Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Old Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26

    Saftey vs. Freedom

    (insert I-Robot storyline here)

    Alright, so in the movie I-Robot, the robots try and take over humanity so they can keep them safe.
    To have this safety, they must give up rights. They must give up freedoms.

    Now, here is what we're talking about here. Extremes.
    On one side of the scale, all most no freedom, absolute safety. You can't get close to another person if you two seem hostile. etc. On the other side of the scale, complete and utter Anarchy. Obvious danger issues ensue.

    What do you think?
    Somebody once said, that if he had to choose between no rights, and unlimited rights, he'd choose the latter.

  2. #2
    Insanity Skype's Avatar



    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    27,397

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    You can never have complete freedom because the human race just doesn't work like that.

    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.

    This is why we have laws and restrictions- to keep us safe.

    If I had to pick one or the other I wouldn't pick. Both are bad. At least in the sense you gave it.

    Also I-Robot is about robots who see humans as a threat to the earth, not to keep them safe lol.

  3. #3
    lucien is queen Hazzystan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,977

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    I would obviously choose unlimited rights. I'd rather live my life in dangerous freedom, than be completely oppressed. Although saying that if everyone had unlimited rights a sort of conundrum is created: If everyone has unlimited rights, everyone has the right to take away everyone else's rights.
    what is homo love?

  4. #4
    Old Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Skype
    You can never have complete freedom because the human race just doesn't work like that.

    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.

    This is why we have laws and restrictions- to keep us safe.

    If I had to pick one or the other I wouldn't pick. Both are bad. At least in the sense you gave it.

    Also I-Robot is about robots who see humans as a threat to the earth, not to keep them safe lol.
    No, the book is about the 3 laws.
    1. a robot must never harm a human, or by inaction, let a human come to harm
    2. a robot must always obey a human, unless that conflicts with the 1st law.
    3. a robot must try to defend itself, unless that conflicts with the first, or second law.

    They book talks about how the robots want to keep humans safe, but they keep going to war, killing each other, killing there self. etc.

    But anyways, about the humans don't work that way, what do you mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    I would obviously choose unlimited rights. I'd rather live my life in dangerous freedom, than be completely oppressed. Although saying that if everyone had unlimited rights a sort of conundrum is created: If everyone has unlimited rights, everyone has the right to take away everyone else's rights.
    Yes, you do have the right to take away someones right, but then they have the right to blow your face off with an otherwise illegally imported sawed-off machine gun or something ridiculous.
    But I'd rather live in dagerous freedom than safe oppresion.

  5. #5
    Insanity Skype's Avatar



    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    27,397

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Skype
    You can never have complete freedom because the human race just doesn't work like that.

    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.

    This is why we have laws and restrictions- to keep us safe.

    If I had to pick one or the other I wouldn't pick. Both are bad. At least in the sense you gave it.

    Also I-Robot is about robots who see humans as a threat to the earth, not to keep them safe lol.
    No, the book is about the 3 laws.
    1. a robot must never harm a human, or by inaction, let a human come to harm
    2. a robot must always obey a human, unless that conflicts with the 1st law.
    3. a robot must try to defend itself, unless that conflicts with the first, or second law.

    They book talks about how the robots want to keep humans safe, but they keep going to war, killing each other, killing there self. etc.
    The book? You said the movie. In the movie the whole thing revolves around the robots rebelling and trying to seize control. In the end, Will Smith has to destroy the central control thingy, can't remember its name.

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    But anyways, about the humans don't work that way, what do you mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by I already
    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.

  6. #6
    Old Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    [quote=Sir Skype]
    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Quote Originally Posted by "Sir Skype":11kzh8wh
    You can never have complete freedom because the human race just doesn't work like that.

    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.

    This is why we have laws and restrictions- to keep us safe.

    If I had to pick one or the other I wouldn't pick. Both are bad. At least in the sense you gave it.

    Also I-Robot is about robots who see humans as a threat to the earth, not to keep them safe lol.
    No, the book is about the 3 laws.
    1. a robot must never harm a human, or by inaction, let a human come to harm
    2. a robot must always obey a human, unless that conflicts with the 1st law.
    3. a robot must try to defend itself, unless that conflicts with the first, or second law.

    They book talks about how the robots want to keep humans safe, but they keep going to war, killing each other, killing there self. etc.
    The book? You said the movie. In the movie the whole thing revolves around the robots rebelling and trying to seize control. In the end, Will Smith has to destroy the central control thingy, can't remember its name.

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    But anyways, about the humans don't work that way, what do you mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by I already
    There will always be someone who's envyous of another person, always someone who has different morals and different opinions on what's good and bad.
    [/quote:11kzh8wh]

    Movie does the same thing.

    Anyways, yeah someone can oppress you, in a metaphorical sense, but there are no repercussions for slaughtering them if you're able.

  7. #7
    Insanity Skype's Avatar



    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    27,397

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Anyways, yeah someone can oppress you, in a metaphorical sense, but there are no repercussions for slaughtering them if you're able.
    Who said anything about repercussions? It's safety VS freedom. One is compromised if the other is fully allowed.

  8. #8
    lucien is queen Hazzystan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,977

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    I would obviously choose unlimited rights. I'd rather live my life in dangerous freedom, than be completely oppressed. Although saying that if everyone had unlimited rights a sort of conundrum is created: If everyone has unlimited rights, everyone has the right to take away everyone else's rights.
    Yes, you do have the right to take away someones right, but then they have the right to blow your face off with an otherwise illegally imported sawed-off machine gun or something ridiculous.
    What do you mean? The point I was making was that it's pretty much impossible for us to have unlimited rights, because a sort of conundrum is created. I wasn't supporting my previous statement, but I probably should have made that clearer.
    what is homo love?

  9. #9
    Old Newbie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    26

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Skype
    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Anyways, yeah someone can oppress you, in a metaphorical sense, but there are no repercussions for slaughtering them if you're able.
    Who said anything about repercussions? It's safety VS freedom. One is compromised if the other is fully allowed.
    That's the point.
    One or the other, that's the debate.
    Actually, the debate is which would you rather have?
    And I said NO repercussion, so whats your point?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazzystan
    I would obviously choose unlimited rights. I'd rather live my life in dangerous freedom, than be completely oppressed. Although saying that if everyone had unlimited rights a sort of conundrum is created: If everyone has unlimited rights, everyone has the right to take away everyone else's rights.
    Yes, you do have the right to take away someones right, but then they have the right to blow your face off with an otherwise illegally imported sawed-off machine gun or something ridiculous.
    What do you mean? The point I was making was that it's pretty much impossible for us to have unlimited rights, because a sort of conundrum is created. I wasn't supporting my previous statement, but I probably should have made that clearer.
    Yea, it would end in a sort of paradox, in that some kind of mafia would arise and become a government.
    Primates are tribal animals. So I see what you're saying, but we're just assuming it'd be so chaotic that it wouldn't matter.

  10. #10
    Insanity Skype's Avatar



    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    27,397

    Re: Saftey vs. Freedom

    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Skype
    Quote Originally Posted by ermac2222
    Anyways, yeah someone can oppress you, in a metaphorical sense, but there are no repercussions for slaughtering them if you're able.
    Who said anything about repercussions? It's safety VS freedom. One is compromised if the other is fully allowed.
    That's the point.
    One or the other, that's the debate.
    Actually, the debate is which would you rather have?
    And I said NO repercussion, so whats your point?
    There is no debate. It's a fact that having one will compromise the other and cause conflict. And repercussions don't factor into this, what's YOUR point?


 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •