Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Too many ‘misuse freedom’

February 5, 2013

Since the horrendous event in the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut happened, the news media is giving us more information than we need to kno....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

Regelski

Feb-24-13 1:11 PM

(cont: this software doesn't work very well) if not balanced with freedom from. There is a useful 'tension' between the two in any society, but laws are intended to protect us in our freedom from other people's freedom to. Where there's a conflict, the laws (and juries) decide. You can't target shoot with a gun in your backyard, you can't raise chickens in a residential neighborhood and (though I sometimes personally resist) zoning laws exist to protect the character of your community and value of your home. So let's be real: there are laws against racism, ageism, sexism, etc. Don't like them? Work against them via the political process. Don't just moan and groan in these pages. I'm impressed you use your name, unlike other who hide behind their online personas. I hope in real life they're not as objectionable as is made possible from such lack of transparency. In my view, all these posts ought to be attributed to actual people in our neighborhoods.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 12:58 PM

Mike (I feel like were ole friends arguing over a beer): You're wrong! Freedom from, in American democracy at least, trumps freedom to! End of discussion. That, friend, is why we have so many laws. You can't yell "Fire" in a theater, you can't drive without insurance, and you can't steal. What's the problem? Is your's the typical libertarian rant against reasonable laws and government? Come on? We need laws that govern whether your music is keeping me awake; whether your dog can be unlicensed; whether you can speed; whether you can sexually assault someone; whether you can drive under the influence; etc. This is the basic American (and civilized) way. What's wrong with that? Do you want to drive your motorcycle without a helmet or not use seat belts? Gimme a break. Some laws are intended for the "common good" even when they are personally inconvenient. That's the "social contract" we all obey (or at least some of us do). Freedom to is a threat if

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-23-13 11:33 AM

Come one,come all to a protest in Albany against the NY SAFE ACT on 2/28/13.A bus from the Dunkirk/Fredonia area will be $55 a seat.Call 672-6210 for details.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-18-13 10:47 AM

Regulateski:see enemies, foreign and domestic.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-17-13 12:50 PM

Davis and others: I shall disengage from this string because, for you, it has become a vehicle for impressing your ideology and preaching to the choir. Apparently, I can't be blamed for that since, as social scientists have shown, complainers voice their opinions more than supporters (of whatever issue). Nonetheless, the American public is on the side of greater attention to gun matters, and the proposed laws are no threat to responsible gun owners. I don't want to get drawn any further in to rants against the government (which, BTW, is "us"). I can deal with that topic but let's be clear about what's at stake. Anyone who wants to discuss this can contact me at tom.regelski@helsinki.fi, keeping in mind that attempts to flood my email system with paranoid disillusion are easily defeated. Otherwise, I will ignore responding to those who show no interest in actually communicating.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-17-13 12:41 PM

Davis: Your arguments are pathetic. What about my 'freedom from' which you ignore. Your rant is a continuing example of your inability or unwillingness to confront the reasonable challenges that face your positions. If you think your reply was 'reasonable', then you're wrong. Giving a "reason" is not being reasonable; being logical in addressing all the variables is what reason is. The first step is to make some attempt to understand the position of any opponent and to respond to it without personal insults, emotional baggage, scripted replies, and the willingness to admit--just the possibility--that you might be wrong, but need to be convinced by the stronger argument,evidence, and clear thinking. Stalin and Hitler? Please! Your lock-step with the right does worry me, though. You don't apparently seem open to any change of mind, no matter the facts. I assume you're opposed to environmental concerns, too.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 8:49 PM

Regelski, you state "'Freedom to' gives opportunity to individual excesses." I believe that is the entire basis for America. To be able, as an idividual, to go just as far as one works to achieve what they desire. You sound as though you would have us under what? Socialism? A monarchy? You need to decide what your allegances are, because it is sounding more and more like you don't really care for the US or her freedoms. You want a nice lock step, conformity government and populace? That's about as American as Stalin and Hitler were...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-16-13 12:24 PM

One problem (there are others) with the author's assumptions is the failure to reconcile 'freedom to' with 'freedom from'. He also makes the claim for "reality" judgments to be God-like. One's reality (truth, values)are not easily the same for all. Thus the role of law to jointly decide what (in the absence of absolute certainty) is best for all. 'Freedom to gives opportunity to individual excesses. The freedom to own a gun leads the US to be the most armed nation in the world, despite being among the most peaceful. One's right to be 'free from' individual preference ends when the social consequences for others becomes at risk (for example, laws against loud music; not being free to operate a car without insurance, and for good reason). Those who suffer from 'mental' problems of one kind or another ("They say the insane number one out of two, it can't be me so it must be you") deserve their freedoms. We might better turn to the social forces that beget violence.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-08-13 4:36 PM

I prefer the term independent crusin. I'm not a big fan of either end of the political spectrum. They are both only interested in one thing, how much of the other sides money can they get for themselves. One needs it and doesn't want to earn it. The other has it and doesn't want to earn it. Neither side wants to pay fairly for all. What a conundrum modern politics has become.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cortnie

Feb-08-13 3:35 PM

great article!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-07-13 9:32 PM

ht tp://news.yahoo.c om/calif-seeks-adopt-nations-toughest-gun-laws-220030130.html Read it and weep. They are coming after them.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

Feb-07-13 4:02 PM

cruisin,

Largely because many woman want to have their cake and eat it too.

If a father wants the baby a woman can, without his consent, have it killed seconds before it's delivered and the man is powerless to to anything. On the otherhand if the woman decides to keep the baby, even if the father doesn't want her to, she can demand that he support the child. And of course family court continues to be heavily slanted against men.

Women state they want equality, but then push the violence against women act to make it a larger penalty for a man to strike a woman that a woman striking a man, or even a man striking a man.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-07-13 1:19 PM

h t t p :/ /

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-07-13 1:06 PM

Time to use your freedoms.use this link-*******wh.gov/EKX1 which should take you to the petition to declare the NYSAFE ACT unconstitutional.The petition needed 2,856 more signatures to reach 25,000.On that page there should be a toolbar that has all petitions on one end and filter by issues on the other.Use that to check firearms and there will be 33 petitions(25 displayed-click on bottom to get the rest.I signed 12 or more.one was take away the President/vice-pres and families armed guards and creat gun-free zones around them.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-07-13 10:58 AM

Yes it takes 2 (one of EACH sex) to make a baby but it only takes the mothers consent to kill it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cruisin

Feb-07-13 10:44 AM

And the neo-cons continue to be clueless as to why women won't vote for them.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-07-13 6:27 AM

crusin' when the law says if the (as you so tastefully put it) sperm donor has the right to say..."No. I want the child" and the law says the baby lives, instead it's her body and choice, I'll blame them equally. Till then? It's pretty much only one sex making the decision.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-06-13 9:42 PM

When was the auto manufacturer blamed when someone plowed through a crowded farmers' market?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cruisin

Feb-06-13 9:07 PM

Last I heard, making a baby requires a sperm donor. Why just blame the female in the equation Mike? Oh yeah, y chromosomes are somehow excused. Kind of like how gun sellers and manufacturers are somehow excused from the damage their products bring to society all in the name of profit.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-06-13 5:55 PM

Has the bullpuppy ever had a rational thing to say?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Feb-06-13 3:23 PM

Lets not forget that winner Dick Chenny or Dems like Obama, Clinton or that big mouth Chris Matthews

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-06-13 3:17 PM

So, we're only at war with unborn babies now?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Feb-06-13 3:09 PM

speaking of freedoms, these big mouth republicans never served

Tom Delay Mitch McConnell Trent Lott John Ashcroft Jeb Bush Karl Rove Sean Hannity Rush Limbaugh Bill O'Reilly Pat Buchanan Ted Nugent Saxby Chambliss Paul Wolfowitz Big Newt Gindrich Rudy Giuliani

Instead of listening to those who are all for war, lets honor those that served for our freedom.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-06-13 2:44 PM

Yes, bull that is exactly what I'm saying...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog10

Feb-06-13 2:07 PM

I guess the liberal mindset gave us Sarah and her daughter and her show.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web