I will gladly respond in detail, but you first must elaborate on what you mean by the words "independently free." You may want to re-word "independently free," unless you are fine with seeming to imply that 'independently' is some thing other than 'free', and that 'free' is just that, free. If you follow me?
I can respond as you requested if you outline for me what you mean by the terms: 'independently', and 'free'.
Also, the concept of individuals, as you assert it relating to factual anthropological findings (records) seems to be in contradiction with what you go on to state that individuals are part of families (?), but are free to leave at any time. How is it that the individual even became part of this thing called "family?" Perhaps a natural inclination of humans? The individual's natural tendency toward forming collectives - rather socialistic, wouldn't you say? Is there a reason for such an innate inclination? Survival? Two heads are better than one? The individual leaving the family of their own free will is rather presumptuous. How have you concluded that the individual is leaving of their own free will, by the model where a family allows for the individual to exercise said free will without retribution? Free will is only slightly a conscious exercise, meaning, the individual does not purely exercise their free will simply as extension of their conscious realization that there is an act, the act of free will, that they are optioned to take.
It would be the same as an individual who will inevitably die being offered three options: hanging, shooting, stabbing; the individual chooses between the three options, stabbing. The individual is stabbed until dead, then Slow turns to the crowd, and exclaims, "they chose to be stabbed until dead." Not exactly, the individual did not choose to die, they merely chose between the options available to them as to how they would die. The same goes for leaving the family. The family allows for the individual to leave at their will, but the individual leaves because they have determined there is a greater value in leaving the family, than with staying with the family. The individual does not exercise free will, they choose the lesser of two evils.
This is why nobody can take you seriously.
#1. The presence of a social collection is nothing more than a survival instinct meant to increase survivability. It has no bearing on an individuals choice to, or not to belong to a collective. There is no contradiction there. Just a confused girl with comprehension problems attempting to create a paradox that is non-existent. The presence of a social commune does not by default declare ownership over an individual. Please take a class on critical thinking. You need it sorely.
#2. You are incompetent, and unable to grasp the separation between an ingrained instinct for social interaction, and freedom of will. You create your own paradox where you believe the individual is at all times, no matter what, bound to another. This is proven patently false as a matter of established science and record. You then create
only the scenarios which validate your limited scope of opinion, which is rather lacking in abstract thought.
I cannot fathom how it must be living with such a limited perspective as yours. I am truly, and sincerely sorry for your lack of abstract thought, and inability to process several layers of information. I mean that with sincerity.
You do at times crack me up with how infantile some of your commentary is, or more precisely, how short-sighted it is.
Beretta, people
often leave their social structure, in a free society, of their own will. You specify various reasons as if they were not made from the individual perspective, via personal responsibility, which is rather comical on your behalf. It lacks perspective. It also highlights your meager postings, and other various shortcomings.
Many men and women up and leave their families for varying reasons. Some people have been gone for years without ever seeing their families. Some people elect, of their own free will, to live on their own, out in the wilderness.
These are all, like it or not, choices that reflect their own
personal responsibility.
My previous statement went into the psychiatry involved in your limited drivel, and why it lacks the articulated, educated response of men and women of science. Your retorts are almost always devoid of critical thought, basic college history education, and a distinct lack of study on your own behalf. That's a problem Sara Mae. You need to lean less on your emotions, and more on logic and critical thinking.
Right now, I promise you you are leaning on "what feels right", and what you deem to be "acceptable" to your peers.
It is in your vocabulary, sentence structure, and chosen focal points.
Please, before you further embarrass yourself, take some classes.
Opinion and emotions aren't fact, no matter how many times you spin them. No matter how much emotion you attach to them Beretta.
