Well stated. Missed my point though. I'm not looking to tell you we are slaves but rather I'm looking to better understand freedom myself.
You see to me freedom must be about more than just the ability to do something. Freedom is a notion with many characteristics used to explain it. The problem (I get called Glen Beck for this but I DONT WATCH HIM) is that individuals latch onto one particular characteristic and create their freedom with their minds eye. Heres an example of what I'm trying to say.
If freedom is a birth right then does freedom die if one free man takes away some part of another mans freedom? I say yes it dies since freedom is for all and when one unjustly looses freedom then freedom dies. Even the "slave owner" looses his freedom, for he never knows when the slave may rise against him and this takes his freedom of peace of mind.
So, the definition of freedom can't simply end with ability. Freedom is crafted through an understanding.
Why didn't the slaves of early America rise up? How many men can one man control?
My answer is that through misunderstanding the slaves failed to see their common problem. See if the dark skins dislike the light, or the inside slaves hating the outside slaves,....ect.
Imagine the lies told by the slave owners in an attempt to keep control. When everyone is thinking that the grass is greener on the other side they loose sight of what is killing the grass to begin with.
So if we intend to stay free, or gain it from my actual point of view, then we must understand the concept.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to start a debate on "if we are free" but rather what it means to you.
I believe there is a possibility you have missed what SupperFerret was trying to voice. Upon reviewing his post, he did not seem to misinterpret what your point was, as stated at the end of your post, as well as your first post which had begun the dialogue.
However...
"So if we intend to stay free, or gain it from my actual point of view, then we must understand the concept." It is a statement I was incapable of combining with, "My interest is in truth." I found it confusing, to be honest.
Truth is something gained by research, debate of opposing points to weed out most inconsistencies and bias, and ultimately testing. When testing is not available, debate of opposing points to weed out most inconsistencies is the only thing left, and will continue. I would be further confused by your final statement, "Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking to start a debate on "if we are free" but rather what it means to you." This statement came after, "So, the definition of freedom can't simply end with ability. Freedom is crafted through an understanding. Why didn't the slaves of early America rise up? How many men can one man control?" It was confusing, as it stated what you believe to be freedom, paired with a question (which also confused me after "My friend. We can't have a chat if you answer questions with more questions.") about your interpretation of SuperFerret's post. Please refer to my earlier lines about truth.
I state this, because it did seem you misread SuperFerret's idea of freedom, or you did read it, and denied it. At any rate, it did appear you have felt your way of freedom to be, or be close to, the truth at a comfortable level. Or possibly misread it as a post concerning freedom and slavery from it, rather than what I believe he is truly speaking on.
Freedom itself is a subject highly debated in the past, and to a large degree today, as most freedom is concerned with physical/resource/civil freedoms. What SuperFerret offered was not such freedom. His post noted, "it basically comes down to people being too afraid to face consequences." I have interpreted this as a baseline freedoms most (aside from imprisoned) humans would be capable of partaking in. The freedom of choosing and acknowledgement. They can see the situation they are in, and choose to continue it, or not. This is a freedom all humans are born with, and the only baseline freedom capable of being reduced.
What probably led to the misunderstanding, from what I consider to be, was upon review of your posts, was how you might consider freedom to be. It appeared to begin as physical/resource freedoms. "Can you make your clothes, build your home, grow crops, transportation.....ect..... We are and always will be slaves to eachother." This post also led to something you said which led me to believe you might have simply disregarded what SuperFerret said, and led to my confusion on your truth seeking comment, "No way around it. Only the blind see different. And those who understand...... Well they just keep us argueing like kids so we can't catch a breath to say........" This would imply you believe you already have a strong grasp on the concept and ideas of freedom, and believe there is already a path before us.
SuperFerret had nothing to offer on physical/resource freedoms, and instead given what you have stated you desire, he had offered in his post what he believed to be baseline freedoms most (aside from imprisoned humans) enjoy: Freedom based on choices and acknowledgement. A slave can acknowledge his situation, and choose to remain there, but it does not diminish their freedom of this, only their civil liberties. SuperFerret would go on to state there is a difference between what he believed to be baseline freedom given to all those who are born, and civil liberties.
There is a possibility you are guided strictly by your own beliefs on freedom, and so you have possibly missed SuperFerret's. I would advise you to more openly define your beliefs on freedom in their entirety, as well as offer a greater explanation for them. It would reduce the confusion, as well as allow us to more accurately return comments on the subject matter you wish to discuss.
