We give up true full freedom for a sense of security? Half Rant.

[Hot Action Akule]

My question posed, for those who do not wish too read all i'll type below, is do you feel that as humans we give up our full natural freedom in order too preserve a sense of society and security?



I think that if you really look on this subject you'll see that we actually do choose too give up some freedoms and liberties in the name of order. I mean, we cant do anything and everything we want and rightfully so. Without rules we would have a full fledged chaotic world where anyone can do anything. You'd have people killing and murdering anyone they choose, rape would be abundant, and being beautiful would be more of a curse than a gift. So yes, we do actually give up freedom too preserve order and society and for a good cause but we also are getting a bit out of hand. The political correctness and all this bull**** is out of hand. We have freedom of speach, yet we cant say hes black? We have too say he's african american? Yet we are called white in turn and not caucasian american? So i guess my point is that while we do give up our full liberties and freedoms in the hands of others, we also are forgetting the essential reasons behind this, too preserve society, civilization, life, name your cliche. So, why is it that praying in a public school is botchi and the outrageous ability that is given too the government. If its someone wish too die with dignity and their pride in tact, then so be it. The government shouldnt be able too decide how one person is allowed too die. They sit there and say we are playing god by taking the feeding tube out and deciding how and when someone dies, but arent we playing god in the first place by placing it in? And the fact that the government can step and stomp all over states rights and individual rights we should all be entitled too is upsetting. I know that i dont want too be in a "persistant vegitative state" and i wouldnt want too be kept alive like that, but how do i know that the government wont condemn me too such a fate because they beleive something different than me. There is no "culture of life" because as humans we are all so individually different. We each have our own culture and way of living and thoughts and beliefs and our ways of expressing ourselves and who we are. My life experiances bring me up in a way different from you or my neighbor or my teachers. The culture of life isnt using artificial means too keep a shell technically alive when the soul and spirit isnt, the culture of life is allowing someone too live with dignity and the culture of life is giving someone mutual respect for their beliefs and who they are.

If i ever get in a car accident, or for some reason i deteriorate too the point where im in a "persisstant vegitative state" i hope i have someone i can count on too release me from the shell. I dont know if i believe in an afterlife or anything like that, but i do believe in some divine power and i have my own faith and i know that it isnt right for another too decide for someone else who cant fight for themselves. If Terry made her mind up about not wanting too be kept alive artificially, i think we should honor her wishes, not make her a public spectacle. The government was the ones at fault here, not the husband or the parents, because both just wanted what was best for Terry. I think that the government shouldnt have the ability too step into such a private matter like this case and i believe strongly that we need a far more stern and definitive line drawn than that we have now. We should be able too choose our own fates, and we shouldnt have others stepping in for us.

Thanks for reading my rant.

[Homem mAIOR]

Originally Posted by Akule

If i ever get in a car accident, or for some reason i deteriorate too the point where im in a "persisstant vegitative state" i hope i have someone i can count on too release me from the shell. I dont know if i believe in an afterlife or anything like that, but i do believe in some divine power and i have my own faith and i know that it isnt right for another too decide for someone else who cant fight for themselves. If Terry made her mind up about not wanting too be kept alive artificially, i think we should honor her wishes, not make her a public spectacle. The government was the ones at fault here, not the husband or the parents, because both just wanted what was best for Terry. I think that the government shouldnt have the ability too step into such a private matter like this case and i believe strongly that we need a far more stern and definitive line drawn than that we have now. We should be able too choose our own fates, and we shouldnt have others stepping in for us.

It is more severe than you think... what US government tried to do was something that was not seen since renaissance in a civilized country wich is the Magister dix kind of law wich consisted in a single person or government to have political, magistral and economical power over the people... This lead to things like if you wanted something solved you'd better pay the person in charge cause she might favour the other just because.
This lead to the fragmentation of power so one couldn't have too much power. Bush in all his wisdom tried to go back 400 years (considering he has the intelect of a Niendertall that's a severe Upgrade to him...).
And I agree with you.

[Pale_Horse]

It's a sad state of affairs, when the government has to interfere in personal family matters because someone can not let go and admit their child with a eatting disorder has been dead for many years. Better yet when society says two people of the same sex can not get married because it is not excepted by god and the masses. So what does the high courts do they illigelize it.
Both of you are intelligent enough to know this war we are fighting is not over terrorism, but over oil, company gain, and defending the name of our present and past president.
So where does this lead us as a country. Are we better off having our government deside what we can or can not do? Unfortunitly we must as a society or become persecuted for our actions and wishes.
What is the difference between someone like Saddam, and the people that make up our court systems? Just more than 1 voice, nothing more. Where does this leave us all. Screwed.
Orson Wells is rolling in his grave. We have no freedoms. They are all a falsehood. Our forefathers set in motion a groundwork to better ourselves from the rule of king and queen, nothing has really changed. We could very well fall on our own sword in years to come and end up being our own worse enemy. I'm going to shut up not because I am tired and loosing my train of thought. I do agree with you on this. The line should be drawn to where the court system should and should not cross.

[Laharl]

Move to Canada, it's generally run better (social issues like Same-sex marriage, and the 'right to die').
Note: If I should ever be put into a vegetative state kill me. I don't want to live like that and (gasp) cost the tax payers money to keep me alive.

[Hot Action Akule]

Originally Posted by Homem mAIOR

It is more severe than you think... what US government tried to do was something that was not seen since renaissance in a civilized country wich is the Magister dix kind of law wich consisted in a single person or government to have political, magistral and economical power over the people... This lead to things like if you wanted something solved you'd better pay the person in charge cause she might favour the other just because.
This lead to the fragmentation of power so one couldn't have too much power. Bush in all his wisdom tried to go back 400 years (considering he has the intelect of a Niendertall that's a severe Upgrade to him...).
And I agree with you.

Im sorry, i cant read past sentance 2. God, if you're going too respond too my thread you're going too have too use some grammar or spelling that makes it legible.

[The_Raven7]

It's legible enough Akule, don't be such a grammar nazi here unless it is necessary.

Originally Posted by Bush

There ought to be limits to freedom.

There you have it. Is is apparent that the current administration agrees that certain freedoms should be sacrificed for our security. I frankly have to agree. Though don't get me wrong, I believe they are taking it too far with things even beyond catagorizing saving a random PVS patient as providing security, yet you can't really complain because they are providing a service that they aren't required to. The Constitution says the government can train and maintain armed forces, but in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", security isn't really there unless you loosely interperet "life" that way. (in that case, I would like to bring up Bush's statment on Terry Shciavo that "you should always take the side in favor of life in these situations". Note this is the same man that presented congress ****ed up intelligence to send hundreds of our soldiers to their deaths over "liberating Iraq")

[TrongaMonga]

Originally Posted by Akule

Im sorry, i cant read past sentance 2. God, if you're going too respond too my thread you're going too have too use some grammar or spelling that makes it legible.

He isn't that different than I was when I joined. And you were able to read my posts. So, don't be so american, mkay?

[Tipsy]

This reminds me of something I heard on the Daily Show. "The government is tired of getting nothing done for everybody, so instead they are going to try to get one thing done for somebody."

Anywho, I personally think the government should side with the right to life over anything else. Though it is right to have as it is put by the political philosopher which much of our country was based off of put it, 'unrestrained liberty', what has been going on for the past decades has begun to go too far. Our right to freedom of speech has been more hurt by our media than our government. Our government says that we can burn a flag, yet when someone awhile back used the word '*****rdly' (which is a synonym for stinginess), he was attacked by our media and was forced to choice between apologizing or the end of his political career. As for preserving society and such, the society of the United States has been in my opinion falling apart for years, and it is more thanks to former presidents than the one we have now.

Better yet when society says two people of the same sex can not get married because it is not excepted by god and the masses. So what does the high courts do they illigelize it.

Actually the reasoning wasn't that, it was to stop judges from changing one of the most basic institutions of civilization. For the sake of not having an argument over it, I will neither support nor denounce this, it is just the reason they gave (though most people already know my opinion on this).

Both of you are intelligent enough to know this war we are fighting is not over terrorism, but over oil, company gain, and defending the name of our present and past president.

Yeah, and the gas being $2.37 where I live doesn't make it seem like the war is over oil. It cost me $37.00 to fill up my car with gas yesterday.

The Constitution says the government can train and maintain armed forces, but in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", security isn't really there unless you loosely interperet "life" that way.

Actually, the constitution points out that it is being made to, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...", so it isn't much of a loose interpretation, it is reading the preamble.

[Homem mAIOR]

Well, saying that you agree to give up some of your freedoms in order to have an increased security is the first step to fall in dictatorship! Read 1984 for a look at this.
I've said in other topics what I think of the war in Iraque and the incoerence of the US governement.
The war is over oil... the thing is, they are finding hard to sell oil with all those terrorist attacks and stuff...
The fact is, US of A stirred a wasp nest by going to the middle east...the political situation was already fragile before the USA went there and it is really near breakdown now! You know, it's just a matter of time before something in that area happens (like a breakup inside a country or something) and then, investitors will back of with their fundings and then, the price of oil barrel will shoot to the 3 digits ($139 US estimately).

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Homem mAIOR

Well, saying that you agree to give up some of your freedoms in order to have an increased security is the first step to fall in dictatorship! Read 1984 for a look at this.

Having too much freedom, or 'unrestrained liberty' will cause the downfall of a democracy just as fast, read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke, where much of the United States Constitution is based off.

I've said in other topics what I think of the war in Iraque and the incoerence of the US governement.

What exactly are the incoherencies in the War in Iraq? Do you have fun in ignoring all the other reasons pointed out for why Bush wanted to go to War in Iraq and only focus on WMD's even though multiple other reasons were brought up with it. Of course, you could also ignore the fact that this war is not a war on 'Al Queda, but on terror. If you do not understand any of this, feel free to ask and I will back up everything up and explain it in more detail.
(Note: Just because I am defending the reasoning behind the 'war on terror' does not mean I support it. Also, do not confuse this with me supporting coalition troops staying in Iraq until the Iraqi government can take over.)

The war is over oil... the thing is, they are finding hard to sell oil with all those terrorist attacks and stuff...

Or it could be to spread liberty. We won't know unless we are in Bush's mind, we can only assume he means what he says, but in the end, all we can do is speculate. Show me a source proving the war is over oil. I don't want evidence; I want you to prove one hundred percent beyond a doubt that the war is over oil. Don't ask me to prove it is not, all I am saying is that you cannot just throw out opinions such as 'the war is over oil' when you cannot prove it to be true and use it as a fact.

The fact is, US of A stirred a wasp nest by going to the middle east...the political situation was already fragile before the USA went there and it is really near breakdown now!

I think that is what he wanted to do, plant a seed of democracy in Iraq.

[Algazaleen!]

Bush said it was to protect us from weapons of mass destruction. If he wanted to liberate people, he would have said so.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Algazaleen!

Bush said it was to protect us from weapons of mass destruction. If he wanted to liberate people, he would have said so.

Notice how he talks about both WMD's and Saddam killing innocent Iraqis:

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world"
(2002 State of the Union)

There are plent of other speeches where he talks about it.

[Algazaleen!]

He focused most of his attention on the weapons.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Algazaleen!

He focused most of his attention on the weapons.

He had three reasons, which the Pentagon stated with, "...there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

The Bush administration believed that each of these alone was enough to go to war with Iraq. The WMD argument was also supported by intelligence data from more than one country.

[Algazaleen!]

Can you really call it intelligence when it was completely false?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Algazaleen!

Can you really call it intelligence when it was completely false?

Actually, whether it is true or not, it was still considered to be 'intelligence' data at that time, and it still is, whether it is true or not. Whatever leads the agency gets, whether from a reliable source or not is still intelligence data, even though it may not be credible. This may be contrary to the purpose of gathering it, but by definition it is still intellignece data. The point of me posting that multiple intelligence agencies said that Iraq has WMD's was just to show that Bush was fed false information, when people claim that he consciously spread what he knew was a lie to the public.

I am still waiting for a comment on the other two points released by the pentagon.

[Algazaleen!]

They had nothing to do with 9/11
We could have helped the Iraqi people liberate themselves, but we didn't. We invaded their country, and then we acted all surprised when they started fighting back.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Algazaleen!

They had nothing to do with 9/11
We could have helped the Iraqi people liberate themselves, but we didn't. We invaded their country, and then we acted all surprised when they started fighting back.

Notice how this war is called 'the war on terror', not 'the war on Al Queda'. Something Bush said awhile back was something like the only way liberty to survive is for it to live in other lands. At least how the United States sees liberty. He is attacking the roots of terror with the armed forces, not attacking Al Queda. If you take out Al Queda there will be another to replace it. The only way to truly win this 'war on terror' is to destroy the roots of terrorism. The oppressed people in the Middle East never had they voices heard partly because of western policies about the Middle East over the last half century and now the dictators. Any dictator 'supports' terrorism by creating the circumstances for it to be created.

[Algazaleen!]

The roots of terrorism lie with the US, the general middle eastern population, money, and years of history. Therefore, the only way to completely defeat terrorism is to completely overhaul the United States, which isn't going to happen, wipe the middle east off the map, which isn't going to happen, eradicate money, which could happen but isn't very likely, and you can't go back in time and tell the crusaders to "play nice".

[Tipsy]

Bush believes that the way to fix what the west considers terrorism is by creating democracy in the Middle East. If you get the people's voices heard then you can hope for a better future. As you put it, you can't go back in time, but he believes he can help fix it through armed forces by getting the voices of the people in the Middle East heard. As he has put it, Iraq will be an example for all the Middle East.