Classical Liberalism

[Epimethean]

I do not see his inability to kill being analogous to his lack of desire. I have no idea whether he wants to kill everyone, but it is impossible for him to do so. The two things, intent and ability must be kept separate until there is an action. Judging the inaction must only be that there is inaction: Its cause may be one, or the other.

[Violet]

I do not see his inability to kill being analogous to his lack of desire. I have no idea whether he wants to kill everyone, but it is impossible for him to do so. The two things, intent and ability must be kept separate until there is an action. Judging the inaction must only be that there is inaction: Its cause may be one, or the other.

Even though a man has a gun in his room, he is unable to kill his wife and children with it. Desire has everything to do with what one does with power when they have it.

This man picks up the gun and goes out to hunt a rabbit. He is successful because he has not made himself incapable of killing rabbits.

[Epimethean]

A different metric obtains when the killing in question concerns a mass number of people.

[Violet]

A different metric obtains when the killing in question concerns a mass number of people.

Not at all

More blood and gore just makes it a little prettier

[Epimethean]

But since the man is not truly "able" to kill the entire human race, what value to the equation is his possible desire to do so?

[Violet]

But since the man is not truly "able" to kill the entire human race, what value to the equation is his possible desire to do so?

Who is to say the man is not truly able to kill the entire human race? Is it such a hard thing to do?

*The Galactic Empress thinks it is not, as she glances over her death fleet.*

If it were so that he cannot, then how does it matter why he cannot? He is not relevant

[Zenith]

If they can harm you if you are honest with everything and talking to everybody as to your close friends, then it means that you are being restricted the freedom of speech by the people around you.

Or you restrict yourself, which many of us do. We can't speak because we won't speak, only if we would could we.

Yeah, even a jew has the freedom to speak against Islam in an islamic country. Only that he would be killed, probably in a very painful way, and a lot of jews will die after him. But, in order for "freedom of speech" to be possible (i.e. either it is, or it is not), we use "freedom of speech" to mean, when others do not restrain you (e.g. by threatening you with punishment if you do).

Look what I've found:

exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
the power to determine action without restraint.
...
Freedom, independence, liberty refer to an absence of undue restrictions and an opportunity to exercise one's rights and powers. Freedom emphasizes the opportunity given for the exercise of one's rights, powers, desires, or the like: freedom of speech or conscience; freedom of movement.
...
the quality or state of being free, esp to enjoy political and civil liberties
...
the quality, esp of the will or the individual, of not being totally constrained; able to choose between alternative actions in identical circumstances
...
in humans, the power or capacity to choose among alternatives or to act in certain situations independently of natural, social, or divine restraints. Free will is denied by those who espouse any of various forms of determinism.

So if the society restrains a man from doing something (using threats with punishment, or other similar things) then he is not free to do it.

The reverse can happen though, where similar things are taken to be a challenge to one's position. I don't care what different jobs you have or what all you can manage... so long as you are not taking mine from me

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

And that panda was not free to eat, because he was not allowed by his 'master' (his master could have denied it from him any time he wanted).

You kidding? He kicked his master's ass for that last dumpling. Afterwards he says "I'm not hungry", which is significant if you've watched the movie.

But at the end, if you watch more careful, his master let him eat it. If his master really wanted, he had time before the panda said "I'm not hungry" to take the food, again.

Your inability to kill everyone belies your lack of freedom to do so. You cannot because you will not.

I cannot because I am physically incapable of doing it.

---

More blood and gore just makes it a little prettier

Are you a death metal fun? perhaps brutal death metal?

---

I do not see his inability to kill being analogous to his lack of desire. I have no idea whether he wants to kill everyone, but it is impossible for him to do so. The two things, intent and ability must be kept separate until there is an action. Judging the inaction must only be that there is inaction: Its cause may be one, or the other.

Yeah, agree. Desire & capability are two different things. There are actually three (mostly): desire, freedom do it, and physical (or whatever) capability.

Even though a man has a gun in his room, he is unable to kill his wife and children with it. Desire has everything to do with what one does with power when they have it.

Actually, it depends on the man. And desire has not, perhaps anything to do with freedom (and freedom is different than "possible" - that's why there are two different words, after all!)

This man picks up the gun and goes out to hunt a rabbit. He is successful because he has not made himself incapable of killing rabbits.

He is successful for more reasons (one, because he found a rabbit; second, because he learned to shoot well at a target; third, because he caught the rabbit by surprise, etc.)

Who is to say the man is not truly able to kill the entire human race? Is it such a hard thing to do?

Well, I think most agree with that. Or what, do you have enough nuclear rockets and physically capable to launch them?

[Violet]

Yeah, even a jew has the freedom to speak against Islam in an islamic country. Only that he would be killed, probably in a very painful way, and a lot of jews will die after him. But, in order for "freedom of speech" to be possible (i.e. either it is, or it is not), we use "freedom of speech" to mean, when others do not restrain you (e.g. by threatening you with punishment if you do).

Or he could have a competent security detail.

Dictionary is meaningless to me.

So if the society restrains a man from doing something (using threats with punishment, or other similar things) then he is not free to do it.

He is not free to do it if he cannot do it. He is free to do it if there will be consequences for this. There are always consequences. These are not related at all to freedom.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Tolerance is not only of difference, but also of sameness, and of many other things on top of that.

But at the end, if you watch more careful, his master let him eat it. If his master really wanted, he had time before the panda said "I'm not hungry" to take the food, again.

His master tested his freedom to eat, and found it strong. As my enemies test my defenses to see if I really do own what I defend. He really could not get it back at that point. Not to mention he was impressed with Po.

I cannot because I am physically incapable of doing it.

Really? I'm not

Are you a death metal fun? perhaps brutal death metal?

Not particularly, though I can on occasion enjoy it.

Actually, it depends on the man. And desire has not, perhaps anything to do with freedom (and freedom is different than "possible" - that's why there are two different words, after all!)

It wasn't an example of any man, just the one What it is possible for one to do is what one is free to do. One is free to do that which they can.

He is successful for more reasons (one, because he found a rabbit; second, because he learned to shoot well at a target; third, because he caught the rabbit by surprise, etc.)

Hence he hasn't made himself incapable of killing rabbits, which is exactly what I sad

Well, I think most agree with that. Or what, do you have enough nuclear rockets and physically capable to launch them?

What most agree with is popular indeed... but 'correct' rarely.

I have Zeon missiles, the hell would I want a nuclear missile for? And of course I'm physically capable of launching them... we have a death fleet stationed but a few systems over. And with hyperthrust drives... we can be to this system in minutes.