-Are you free?
+Life is more complicated than philosophy.
-But again, are you free? Or rather, are we free?
+Do you mean there is a correlation between these two?
+My freedom, and ours.
-“You” are part of “us”, isn't it?
+Correct. But “my freedom” may or may not be a part of “our freedom”. Maybe they are even disjoint. Every weekend I play tennis. Will you defend that we played tennis last Saturday?
-Don't change the subject.
+I wasn't changing the subject. I am free. Or even better, I want to be free. Now, do you want to be free?
-I am not sure whether I want to be free or I want us to be free.
+Now you understand what I mean.
-I do. But let me appeal to philosophy.
+Oh, not again.
-Wait. This time it'll work. Watch: I am free. I, as a free individual, want to have a free relationship with you. Once “we” obtain it, this leads to two important conclusions. First, our free relationship verifies my freedom. Second, it destroys my freedom. Now, let's restart the reasoning with different initial values. We have a free relationship. This by definition means that each and every moment I once again choose to be with you. My choice is -by construction- free. So, as long as I am with you, this is and has to be my own decision. Therefore, I get free. Hence the conclusions: My freedom theoretically creates the negation of our free relationship, since it opens up the possibility of ending the free relationship, either completely, or by limiting the freedom. On the other hand, my freedom is the affirmation of our freedom.
+You will never stop abusing ontological arguments to support your emotions, will you?
-Well, I won't, unless they don't work.
+Now, do you want to be free, or do you want us to be free?
-Both, as they are essentially the same. You?
+I'm not sure yet.