It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
Also, since the school is not mentioned in the original paper, I wonder if it has anything to do with this other story coming out of Oregon. L ink
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: 8675309jenny
No, just my observation of what the prevailing values seem to be.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DelMarvel
Based on my own experience, once you've been put in a situation where a man has attacked you, it's very easy for all men to start being suspect in your eyes. It was one of the most painful things in my life to realize that I had a fear of my own father and grandfathers that was completely irrational because of one incident. But I also discovered that the only way to get past that is to confront it and push past it. Your emotional, irrational mind has to be put on a leash by your rational mind or else you risk it taking control to it.
That quote someone referenced above which reads "One person's right is where another's ends." - I think it applies more to when we sacrifice too much freedom for security. I do think there's always some amount of freedom lost, that's why they say freeedom is not free.
“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance” -Thomas Jefferson
originally posted by: jonnywhite
a reply to: greencmp
The very fact I have to set aside some of my income to support law enforcement means I have to lose some freedom - namely, the freedom to spend that money on something else. If I don't give that money to law enforcement then I'll have to learn another way to deal with crime. "Vigilance" is just another word for being responsible, often bringing along with it a high cost, which necessarily means freedom isn't free.
On the subject of trading freedom for security, I'll give an example. The drivers license! Why don't we start allowing 10 year olds to acquire a drivers license? Probably because our society thinks 10 years aren't enough. For the 10 year old, that's got to bite. Feels a bit like loss of freedom, hmm, especially at 14 or 15. Maybe in the future society will concur 10 years is enough or teenagers aren't stupid - there's no way to be perfect.
What about firearms? Should we just start handing them out to anyone?
Does hte concept we lose some freedoms for everyday things like the right to drive (at 16 or 18, not 10) or the right to not be molested or stolen from by our neighbors make you feel funny? Why? Maybe because the only context you ever gave it were freedoms you currently enjoy which were threatened. What about the people in the past who enjoyed freedoms which they could not today? They're dead, so they can't protest.
The concept I'm getting across is almost every right or law on the record involves some loss of freedom. There's no such thing as "free" in this world, not even the air we breath. But there IS such a thing as going too far or not going far enough. Finding that balance is not easy.