Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
“... being free does not mean liberty without necessary limits ...”
The only possible limits on any individual’s freedom is the use of force by other individual’s. The only thing one must not be free to do, is to initiate force against another.
To illustrate what true freedom is, consider an individual where there are no other people. That individual is free to do whatever he chooses. His success or failure depends entirely on his choices. If he fails to produce what he needs, to learn all he can about his environment and what is and is not possible to him, and fails to make the effort to conform to the nature of that reality, he will suffer the consequences and probably die.
Is freedom the liberty to do anything one chooses without any limit whatsoever? Yes it is, but one can never evade the consequences of one’s choices.
That is why most men hate freedom. They know they are not competent to live their life successfully by their own ability and effort. So most choose, as you do, enslavement to some government that promises to make everything nice and safe, which no government can or ever has done. But, I wish you the best and hope your chains are light.
Hank
:’) Thanks gw.
-----------------------
A reasonable possibility.
From the above, I guess that the both of you are supportive of euthanasia?
It's basically the same, if not exactly so.
Frankly, such constructions reek of egregious justification.
I’m a believer in self-defense.
I believe in containing a disaster early and well, by the lease harmful means possible.
If you had a chance to sink a few plague-ridden ships or lose 1/3 the population of an entire continent what, pray tell, would you do?
Didn’t David and his ilk supposedly take away the animals of the Amalekites? What became of them?
Did they have any “zootonic” diseases?
I'll take that as a yes, to sooth your conscience rather than do the uncomfortable thing and kill a few dozen sailors and passengers, you would take the easy way out and do nothing and thereby doom tens of millions to die.
Interesting choice.
1 Samuel 15:15
Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
No, what you presented was a false choice, which I chose to ignore.
Or else, one could justify rounding up the millions of HIV, avian flu suspects (when the disease was thought to be deadly), etc. and exterminating them. After all, who knows what the impact of allowing them to mingle freely would be, right?
What was false?
So let me get this right: the soldiers basically physically killed the supposedly “diseased” people - including the children and infants, then went on to round up the animals - both “diseased” and “healthy” - together, and separated them much later, to select the “healthy” ones for sacrifice.
Through all these sequences of events, transmission of those supposedly “deadly” diseases was prevented through what Stone Age HAZMAT procedures, exactly? Also, any word on whether the sacrificed animals were eventually consumed?
False because if you agree ships carrying the diseased should be destroyed rather than implement an ethical quarantine mechanism, then what stops you from seeing the rounding up of HIV / Avian flu / etc. sufferers from being given the same fate?
HAZMAT? All that’s necessary to avoid STDs is DON’T HUMP THE GOATS! (And don’t have sex with an infected person, and don’t be born of an infected mother).
Oh, and by the way, in stark contrast to San Francisco’s utter inability to close down the bath houses, some countries did lock up their early on AIDS patients.
For me it’s somewhat personal. I lost two friends to “the gay plague” after the risk factors had been identified, but before anyone knew what was causing it. Perhaps isolating the infected would have saved them, perhaps not.
So tell me, would you have locked up Mary Mallon or not?
I do appreciate you running with my STD speculation as if it were Biblical fact. That gives me some feel that the theory is at least plausible.
Ah. True, it is much easier to quarantine a ship than a town with scores of roads and paths in and out, and the necessity of importing food and disposing of wastes.
True, it could possibly be done.
Now explain all that to a people who have no concept of the germ theory of disease, and practically no appreciation of even the most rudimentary concepts of hygiene. Or even soap. Expect ALL of them to get it, and expect none of them to fail to rigorously enforce the quarantine for the the decades it would take to burn itself out.
Put this pus filled festering sore in the heart of your people’s lands.
Good luck with that.
Keeping animals together won’t stop animal-to-animal transmissions, so your theory still fails.
Ships being quarantined in an ethical manner is not a wrong choice. It would be the right thing to do. But destroying the people within is wrong.
Food and supplies can be transported by various means, thus preserving isolation.
Not to mention the comedic aspect of the whole scriptural contraption where the diseases are said to be the divine entity’s manifested vengeance, and yet the said divine entity has no control over its own act, that it requires inhumane participation of its followers, to control.
Ships being quarantined in an ethical manner is not a wrong choice.
Never said it was. It works really well against fast acting diseases, against years long chronic infectious diseases, not so much.
Sometimes a blunt instrument is the only one available.
Food and supplies can be transported by various means, thus preserving isolation.
I think air drops were reserved for the Jews.
Free will’s a bitch ain’t it?
Free will is good, but the ‘bitch’ is something else, altogether.
Justifications like the ones made earlier is the exact reason why we have the Moon Mission deniers and other conspiracy nuts, to this day.
Sheep and many domestic animals can breed all year round.
That said, diseases don’t occur in the same stages, together.
Incubation periods vary, and there is no way of telling whether a particular animal is infected, especially by primitive peoples, if the disease still hasn’t manifested itself in ways that can allow it to be recognised, physically.
It is for the same reason that today, in spite of all the technology and testing procedures, farm animals are culled to totality when deadly diseases are suspected.
Again, your theory fails.
I never said the Amalekites' animals were co-mingled with the Jews' animals, nor is there (to the best of my knowledge) any Biblical indication that they were.
That, sir, is purely your straw-man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.