Remember back in the 20th century when Freedom was a singular word?

[valerief]

I wondered when it became plural, did a search, and came across this post.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/11/1006087/-When-did-Freedom-become-plural-and-what-does-it-mean

The vast majority of my life, Freedom has always been discussed as a unitary notion. It wasn't until G.W. Bush, in response to 9/11 said of the terrorists, "They hate us for our Freedoms", that I began to hear freedom referred to in the plural by both the left and the right with greater frequency.

Although the poster made some excellent points, we have the freedumbs of choice.

Which version of the word do you prefer--Freedom or Freedoms?

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Freedom
	3 (75%)
	Freedoms
	1 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[porphyrian]

1. Depends on the context.

"Freedom" is a good term to use for the pure or general concept.

"Freedoms" is a good term to use when you are referring to a list, such as the freedoms of speech and religion.

"Freedumbs" is a good term for the pretend freedoms the batshit crazy republicans invent, such as freedumbs to own unregulated assault rifles without active participation in a well regulated militia or to endanger Americans abroad by torturing suspected terrorists and pretending it isn't torture.

[Pacafishmate]

2. Why are you conflating gun ownership with torture?

One is in the bill of rights while the other has nothing to do with this discussion.

[porphyrian]

3. The Bill of Rights only guarantees the right to arms for members of a well regulated militia.

Maybe you should reread it.

[Pacafishmate]

14. Regulated meant well equipped.

That has been repeated many times. I'm sure someone has already told you, but you would rather just keep spewing misinformation because it benefits your agenda.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Not so.

The actual language of the amendment doesn't provide that restriction. While the militia is stated as a reason for protecting the right to keep and bear arms, the right itself is clearly ascribed to the people.

[valerief]

7. Having a well-regulated militia bearing muskets is in the Bill of Rights.

Paranoid gun hoarders/smugglers isn't.

[Pacafishmate]

13. Disingenuous at best.

I assume you don't think there should be free speech other than writing with a quill pen and actual speech? Free speech doesn't apply to the internet because the founders couldn't have imagined such a subversive medium. Am I getting you correctly?

[valerief]

15. I was talking about muskets and militia and you inartfully changed the subject.

Not very clever.

[Pacafishmate]

18. I made the mistake of assuming you could understand a simple analogy, sorry for overestimating you.

You made a comment about how the second amendment refers only to the militia and the bearing of muskets. You are assuming that the founding fathers were primitive folk who didn't understand the idea of technological or societal advance, therefore they couldn't have possibly meant anything except for muskets and militias.

They used the militia as one justification of the right to keep and bear arms. The emphasis is on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The fact that the concept of a militia is now anachronistic does not negate the primary clause of the second amendment. There are plenty of justifications for the civilian ownership of firearms, expecting them all to be enumerated in the bill of rights is simply absurd. Your intellectually shallow and poorly informed views make me laugh haughtily in your general direction.

[valerief]

19. I read all of that on a GOP site once!!!! nt

[valerief]

6. Yes, but as the poster I linked noted, listy items are rights. Freedom is a single concept.

Her point was that if we can break freedom down into multiples, it's easy to strip some of those rights away, because we're still left with other *freedomS*.

[porphyrian]

9. Our language is alive and the meanings of words change. I didn't miss any points and I stand by...

...what I said, which was contextually relevant and in agreement with the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. As a couple of Kos commenters point out, there are FDR's "Four Freedoms"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

And, despite what the Kossack says, it wasn't a grammatical faux pas - like FDR, Bush was listing them:

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

Unless Bush started using the plural a lot beyond that (when not giving a list), I don't think we can blame him for this. Maybe the Republicans who repeated it after him ...

[valerief]

8. I don't see where FDR used the word freedoms. (SEE EDIT BELOW)

on edit:
I totally missed your first link. Sorry!

[Art_from_Ark]

10. FDR talked about the "Four Freedoms"

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, freedom from fear

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36b.htm

[valerief]

11. Thanks! But I still think of freedom as being something like safety or peace. nt

[JHB]

17. Fair enough, but remember the conservatives have a different name for the "Four Freedoms"...

Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

"Big Government."

So I'm inclined to claim the "s" with pride.

[kctim]

5. Freedoms

Using the singular makes it easier to chip away at them one at a time.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. Freedom

I voted abstain. I just want to live my life with being oppressed. Free. That is tough when the PTB are trying to created a permanent "slave" class by destroying the middle class.