I am disappointed at your lack of understanding of phenomenon of freedom, despite I’ve explained it on multiple occasions.
And If you do not wish to discuss it and learn about it, why in Maker’s name you bring these discussions in?
Just to show that: “I am ignorant and proud, don’t talk to me about it?” 
Wow…you really are a whackjob
3 Likes
Noted…having conversations with the mentally unstable is bad for my health…
You are simply proving my point here, to you anyone going against the current ruling structure is a traitor. If that ruling structure is tyrannical however, the oppressed will view them as a freedom fighter.
Much the same way that you view the Caldari who first broke from Gallente rule. They were either traitors or freedom fighters (soldiers, rebels, whatever), purely depending on your perspective.
First of all, traitor is one who switches sides to stay with enemies. Going against current ruling structure by yourself is a mutiny, not a treason.
Second, any ruling system implies a tyranny, otherwise it’s not a ruling system but circus full of clowns imagining they have power.
Third, those who tolerate to be oppressed are like cattle, their opinion is insignificant.
We were neither.
First of all, we never betrayed the Federation. We didn’t even start mutiny against it. We simply… left. And made it in that way that doesn’t violate the Federal charter - we simply formed new government, leaving old one altogether. It’s like… imagine, you are working in one company and it signed a treaty that’s not profitable to whole company and every worker in that. Couple high managers created new corporation and all the people leave to new corporation, leaving first one empty. That’s what happened.
And second, we weren’t clearly freedom fighters. We did fight for our independence, not for freedom. The Federation went war on us shortly after we left them and we had to defend ourselves. Because we, Caldari, won’t let ourselves to be oppressed.
cough
1 Like
Did you make it up yourself?..
Independence - lack of dependency from smth.
Freedom - lack of any bond with smth.
Dependency is a form of a bond. Thus, to get freedom among other things you also need to get independence from everything.
But as a relation of dependency cannot describe every possible bond, the state of independency will never guarantee freedom.
Independence can exist without freedom. Freedom can’t exist without independence.
In other words, Independence is a proper subset of Freedom, i.e. Freedom includes Independence, but never equal to it.
Can you get it now, minmatar?..
And it’s been explained to you many times that when most of us talk about ‘freedom’ in the socio-political sense, that is the particular flavor of it we mean. You are literally the only one here who can’t seem to understand that, including other people with the same native language. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that it’s not everyone else who is in error here.
4 Likes
Except you are not “everyone else”, but one annoying minmatar, who, instead of even trying to learn what does independence mean, start to make a nuisance of yourself on public forums.
I’ve tried to explain to you multiple times how does freedom work exactly in socio-political sense, but you simply refuse to listen, keeping make more drama out of your own ignorance, blabbering something about language. I don’t know how ignorant are those Achura-speaking or Napanii-speaking goons that you surrounded yourself with, but if you with your… “understanding” peek into any baseline Caldari bar, they’ll just make laugh at you.
1 Like
No, but she’s also not the only one. Seriously, we’ve done this discussion a dozen times at least. Everyone else is able to grasp the difference between various meanings of “freedom” but you. By now it is clear that you are either intentionally trolling or completely unable to learn.
Except it was me who was explaining you the meaning of freedom and you was that dense person, who was refusing to talk or understand. YOU were bringing a discussion and immediately stating you’re not interested in it. And after that YOU dare to blame me in trolling?.. 
Get out.
Some wisdoms from Heideran VII 
To my concerned children: word of your vigil reached my ears and I send you these few lines in gratitude for your devotion and concern.
Alas, my health is not good enough to be with you but in spirit, though your good deed will be remembered now and forever. In times as treacherous as these, peace may seem a distant illusion, but we must never stop fighting to achieve and maintain it.
Disruptive forces seek tirelessly to tear us apart and it is easy for the weak-minded to follow the flow. It is up to you, strong of mind and spirit, to hold high the torch of peace; to fall in a war of hate is a disgrace, to fall fighting for peace is a virtue that few can aspire to. But isn’t it better to die trying than to never try at all? Fare well, my children, my thoughts are with you and your mission.
1 Like
Words can have more than one meaning.
1 Like
No, that is not true.
Ok, one final time:
Last time we did this, I started from stating that I also have the concept of freedom as in chaos, being unconstrained, being out of control. I have no difficulties whatsoever understanding that part. Using that sense, we also say someone is “too free” with something, or “takes freedoms”. That usage is perfectly normal and understandable. It’s what you use, and when you say “freedom” I have no difficulties understanding you. I assume you mean that definition of “freedom” and we can talk.
But that that is not the only concept of freedom there exists. Freedom can also mean “independence, agency, self-government”. That is the part you refuse to accept, and so when other people use it in that sense, you have difficulties understanding them, and the talk goes nowhere.
As Valerie says, words can have more than one meaning. Context matters.
1 Like
There is another concept of freedom - as an absolute state of disarray as a charateristic of a physical system.
It can mean confusion.
It can mean lack of order.
It can be a measure of entropy.
It can mean turmoil and upheaval.
It can even be used to describe madness.
It can describe a condition of not being imprisoned or enslaved (especially when you should be for one reason or another - for example, for committing a crime).
It can describe a state of not being affected by something.
It can describe being overtly and disgustingly familiar
It can describe a state of overt permissiveness (I guess that’s what you referred)
and so on, and so on…
As you can see, I pretty much know quite a lot of concepts that freedom can be used as.
Yeehh… I have addressed already the issue of freedom vs independence. Freedom is generally a way more broader term than just independence. I guess it could be used as a rude description of independence. And self-government surely can be described by freedom… if you wish to insult that self-governing entity.
But lets return back to independence. Why I am not “accepting” them as synonyms I’ve described already: independence is a subset of freedom. Yet, I do accept that you possibly can call independence as a freedom - again, just in case of self-government as a way to insult it.
It’s just when you pick words and synonyms, they also have a certain “scent” to them, which is heavily influenced by other meanings of that word. Independence is somewhat a neutral word, you can be independent alike from something good or bad. While freedom implies you’re independent from something you’d better be depending on. Of course, of course it can describe as well independence from something undesirable - but that might give someone a feeling that that undesirable shall be a desirable. Just because of the emotional value of the word, that goes into deep negative by association with its other meanings (and sometimes - by political charge - in case of our people, by Gallente propaganda, which is still trying to bring us that freedom as a contrast to independence we won from them with blood of our ancestors).
It does not matter if you accept the usage of “freedom” as “independence, agency, autonomy” or not. That is how people use the word and nothing you say is going to change it. You can either
- keep on making an ass out of yourself by pretending you do not know this and consequently derailing all discussions of independence/agency/autonomy, or
- you can read people as saying what they mean, not what their words would mean if they used the term the way you’d like them to be used.
Your call.
I am not answering the derailings anymore.
3 Likes
This thread proves something. I am not sure what it is, but something is being proven in regards to the initial question.
3 Likes
I believe I did write quite explicitly I do understand that certain people might call autonomy/independence/whatever as freedom. And I have explained why it is unacceptable, why are you still making a nuisance of yourself?
Of course you can call autonomy as “freedom”, all I was saying that it is highly insulting to those who gained that autonomy. Can you understand it or not?
Or you just want to invoke your “right” for “freedom of speech” - which looks just as an excuse to insult people without getting punished for that, and just place labels of freedom without even realizing it insults people, or just doing it on purpose, being obtuse, insulting them as well as those (like me) who tell you that insulting word do insult people and even describing you in damn details why they are insulting?..
You know, they should give me free milk for trying to explain to minmatars good manners.
I wonder if we can all agree that we will never agree on what ‘freedom’ is?
Possibly.
Ask Samira about things. According to her, there is no interpretation of the Scriptures, and they mean exactly one thing. So, if freedom is defined in the Scriptures anywhere, we can use that to define what it actually means.
1 Like