I don’t understand how taking calculated risks is different, especially when they involve possible death.
I honest don’t think there are a lot of people that would literally risk death to fight for liberty. I would be happy to be proven wrong,
Chuck Norris would be ashamed of that comment. His blood type is AK-47
But to go back on topic, I agree both parties are useless. The only real goal is to stay in power, and make sure your party says in power. Just as Obama was caught whispering: let me have until after the election to deal with the problem … It’s disgusting. I’m no saint myself, and I can understand why he said that, but who are the losers? The people who voted him in
The “death vs. liberty” concept is poorly stated, since “liberty” is scalable. Liberty is the sum of many incremental freedoms. It is not reasonable to risk your life for a small amount of freedom - for instance… the freedom to eat on the subway, or something like that. Presumably, only after summing the loss of many incremental freedoms, does life-risking behavior become worthwhile.
I also think brain_wash makes a good point that “death” is not the right term to use. If you choose to fight in WW2, for instance, you are not choosing death. You are just choosing a non-zero probability of death, which seems to be what he means by “fighting”. But from now on, I will assume he means “accepting a probability of death”, since this is more clear.
This is the only way that “death vs. liberty” makes sense. Liberty is scalable, since freedom is incremental. “Death” can also be scalable if we interpret this as a “probability of death”. Define the utility from a probability of death, P, as U§. Now, define original liberty and liberty after loss of incremental liberties as L_0 and L_f. “Death vs. liberty” just means the P or L that satisfies U§ = U(L_0) - U(L_f).
Edit: since U§ is measured in units of utility, you can compare this to non-liberty things, like recreation.
Regarding voting; don’t see the point. I see a ship going to a destination, people arguing two slightly different routes which will converge. The ship is going where it’s going, either ride the ship or get off the ship.
Hard to say people “deserve what they get” though. I mean they were born on the ship and it was already well on its way before they came into being.
The IRS sent my Tax forms back! AGAIN!!! I guess it was because of my response to the question : “List all dependents?” I replied -"12 million illegal immigrants;"3 million crack heads;"42 million unemployable people on food stamps,"2 million people in over 243 prisons; "Half of Mexico ; and “535 fools in the U.S. House and Senate.”
^ They want you to correct your math error. There are actually 541 fools in the U.S. House and Senate - the house has 6 non-voting members.
Thats some retard shit…give up my life, which is pretty much the only thing I really have. To gain ‘freedom’ which is a nebulous idea that varies from person to person and in day to day life really doesn’t exist, we will never be truly free because we all have obligations we have to fullfill.
Thats insane, what you’re describing in those examples is fight for survival not freedom. At that point people are not fighting for ideological platitutes like freedom they just want to survive.
You speak boldly for someone who has grown up priveldged in the United States and has likelyy never had to really face life or death issues in their life.
I think if you have to regularly put your life on the line to defend your freedom, you don’t really have freedom to begin with. At best, you have moments where your freedom is not imminently threatened.
Hmm, that’s pretty funny since both groups were offered the opportunity to surrender under good terms and chose to stay and fight. So actually what they did was by definition choose liberty over life. Sorry you’re bad at history.
You speak like someone who doesn’t understand freedom. Sure, it’s just a platitude to you, that’s why you’ll never have it.
Lastly yeah, I’ve been nearly killed in my own pursuits of fun enough time to know I place a pretty low premium on living. It’s pretty simple, you think you’re going to live forever and that longevity really makes a difference. I find that hillarious.
I’d disagree that it really has anything to do with whether or not you have to put your life on the line specifically. But I will say that philosophicaly if your actions are being consistently dictated by another party then yeah, that would resemble a lack of freedom.
You’re just a an idiot who thinks he’s hardcore. I’ve buried enough friends to realize that life is precious and anyone who talks about it casually is immediately suspect in my book.
Yeah, sure thing man. I’ve buried a friend kayaking last year, so not like I"m making this sh*t up.
I think it is fundamentally different. When somebody goes skydiving, for example, they accept a possibility of death. Let’s do a thought experiment. You are hanging by a rope from an airplane miles up with someone holding a knife at the other end. They say "Say ‘I’m a schmuck’ or I will cut the rope. If you say “I’m a schmuck’ then I’ll pull you up.” You know they are telling the truth. What do you do?
I agree with brain, I dont see the equivalency of pursuing extreme sports in the face of death by choice as the same as facing almost certain death in fighting for ‘freedom.’
Oh, I agree they’re exactly not the same (although I think we’re dealing with adjustments to probability weights and value weights at this point). But all I’m saying is that they both typically revolve around pursuing some ideal and placing a value on it above the chance of death. I mean, I’ve tried to state consistently through this that I’m not trying to convince everyone of my views or force them on everyone. They are simply my views. But I just know from talking to others in the sport that it’s definitely about much more than just some adrenaline fix and each individual has some overarching philosophy on life and death. It’s generally pretty well thought out. Of the kayakers I know at higher levels of the sport they’ve each had at least several instances where when they were under they’d pretty much accepted that they were dead before some reversal of fortune saved them (survivorship bias in these convos) that being said, I never remember any of them saying that at the time they felt regret for being there or as if they’d been stupid. My point here just being that a lot of people look at these people taking significant risks and say they’re stupid, but often they’re just operating on a different value system.
There were some great interviews with a famous base jumper Jeb Corliss who’s had quite a few close calls. In the late 90’s or early 2000’s one of his best friends (who was at the time the top in the sport) was doing a dive with him and got literally cut in half when he hit the railing of a bridge they were wingsuiting by. Jeb got hit with the blood and debris. He kept diving and later when asked about it, basically said “adrenaline’s nice, but that’s not why I do it”…“Will I die, yes, will I die base jumping, probably”… and then went on to elaborate.
I just get a little tired of people calling our views stupid because they don’t share them. To me personally it boils down to the fact that I don’t think I’ll live forever. Once I’m dead, I don’t really think it’ll matter to me how long I lived as I don’t think I’ll have any consciousness. But all I do know, is that when I’m here and I’m doing things with a high probability of death I feel really alive, and the rest of the time I don’t. Without my principals, I think to me, life wouldn’t be bland to the point of unbearability.
Word, some people like a padded room and stay inside all day and some are Navy Seals. Different strokes.
Back on the original topic. I honestly can’t tell the difference between these guys (BO & MR) in terms of what they’ll actually do when the get into office. Taxes is probably the main difference, and honestly, given the shape the budget is in and how low taxes have become compared to history, I am inclined to go with BO on that. Please raise dividend taxes. I have a white paper coming out on that and I would like it to be topical.
I just hope nobody starts any wars.
I find it difficult to relate to that, particularly when you say “it’s more than just adrenaline.” But at some level, “to each, their own.”
Do you have family or other people who would care or be hurt if you got cut in two or drowned in an overturned kayak? Are you sure you are considering the bigger picture of why life is valuable enough not to be tossed aside lightly, and in which your final thoughts are “oh well, I guess that’s it.”