Dutch Yaoi Fans

^^ Well the question I think isn't really 'what is freedom' cause that is something most people can to a certain extend agree on. Because freedom is what Link and Rukin said and more.

The interesting question is not what is freedom, but how far are we allowed to go in our bid for freedom. Saskia said: 'well as long as you don't harm anyone.' but what harms me maybe not harm someone else and visa versa.

Freedom is more in the restrained part mentioned before. Just because we should be allowed to do anything, doesn't mean we should. Just like certain people in this country (I don't think they are worth to be mentioned by name) who yell all these inappropriate things. Things that they should be allowed to think off (if it is so in their opinion) yet one should not just say it, because (in my opinion) it harms people and more then that It harms the entire society we live in.

@Sas.: And there are some who are honoured for what they have done, without violence. Like Ghandi, Buddah, Christ, etc. But these are loners in history. They are but a relative small number against the aggressors of history. (and they were successful, if not we would have never heard of them. But a measure of success, of course, can't be just left out of the equation) And all that has come from them has never succeeded in maintaining their non-violent character. (India started to fight with Pakistan. Christians fought Pagans, Muslims, Jews and other religions. Mandela's ANC party had also a militant wing who killed people) And every nations that has survived to day has build an army even those founded on the principal of non-violence.

It's interesting... freedom. Someone once invented a word for a feeling he had, or the word just 'made' itself (like some words just do). In any case, it discribes a feeling. It's something you gotta feel for youself, since you can't really, ultimately and surely say what freedom means.
At least, that's what I think.

But, for instance... the freedom to say what you want to say. The so called "vrijheid van meningsuiting". It often collides with another important law, namely the law that forbids discrimination. The annoying things about those two is that they overlap. It's like Denno said, "What harms me might or might not harm another". Someone can say 'I can say whatever I like, we live in a free country.' But if it hurts others, you aren't allowed to say it, if it's considered discrimination. But who's gonna decide?
So, where's the boundry in that 'freedom'?

There are always certain rules we have to oblige. The question is, are those rules a confinement to our freedom, or are the rules here to PROTECT that freedom?

Kreatio said: are those rules a confinemnet to our freedom, or are the rules here to protect that freedom? Well, what would feel like a confinement for some, might be a protection for other.... Just like MC said: what harms one might not harm another....

And that is precisely why this is such a big dilemma....

And where MC thinks big: in country's and wars and those who won and those who lost, I prefer to think small: What can I do to be a better person and make the world a little bit better.
To me it is not about those that commit violence (whether they win or lose), it is about the ones that show us that we cán make the world a little bit better (it is harder though, so there are more violent ones, but that doesn't make the Buddah/Jesus option any less valid).
Both are equally true.... , it's just a different perspective...

Man, are we a group of intellectuals or what ??? Makes me wonder what the average IQ is for yaoi-lovers in the Netherlands

BTW:
Freedom to me is being able to be myself without having to be afraid ....

Yeah freedom is a tricky one huh. If you talk about it, you first have to define, and we all know that freedom means a lot of things for a lot of different people XD

And total freedom does not exist, or in a way it does, according to Kant I believe, he said that we have the freedom to kill someone XD but then again we are not on rampage tours killing everyone....

Freedom is related to your social environment. In this sense, I disagree with what most Western (american & european) people think about their most important value, namely individual freedom, for example that notorious freedom of speech.....
Most Asians strongly believes that it is worthwhile to sacrifice a wee bit of their freedom to serve the common good. But according to western notions, most Asian countries are semi-authoritarian states, close to despotism XD Yeah, so again, freedom it's all a matter of perception. I have been to Asia a lot of times, and you can't really say they lack freedom at all, but still they are in some areas more restricted by the state than anywhere else..... but still Japan has Yaoi on tv, whereas in Holland, i do believe it will be censored for sure

@MC Denno
There are a lot of different ways to view violence.. You only refer to physical oppression. But there is an even more effective way of violence: the psychological part. You don't have to resort in the act of physical violence, most of the time it is enough to show that you are CAPABLE of it by threats. Some are powerful, not because they are violent, but because they have the capacity to do so. People will obey them immediately even when it never ended in brutal bloodshed..... but the discussion will be about what power is and how different parties are fighting it out in the 'arena'

@sas
Gay man just have high IQ's... every one in the Netherlands wants gay people in their neighbourhood, we are tidy, clean, smart and get over average pays >_> (=fact)

Well Kreatio, I believe it works both ways. Your liberty is my confinement and visa versa. And I believe our entire problem is that there is not one moral compass. The only compass we have is ourself. Which is scary and yet strangely safe ^^ (if you catch my drift) But the problem is because every man is different so differs our moral compass. And if we choose one compass we need to force this upon others which also will lead to the confining of ones freedom.

this way we remain trapped in a never ending circle

@Link: I am talking about the physical kind of violence although I of course also admit there is a significant psychological component to it. But that hardly ever makes it to the history books (unless it is related to a particular event of physical violence.)

A great "loesje-tekst" comes to mind
"Leuk toch dat je vrijheid grenst aan die van anderen?"
A friend of mine has discussed "ethiek" and justice in her filosophy class, at the end of the period she came to the following conclusion:
"Rechtvaardigheid is, net als elk ander idee en geloof, een onmisbare illusie."
she can explain far better than me how she came to this, I'll ask her sometime :P

@rukin, well I have no idea why your friend stated that, but if you look at it that way, all abstract things are illusions, because it is in a way constructed in our minds. It doesn't really mean anything o.0 I'm curious about the 'onmisbaar' part, what makes it onmisbaar?

@mc denno, you are mistaken about the history book part, the Cold War is one big psychological warfare o.0 What about the war between Taiwan and China now? Pakistan and India? and so on... They never really ended up in a gigantic bloodshed or atomic war, they are provoking each other XD

And about the moral compass... do you really believe every man is different? Don't you think that you are taking individualism (=western notion) a bit too far? Isn't it true that there are a lot of similarities between people that let them all act in a certain way? but of course there are 'buitenbeentjes', people who are deviant from the norm. Most of the time these moral compasses are not enforced or 'chosen'. Not everyone takes boeddha that seriously XD I mean, most people are followers and not an individual who strives for personal 'enlightenment'...

@ Link: cold war no bloodshed? what's wrong with this picture? >> Let me say this: Vietnam war, Korean war, Afghanistan war. The war for the suez channel. All these minor wars are united under a single banner namely the cold war. Although there was never a direct clash between America and the USSR, still they battled each other on every front. Only in Indirect ways. There is no war between Taiwan and China. Not officially at least. And between Pakistand and India??? well there has been bloodshed, only it has never escalated in a full fledged nuclear war. Still, there has been blood.

And the moral compass, people may undertake the same actions, but that doesn't mean that they do that for the same reasons. One does it because of solidarity (in his world that has a high value) the other does it for the money (cause he values that the most) the third does it because he hates the other party. And the last does it because everyone else has chosen that path.

And maybe my thoughts are to western. Or at least they appear to be, although my philosophy's about life are closer related to a eastern view on the individual then on a western one. And even if it is in your eyes very western, I don't believe you can a) blame for it. I am a western born individual and I have been raised within this culture and b) Even if it is western does that mean it only applies to people who live in the west? are we really that different from the rest of the world? Just because someone else in the east may have another take on things does that make my point of view wrong? or at least wrong in that part of the world?

I don't believe that can be said. Maybe my filling in of the blank spots seems very western, and maybe it is. But does that really matter?

Oh sorry I never meant it that way, Mac. I love you you no matter how you think lol (=oh that sounded weird) I just wanted to give a fuller picture of that perceptions on for example 'compasses for being a good man' and 'freedom' can be very different which are very much determined, no let's say, influenced by your cultural upbringing. Sorry I was personally offending you I find you one of the most open minded people I've met for sure ^_^

Oh and yeah, of course there is bloodshed, but you should look 'over' that. I mean, it's overly sensational for the press to highlight event when it eventually comes to clashes which results in deaths and casualties. There are other things about history than physical violence XD The treat itself is the ability to cause deaths.

I dont wanna be mean or anything but isn't this topic kind of against the rules? >_<