There's a line in the sand, where do you stand?

Question

We have governments advocating further despotic legislation through terror (of their own creation) and environmental catastrophe (of their own imagination). In the battle for intrinsic rights, where do you stand? By their side or in their way?

Answer 1

Intrinsic rights? This is subject to what is deemed yours by your very nature. If your nature is to avoid responsibility, accountability, culpability of self, then of course your rights are meaningless, intrinsically. If your nature is to uphold the right, the just, the truth, then your rights will forever be fortified not only by your efforts, but by those who will stand at your side when your very being is imperiled.

Who guarantees such rights? You, no one else, ever.

Let us not look to the city on the hill before we consult the fire in our own hearts. Terror is the response of the fearful and feeble in the face of truth and reality. This big, blue marble has sustained billions upon billions of God's creatures for billions upon billions of years. Long before man, long after man, the world, as God, will abide.

The catastrophe is really each person's inability to hold him or herself ultimately accountable, instead embarking on a lifelong journey to identify scapegoats for all one's personal shortcomings.

The world is open and free to those who dare to embrace it, and the terror we expose ourselves to is only birthed by our abandonment of responsibility, our abandonment of morality, our abandonment of what is just and right, for the sake of tolerance for that which should never be tolerated.

There is scant difference amongst men and women but in how we view one another. If we first view one another as human beings, the other differences soon cease to be different at all.

There is no they, there is no us, there is only YOU. Improve and perfect that and let each do the same.

Answer 2

Actually, I stand for education. And you should educate yourself before posting such a question. First, you are using the word "despotic" incorrectly. Despotic means 'despot-like' and 'despot' means a person who rules through absolute power. For instance, a dictator in an African country, or a Middle-Eastern monarchy. In fact, the term 'despotic legislation' is a contradiction in terms, as 'legislation' is a bill introduced into a 'legislature', which is a body of many representatives of the people, usually, though not always, elected through some form of democratic/republic process.

Secondly, you say 'governments' are advocating this legislation through terror of their own creation. Are you talking about Russia? My guess is that you are referring, clumsily and ignorantly, to the United States. Third, you refer to environmental catastrophe (of their own imagination). What the hell? Do you mean the environmental catastrophe is not real, but something that a government has dreamed up in its imagination? Governments have imaginations? Maybe you are truly referring to a despotic nation and the dictator's imagination is to what you are referring. I doubt it.
Lastly, you mention 'intrinsic rights'. Which intrinsic rights are you referring to? If this is a question regarding the United States, we have historically subscribed to a few intrinsic rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. PURSUIT of happiness....not happiness. Liberty generally means freedom from servitude, or immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority (as in a dictatorship) and/or political independence.

I assume what you are REALLY trying to say is "The United States government has passed and is continuing to pass legislation that limits personal freedoms and harms the environment. Are you for or against these laws?" If that is what you are asking, then it is a loaded question. You are asking the reader to assume your position on this topic, to take it as a given that the facts as you present them are correct. This has the impact of forcing the reader to choose the "in their way" answer, as who wants to admit to supporting a dictatorship intent on removing personal freedoms and destroying the environment? The problem as I see it is that you are a naive person who has sponged-up some rhetoric you have heard babbled from far left-wing groups, and attempted to support those beliefs you have chosen by creating a question designed to force others to support you. Almost none of your assumptions are true, even when correctly stated. Get an education. Read. When someone tells you something, even a college professor (in some ways, ESPECIALLY a college professor), be skeptical. Read and listen to all sides of an issue. Remember, college campuses (and even high schools) have been proven by years of research to tilt with a strong and certain bias to the left. There are many explanations for this, including the ivory tower phenomenon, where professors become sheltered from years (even decades) of college living and dont understand the realities of the real world. Most professors went from high school, to college, to graduate school,. and then to a position teaching at a university--it is a very sheltered, sometimes naive, existence. So where do I stand? Nowhere. Each instance requires a separate judgement be made. Anytime someone paints everything with the brush of a certain color, I tend to be suspicious of them, whether they are Republican, Democrat, French, Russian, etc.

Answer 3

I entirely agree. They've both become excuses for a huge extension of government power. In real terms, the effects of terrorism are negligible, much less than the number killed on the roads, for example - unless and until they can get hold of nuclear weapons, mind. As for global warming, it is far from proved 1. that it exists at all as a global phenomenon; 2. that it is caused by humans; 3. that it would be any sort of disaster.
They tell us half the icepacks have melted! I remember my teacher telling us that if they all melted, everything except the top three feet of the nearby church steeple would be under water. Now half has melted, and I can't see any change! Someone is lying somewhere.
I think you can see where I stand.

Answer 4

Wow, lots of essays. Lots of ranting. The question really is quite simple, there's no need to deconstruct each sentence.

I think it is quite clear that in recent years, Western governments traditionally set up to preserve and promote the (self-defined) interests of "freedom" and "justice", have in fact revoked many of the "rights" they previously established.

And this is done in the name of "counter-terrorism", which raises interesting questions about the definitions used and the political agenda of the parliamentary elite.

But the "line in the sand" is clearly drawn. I'm no fan of the government and I've always declared myself anti-establishment...

However, I stand beside the police force and the judiciary in any crusade (for this is exactly what it is - though no-one likes to admit it) against radical Islam. Religious extremism is undoubtedly the greatest plague ever to poison the Earth. I depise it.

I cannot stand the thought of zealots and madmen fully legitimising the slaughter of "unbelievers" in the name of their God. In the 21st century, this is ludicrous.

Although I disagree with the extent of the "despotic legislation" currently being enacted, I would far rather sacrifice these freedoms than concede an inch of ground to bigoted fundamentalists.

Amen. [sic]

Answer 5

Intrinsic human rights? kid, what are you talking about? Human Rights have been set up, written down. Once, in August 26, 1791, by the French National Assembly and again by United Nations. On top of that there's a few OBLIGATIONS we have, also intrinsically. We have obligations to society, obligations to the environment, obligations to human history, obligations not to infringe on the rights of others. Like, for example, your SUV makes it harder for all of us to live in this planet, and it is therefore an infringement on my right to clean air. or say, the US gov. follows a policy which wreacks havoc in the middle east and thereby motivates a whole generation of islamic militants (terrorism is the wrong word, it is a tactic used by the US as well as muslim militants, conservationists and most governments) is an infringement on my right to live free from fear. See, now i have to worry about buildings blowing up, whereas if the US gov kept its soldiers from killin innocent people world wide, there wouldnt be people world wide happy to see US buildings blowing up...

Answer 6

I will take action and not idly stand in the sand; pacifism will be the death of liberty.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Answer 7

As I am doing a lot in these past few years, I am against them. They don't need to be as controlling as they want to.

Oh, and by the way Partisanshipsux; You really don't need to use suicide so loosely. It's inconsiderate to those of us who have been deeply touched by it. Do try and feel more empathy towards the feelings and opinions of others

Answer 8

Can't you see where I'm standing? I'm the guy with the sign that says "I told you so".

Of course, that's mostly because your description fits both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Answer 9

I try to get in the way as much as possible. I want to excersize what rights I have left as a citizen.

Answer 10

i stand in front of my wife and children, i think governments rely on the majority of us being to busy or fearfull for us to take action against them. what has happened to assasination, there has not been any for a while and the time is definitley right.