Author: Jeffrey Pitts

Is the state the source of human rights? First, let’s discuss what human rights are. According to Wikipedia, “Human rights are moral principles or norms for certain standards of human behaviour and are regularly protected in municipal and international law.” We, as humans, have rights to many things, and I could list some of them for you if I wanted to, but all human rights buckle down to just these three main rights. #1: Life, #2: Liberty, and #3: Property. Any other rights just expand from these three main human rights. And human rights can never be taken away from you, no matter what anyone says.

So, is the state the source of human rights? According to OHCHR, “Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings – they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental – the right to life – to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty.” So, as we see here, human rights are not granted by any state, but instead, we have these human rights simply because we are human beings. The state can not just take away your rights just because they feel like it. Human rights are something that no one can take away from you, so no, the state is not the source of human rights.

So, for this week in my school, I have been assigned to read the book Paradise Lost, by John Milton. According to Wikipedia, “John Milton was an English poet and intellectual. His 1667 epic poem Paradise Lost, written in blank verse and including over ten chapters, was written in a time of immense religious flux and political upheaval.” He was born on December 9, 1608, and died on November 8, 1674. John Milton is known for his epic poetry, one of which, is Paradise Lost.

Paradise Lost was an epic poetry written by John Milton. According to the British Library, “Paradise Lost is an epic poem (12 books, totaling more than 10,500 lines) written in blank verse, telling the biblical tale of the Fall of Mankind – the moment when Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, and God banished them from the Garden of Eden forever.” OK, so you can see here that John Milton believed God was real, but he kind of twisted what the Bible says about the Fall of Adam and Eve in order to get an epic poem. The theme of Paradise Lost is then religious and has three parts: 1: disobedience, 2: Eternal Providence, and 3: justification of God to men. According to Britannica, “Many scholars consider Paradise Lost to be one of the greatest poems in the English language. It tells the biblical story of the fall from grace of Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all humanity) in language that is a supreme achievement of rhythm and sound.” The style in which this book was written was clearly influenced by the epic Greek poetry.

After Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? Well, first we have to look at the definition of jealousy and envy. Jealousy means “fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions”, and envy means “desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable attribute belonging to (someone else).” By the definition of jealousy, we can see that jealousy is fueled by the fear of losing something, and envy, as we see in the definition, means you want something somebody else has. So, we can see that Satan was, in fact, envious of God and God’s position and power over him. Satan wanted that power and position that God has for himself. He thought that if he had the kind of power God has, then he could overthrow God and rid himself of God’s power over him forever. This lust for power and control is what got Satan cast out of heaven in the first place. He was envious of God’s power. He was envious and rebellious and that is what got him thrown out of heaven. But even when he was cast out of heaven, he still made plans to try to get back at God and take his power. He wanted to get revenge. So, he made Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, even after they were warned by God not to, which got them kicked out of the garden. After that, Satan and his followers were turned to snakes after going back to hell after there mission.

So, after Satan’s rebellion, Satan was motivated more by his envy of God than his jealousy of God: true or false? My answer, is true.

Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals? Let’s look through this simple question piece by piece. What is restitution to victims? Basically, a restitution can be given to a victim by an offender if the offender hurts or does something illegal to the victim. So, lets say that a guy steals from somebody and is caught. The offender (the guy who stole from the victim) has to pay back the victim (the guy who was stolen from) what he stole, sometimes even more than what he stole. That is an example of restitution to victims. What is jail sentences for criminals? I think that is pretty self-explanatory. Let’s say that a guy steals from another guy and instead of paying restitution to the victim, he goes to jail for a specific amount of time based on what he’s done. That is an example of jail sentences for criminals.

Now, which is better for society? Is the offender paying back the victim what the offender did to the victim? Or is it better for the victim to go to jail for a specific time? I will say a little bit about each of these, and make my decision then.

If the offender payed back the victim what the offender did to the victim, the victim may benefit from getting payed back, but the offender does not learn anything. The offender will just keep harming people in some way, but he does not learn anything. Why? Because the offender is not punished. If the offender is not punished, the offender does not learn anything and will just keep doing it. Now, it may help that one person whom the offender payed back (or not), but in the long run, it does not help society.

Now, if the offender harms a guy, and does not have to pay restitution, but instead goes to jail, that may be a little better for society. Again, why? Well, if a guy harms someone else, and does not pay restitution but instead goes to jail, he learns from being in jail, that what he did was wrong, and he should not do it again (or at least some people think that, others just go back to there evil ways once they get back out of jail), and once he gets out, he never does it again. He learned because he was punished. Now, the victim may not benefit, but the society definitely will.

Now, which is better for the society, restitution to victims or jail sentences for criminals? I think that jail sentences for criminals is ultimately better for the society, however, if both of these were used, the offender had to pay restitution to the victim and he had to go to jail, then the society would be better and everyone would benefit, except for the offender, of course.

And that is my full answer to the simple question “Is restitution to victims better for society than jail sentences for criminals?”

The Industrial Revolution was basically the transition to new manufacturing processes. This occurred in Great Britain, continental Europe, and the United States. It lasted from about 1760 to 1820–1840. The important technological developments were textiles, steam power, iron making, and the invention of machine tools. These technological changes introduced new ways of working and living, and it completely transformed society.

What was the standard-of-living debate? Well, the debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. According to investopedia.con, “Standard of living generally refers to wealth, comfort, material goods, and necessities of certain classes in certain areas whereas quality of life is more subjective and intangible, such as personal liberty or environmental quality.” Now, before the Industrial Revolution, several people worked on farms and traded what they made for things that other people made (this is called bartering). After the Industrial Revolution, there was an increase in wealth, the production of goods, and the standard of living. People had access to healthier diets, better housing, and cheaper goods and education increased during the Industrial Revolution. So, the standard-of-living debate is about whether the Industrial Revolution raised or lowered the general standard of living. I say that the standard of living got better, actually, despite all the negatives concerning it.

There were many different arguments that lead up to the abolition of slavery in Britain, and I am going to tell you a little bit about this. William Wilberforce was a key figure in the abolition of slavery in Britain. He wanted to abolish slavery, and over time, like minded figures joined him, which lead to the foundation of the Anti-Slavery Society. Wilberforce continued to give many speeches in the House of Commons. By 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act. This was a huge step toward his goal, but it only banned slave trade, but not slavery itself. By 1833, however, the wheels were turning for a new piece of legislation to be passed. Sadly, however, Wilberforce died only three days later. This new act banned slavery in Britain as well as in a few other places.

Would In some cases, people can better understand what the author is trying to convey to the reader if the author uses experiences of his or her life. It works better for me. Anyway, this method is very effective in conveying the message of the book to the reader. Some authors do this, but others just leave out examples of their life. Francis Bacon was one of these people. He did not give any experiences of his own life in his essays.

According to Wikipedia, “Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban PC, QC, also known as Lord Verulam, was an English philosopher and statesman who served as Attorney General and Lord Chancellor of England.” He was born on January 22, 1561 and died on April 9, 1626. He wrote several well known essays. According to Wikipedia, “Essayes: Religious Meditations. Places of Perswasion and Disswasion. Seene and Allowed was the first published book by the philosopher, statesman and jurist Francis Bacon. The Essays are written in a wide range of styles, from the plain and unadorned to the epigrammatic.” His essays were originally published in 1597.  There are lots and lots of themes in Bacon’s essays, for example: adversity and prosperity, married life and single life, parents and children, love, envy, revenge, nobility, unity in religion, goodness, superstition, traveling, atheism, truth, death, simulation and dissimulation, etc. Bacon said he had three goals with these essays, to serve his church, to serve his country, and to uncover truth. According to www.literaturemini.com, “Bacon’s essays are reflective and philosophical. The essay is a series of counsels, It is not an elaborate or discursive development of a particular subject. It is neatly direct and frankly didactic. He is moralist and his essays are meant for men of ambition in the Renaissance, which desired self-realisation.” Bacon also put some moral teachings into his essay. According to www.josbd.com, “His essays suggest us not to seek morality only by leaving practical idea. There is nothing wrong with the mixture of morality and the practical idea together. Just as no ornament is possible with pure gold, some crude metal should be added with it so only morality without practical concept of a thing cannot do.”

Would any of Bacon’s essays have been more persuasive if he had talked about his own experiences? Well, I were to say that if Bacon put his own experiences into his essays, the essays would definitely be more persuasive. The essays would be more persuasive if Bacon put his own experiences of himself into the essays. Like if Bacon had experiences in his life where he used what he wrote about in his essays, and then put that into his essays, the essays would be a lot more persuasive than without his experiences. If he did that, then we could know more about what he meant because he gave us an example of himself using what he wrote about in his essay, and we could understand it better.

Overall, my answer to the topic question is yes, they would.

Should the group in a legislator’s district that got him elected monitor his votes, and recruit someone to run against him in the next primary if he starts voting wrong? Let’s break this down real quick. OK, so lets say a man gets voted mayor of a town, and the mayor does something wrong. Do the people who elected that guy mayor last election have the right to vote someone else the next election (now, this goes with every level of government, not just a mayor)? Of course they do! Nothing is holding them back from voting for a person who is different from the original person they voted for. Now, a man can bribe people to vote for them, but the people have the right to vote for whoever they want. Now, they can vote for whoever they want, but it is the peoples choice who to vote for. Now, I hope people will make the right decision and vote for the good people, but it is their choice. And if you think that the person you voted for originally will be angry at you for not voting for him, do not be scared! It is so dumb to even think that! And if a person says that he will do something, and that helps get him into office, and he does not do it, oh well. Guess you will have to wait for the next election to pick someone else. But if a person says that he will do something and he gets elected, he better do it.

The American and French Revolutions were alike in several ways, but they were also very different from each other. In America, the intent of the American Revolution was to break away from the British government and form their own government in America. In France, the intent of the French Revolution was to change, or even replace the existing government. In America, they just simply rebelled against Britain and refused to live by their laws until eventually America signed the Deceleration of Independence and were finally freed from Britain. In France, it was just a disaster. There was the Reign of Terror, Napoleon coming to power, it was just disastrous. There were more similarities than differences in these revolutions though. For example, both Americans and the French wanted to escape the rule of their king, and the two revolutions were started by an uprising of people against unfair taxation by the monarchy. These were the “big” similarities and differences between these two Revolutions, and there are so much more than what I wrote down. I encourage you to research this topic yourselves and see what you come up with.

According to Wikipedia, “Mary Wollstonecraft was a British writer, philosopher, and advocate of women’s rights. Until the late 20th century, Wollstonecraft’s life, which encompassed several unconventional personal relationships at the time, received more attention than her writing.” Her greatest work was A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. According to Britannica, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is one of the trailblazing works of feminism. Published in 1792, Wollstonecraft’s work argued that the educational system of her time deliberately trained women to be frivolous and incapable.” She also argues that women should be given a better education.

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, actor, and poet. According to Wikipedia, “He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England’s national poet and the “Bard of Avon”.” He was born April 1564 and died April 1616. He wrote several plays and works. Some of the more famous ones are Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Hamlet, and The Tempest. He wrote much more plays than this, but these are some of the more well known ones. Shakespeare was a great writer and his works were very well known by the people back then. He wrote plays, tragedies, poems, and sonnets. He is widely considered the greatest writer in the English language.

The King James Bible was an early modern translation of the Bible for the church of England. The publishing of this book was commissioned in 1604 and it was published in 1611. It was sponsored by King James IV and I, hence the name, King James Bible. This book seems too be written by one person, but it was not. In fact, this book was a committee project. It was written by so much more people. This book was written by forty-seven people and six committees. This was a very poetic book. The King James Bible has been described as one of the most important books in English culture. It was also a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world. Originally, the King James Bible had thirty-nine Old Testament books, twenty- seven New Testament books, and an intertestamental section between the two Testaments containing 14 books of what most Protestants consider the Apocrypha.

In this essay, I have to find out if Shakespeare plays or the King James Bible is easier to read and understand. So, I have read many of Shakespeare’s plays for my school, and in my opinion, it took me a while to understand Shakespeare’s plays, but once I have gotten used to reading it, I could understand it a lot better. These plays were written in a kind of “form” of writing that most people do not use anymore, so it was really hard for me to follow along with the plays, and I usually need help to understand it.

When I was reading the King James Bible, there were a lot of words that I did not know the meaning to, so it was kind of hard for me to understand it. But I kept reading it and compared the chapters to the same chapter from a different version of the Bible, and I have gotten used to the writing. Now I can understand it a lot easier.

In my opinion, I think the King James Bible is easier to read than Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare used a form of writing style that I was not used to, so it was kind of difficult to understand, whereas the King James Bible was also hard to understand, but it was quick and easy to learn to understand the writing, and I was used to the Bible so I knew a lot about what it was talking about.

According to Lumen Learning, “The Estates-General of 1789 was a general assembly representing the French estates of the realm summoned by Louis XVI to propose solutions to France’s financial problems. It ended when the Third Estate formed into a National Assembly, signaling the outbreak of the French Revolution.” So the third estate began the French Revolution by forming into the National Assembly, and that signaled the beginning of the French Revolution.

According to Wikipedia, “The French Revolution was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799.” The French Revolution lasted from 5 May 1789 – 9 November 1799. The French Revolution began when the Estates General was called because of a widespread economic distress in France. This became radicalised by the struggle for control of public finances. Shortly after the Estates General was convened at Versailles, the Third Estate met alone and formally adopted the title of National Assembly. Three days later, they met in a nearby indoor tennis court. It was there that they took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing never to disperse until constitutional reform had been achieved. A little while later, we have the Storming of the Bastille, and then the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Then the king was executed, and the Reign of Terror began. Then we have the Thermidorian Reaction. Eventually, Napoleon Bonaparte came to power, and ended the French Revolution and marking the beginning of the Napoleonic era.

For those of you who do not understand this question, here is a quick description (FYI, this is what I think it is ’cause I do not fully understand it either), what an open meeting is is a meeting where anyone participating in the meeting can talk about any topic and for as long as they like. There are no existing rules governing taking turns, topic adherence, or other constraints on the meeting. This meeting can also be recorded by any means by anyone present.

In my opinion, my answer to this question is no. The police should not be allowed to restrict recording or taping a video in an open meeting. Let me tell you why. In many cases, an open meeting is very important to a lot of people, and they video tape it so that people can watch it later and know what happened. Also, politicians are supposed to be helpful to the people and truthful. In most cases, a politician who is not being truthful does not want the meeting to be recorded, so a politician who does not want the meeting to be recorded is not really being truthful most of the time. So really, if a politician is okay with the meeting being recorded, then the politician has full confidence they will say and do the truth, and hopefully help a lot of people. So, the police should not be allowed to enforce a politician’s verbal restriction against making a video of him at an open meeting.