pop) album was Freedom Of Choice from Devo. Early 80's i completely jumped in with many New Wave bands. My enjoyment of the genre faded or actually morphed into other electronic type bands soon after.

John Oliver - Mike Pence

newtboy says...

But it does prioritize freedom of choice...the customers. Freedom to discriminate against others based on race, sex, sexuality, age, or religion in public business is a freedom most people don't want to foster.

I do agree, there are exceptions, like the one you mentioned. Forcing a women only spa area (or any other business where group nakedness is part of the service) to allow people with a penis to enter is touchy (pun intended)....far more than allowing them in a rest room....and above my pay grade, so I won't be opening a women only spa, at least until that's well settled.

Edit: no one is forced to participate in a lifestyle, period. First, creating an object used by someone who's 'lifestyle' differs from yours is not participating in it, second, you are not forced to remain in business. If you CHOOSE to have a public business you are required to operate it according to the law and not discriminate against customers based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, .... with very few specific exemptions.
Bigots got over having to make cakes for interracial couples, they'll get over this bigotry too.

bcglorf said:

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

John Oliver - Mike Pence

bcglorf says...

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....

I look at it differently. In a business, especially any creative business, the decision to pursue or participate in a particular transaction/venture should heavily prioritise individual freedom of choice. On the whole, I'm on board for requiring that business not decline service to people based upon attributes they are born to. Even there however, gender segregated spas are something that I still think should be allowed. That's not an arbitrary choice, up here in Canada a spa is under fire for declining access to a spa based on someone having a penis.

More succinctly, I think everyone should have as much right to think, do or act however they like. Equally though, people should have the right to not participate in other people's lifestyles as well.

newtboy said:

Maybe...depends on their business. If they make other personalised inflammatory cakes, probably. If they make "hey man, nice shot" cakes celebrating cops being shot, definitely.

If they make personalised hate cakes, I would expect them to either pay a large fine for refusing or use the 'special' chocolate icing, and record the person ordering it for public exposure.

Most places have a no vulgarity, no hate speech, no sex rule applied across the board, which is fine....but you must use common definitions for those terms applied equally for everyone.
If "congratulations Pat and Chris" is ok for you if that's Patricia and Christian, you cannot decide it's not ok for Patrick and Christian, or Patricia and Christine, no matter how icky you find it, or how afraid you are that you'll lose control and kiss them.

#CreateCourage - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

newtboy says...

I have 2 theories.....
1. They are seeing the mass conformity and allegiance to the empire as antithetical to freedoms of choice and expression, or
2. They looked at the helmet as a stand in for a burka, and had a problem with it.

Of course, I could easily be wrong, maybe they're just being douchey.

CrushBug said:

I really don't understand these first 2 fucking comments.

Pregnant Woman Blasts Antiabortion Protesters Outside Clinic

newtboy says...

I don't understand what you mean about the police.
Unfortunately, recently, much more effective opposition to freedom of choice has come in the form of ridiculously transparently designed, unscientific, non-medical laws requiring completely un-needed expensive medical equipment and irrelevant abilities (like 'admitting privilege' at the nearest hospital, as if the hospital won't take an emergency patient without a Dr. 'admitting' them).
I have never heard of any campaign to sabotage execution machines or assassinate executioners or wardens. I guess THAT kind of "state sanctioned murder" is OK, but the kind science and law has repeatedly and conclusively said is NOT murder... people involved in that get threatened, harassed, and sometimes murdered themselves....by the "anti-murder" people. WHAT?!? I am glad that most of those people do lack the 'courage of their convictions' as you put it.
Ahhh, but aren't these actions are diametrically opposed to these people's stated ideology, of love and tolerance for other people's ideas and customs?...and doesn't giving to Caesar what is Caesar's means following the law (as I've had it described), and thou shall not kill mean no murdering Doctors...ever? (I'm assuming they are a Christian group, if this one isn't, then ascribe my comments to those that are)

What if others fervently believe the Greeks were correct, and it's really proper to not consider a baby a person until they are one year old, until then it's fine to just leave them outside to die or toss them off a cliff? (I'm not really saying that we should go back to that, I'm just pointing out that there are extremes on the 'pro-choice' or 'anti-unwanted children' side with historical and religious context to back them up). We would say it's fine to hold that ideology (well, legal to hold that ideology, maybe not fine), but certainly not legal or fine to act on it.

I feel that it's not meaningless to criticize a person's inappropriate actions, no matter the 'reason' for them, if it's backed up with consequence. Most people, as you noted, don't have the 'strength of their convictions' to risk going to jail, or even public ridicule for acting inappropriately, even if they sincerely believe it's for a good reason.

gorillaman said:

Aren't the police complicit in this scenario? Historically, effective opposition to state-sanctioned murder often takes the form of campaigns of sabotage and assassination. We ought to be grateful pro-lifers generally lack the courage of their convictions.

It's meaningless to criticise a person's actions when they fall in line with their ideology. Whatever you see in the video, as well as much more extreme measures besides, is totally justified if the pro-life position is correct.

Pump-Action Shotgun Fail.

VoodooV says...

How exactly are they less free?

Am I taking people's freedom away if I have them pass a test before they can use a car?

Am I taking peoples' freedom away If I take away their license if they were driving drunk or doing something else stupid? Yes, but this is universally considered acceptable.

You guys love to compare guns to cars so I'm shoving the analogy down your throat.

Do people generally complain about taking away the freedom of criminals when they do a criminal act? nope. Again, it is universally accepted that it is OK to take rights away if someone is a demonstrated menace to society

These are the *choices* people make. Freedom isn't about unrestricted access, It's about the freedom to make choices. You can make any choice you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedom of choice of others and you are willing to accept the consequences of said choices.

Can you at least agree that there are certain responsibilities attached to owning a gun? So why is regulation of weapons to ensure those responsibilities are adhered to such a foreign concept to you? Even the NRA "claims" to be interested in firearm safety. Was the idiot in this video being safe?

You have the freedom to go to college...IF you have the grades and money.
You have the freedom to imbibe alcohol...IF you are a certain age and can demonstrate that you can use it safely
You have the freedom to have a certain job, IF you have the skills and education required.
And according to the right, you have the freedom to vote....IF you can provide an ID.

This is not exactly unprecedented to require certain things before a specific freedom is granted. Are people less responsible because of these restrictions? I think not, so how come guns are special?

Are we taking away someone's freedom if they're not qualified to have a certain job?

And having a gun, or a car, has a significant risk to infringe upon other's freedoms so it's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate proficiency and safety before using said items.

The idiot in this video has DEMONSTRATED that he is unsafe with a weapon. Where are the repercussions? When does he pay for his actions as you say.

renatojj said:

@VoodooV Interesting point, but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?

Rights and responsabilities go hand in hand, I agree. That means when you screw up, you're held responsible, you pay for your actions.

With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place.

Doesn't seem to me like that would make people more responsible.

At Risk of Rape? Why Not Carry a Firearm?

Wealth Inequality in America

Grimm says...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/George-Carlin-Please-Wake-Up-America

"The real owners are the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're an irrelevancy. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They've got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They've got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying ­ lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else."

"But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests. They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago.

"You know what they want? Obedient workers ­ people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

Ted Koppel: Fox News 'Bad for America'

Stormsinger says...

The problem with that claim is that the animosity goes back well before Pacepa's time. We overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, because they were threatening oil company profits. By 1967, the KGB was doing very little except throwing gasoline on a fire we'd already started and built up to four alarm status. It's not reasonable to try and put the blame on the KGB...it clearly belongs on our own government agencies, which have proven over and over again to be extremely shortsighted and unwilling to accept any ethical boundaries.
>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^shinyblurry:
@enoch, the origin of the animosity towards Americans has its source in a KGB program designed to exploit the deeply ingrained anti-semitism in the middle east and turn it towards the US. They sent, hired, bought off hundreds or even thousands of agents in the middle east to spread the idea around that America is a zionist regime controlled by the jews. That's why you have Arab leaders saying things like this:
htt

p://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/ahmadinejad-american-people-lack-freedom-of-choice-it-is-the-zionists-that-decide-who-will-become-th.html

Yes I believe the corporation control the media, and the elites control the corporations, but who controls the elites? When you talk about a conspiracy, I know the actual conspiracy because the bible details it all: Satan is the ruler of this world and in the last days he is going to establish a one world government, one world economy and one world religion all centered around the antichrist. The elites you're talking about are all globalists trying to establish this very thing. Today you can see bible prophecy unfolding before your very eyes. So, I don't trust the media to report the truth as such and I certainly don't rely on it as my primary source of information about what is going on in the world.
>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry do not get caught in the trap my friend.do not rely on corporate "news" to enlighten you concerning the situation in the middle east nor the origins of the anymosity towards america.truth does not suit their purposes in controlling your opinion


Alright! Who stole shiny's meds this time?

hehe
I know how it sounds, but this information comes from the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect to the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa
The CIA apparently put him to good use so I think his testimony is trustworthy. You can read what he said about it here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218533/russian-footpr
ints/ion-mihai-pacepa#

Ted Koppel: Fox News 'Bad for America'

shinyblurry says...

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^shinyblurry:
@enoch, the origin of the animosity towards Americans has its source in a KGB program designed to exploit the deeply ingrained anti-semitism in the middle east and turn it towards the US. They sent, hired, bought off hundreds or even thousands of agents in the middle east to spread the idea around that America is a zionist regime controlled by the jews. That's why you have Arab leaders saying things like this:
htt

p://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/ahmadinejad-american-people-lack-freedom-of-choice-it-is-the-zionists-that-decide-who-will-become-th.html

Yes I believe the corporation control the media, and the elites control the corporations, but who controls the elites? When you talk about a conspiracy, I know the actual conspiracy because the bible details it all: Satan is the ruler of this world and in the last days he is going to establish a one world government, one world economy and one world religion all centered around the antichrist. The elites you're talking about are all globalists trying to establish this very thing. Today you can see bible prophecy unfolding before your very eyes. So, I don't trust the media to report the truth as such and I certainly don't rely on it as my primary source of information about what is going on in the world.
>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry do not get caught in the trap my friend.do not rely on corporate "news" to enlighten you concerning the situation in the middle east nor the origins of the anymosity towards america.truth does not suit their purposes in controlling your opinion


Alright! Who stole shiny's meds this time?


hehe

I know how it sounds, but this information comes from the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Mihai_Pacepa

The CIA apparently put him to good use so I think his testimony is trustworthy. You can read what he said about it here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218533/russian-footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa#

Ted Koppel: Fox News 'Bad for America'

Stormsinger says...

>> ^shinyblurry:

@enoch, the origin of the animosity towards Americans has its source in a KGB program designed to exploit the deeply ingrained anti-semitism in the middle east and turn it towards the US. They sent, hired, bought off hundreds or even thousands of agents in the middle east to spread the idea around that America is a zionist regime controlled by the jews. That's why you have Arab leaders saying things like this:
htt
p://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/ahmadinejad-american-people-lack-freedom-of-choice-it-is-the-zionists-that-decide-who-will-become-th.html

Yes I believe the corporation control the media, and the elites control the corporations, but who controls the elites? When you talk about a conspiracy, I know the actual conspiracy because the bible details it all: Satan is the ruler of this world and in the last days he is going to establish a one world government, one world economy and one world religion all centered around the antichrist. The elites you're talking about are all globalists trying to establish this very thing. Today you can see bible prophecy unfolding before your very eyes. So, I don't trust the media to report the truth as such and I certainly don't rely on it as my primary source of information about what is going on in the world.

>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry do not get caught in the trap my friend.do not rely on corporate "news" to enlighten you concerning the situation in the middle east nor the origins of the anymosity towards america.truth does not suit their purposes in controlling your opinion


Alright! Who stole shiny's meds this time?

Ted Koppel: Fox News 'Bad for America'

shinyblurry says...

@enoch, the origin of the animosity towards Americans has its source in a KGB program designed to exploit the deeply ingrained anti-semitism in the middle east and turn it towards the US. They sent, hired, bought off hundreds or even thousands of agents in the middle east to spread the idea around that America is a zionist regime controlled by the jews. That's why you have Arab leaders saying things like this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/ahmadinejad-american-people-lack-freedom-of-choice-it-is-the-zionists-that-decide-who-will-become-th.html

Yes I believe the corporation control the media, and the elites control the corporations, but who controls the elites? When you talk about a conspiracy, I know the actual conspiracy because the bible details it all: Satan is the ruler of this world and in the last days he is going to establish a one world government, one world economy and one world religion all centered around the antichrist. The elites you're talking about are all globalists trying to establish this very thing. Today you can see bible prophecy unfolding before your very eyes. So, I don't trust the media to report the truth as such and I certainly don't rely on it as my primary source of information about what is going on in the world.



>> ^enoch:

@shinyblurry do not get caught in the trap my friend.do not rely on corporate "news" to enlighten you concerning the situation in the middle east nor the origins of the anymosity towards america.truth does not suit their purposes in controlling your opinion

Reid Hitting Romney Hard Over (Possibly) Unpaid Taxes

What Happened When Portugal Decriminalized Drugs? -- TYT

Quboid says...

>> ^renatojj:

@VoodooV I think "they" bash mostly socialist policies coming from Europe, but decriminalizing drugs would not qualify as socialism, quite the opposite, it's freedom of choice, personal responsability.


No, they bash things from Europe after being told that they're socialist policies. To determine whether or not they actually are socialist you have to look at logic and facts, but as looking at logic and facts is its self socialist/atheist (same thing), then questioning Fox/God/GOP/Limbaugh is socialist. And you don't want to be a socialist, do you? No. Then shut up and believe what you're told.

What Happened When Portugal Decriminalized Drugs? -- TYT



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon