> > Yes! Anyone who says they'd rather be dead than not free puzzles me,
> > and at least a couple of people leapt down your throat at your
> > "rhetorical question".
>
> The world presents us with probabilistic balancing acts much more
> often than it presents us with binary toggles. Just as many people
> are willing to take on small but significant risks of death in the
> name of fun (skydivers, those who experiment with new designer
> drugs, etc), some of us are willing to face significantly increased
> *risks* of death in order to secure our freedoms.
>
> And some of us have, shall I say, slightly diminished respect for
> people who are ready to sell out all their freedoms in exchange
> for a reduced risk of death. But these are personal decisions.
Saying you'd "rather be dead than not free" and saying you "would except the
risk of death to fight for freedom" are two very seperate things. Your view
is obviously optimistic (in that you are risking death for freedom), the
other is pessimistic (accepting death because you cannot see a chance for
freedom).
Personally, I think death and *no chance of freedom* are the same thing.
--Wax