Just a few thoughts...

The way one lives one's life should be an individual choice. No force-feeding of ideals. No pre-determination. One should, after time and deliberation, figure out what makes the most sense to them. This includes the beliefs one chooses to hold, the actions one chooses to take, the decisions one chooses to make, and the morals by which one lives. Only after weighing different options can one come to this decision. If one chooses to believe that the planet Earth (and, in effect, the universe) is nothing but a molecule in a hot dog, digested, moving through the bowels of a giant named Gilfoy, so be it. Who has the right to judge?

If one encounters another individual who says/does/writes/etc. something in opposition to one's belief system, one has the right to complain. Complaining is a form of self-expression, albeit a negative one; no one can decide how anyone else should choose to express feelings. It's as much a human right for Person A to complain (or not) as it is for Person B to make the offending comment/action/etc. However, complaints are generally followed by and countered with more complaints. If this torrid cycle is the way one chooses to argue, so be it. Who has the right to judge? One can choose intelligent discourse or a string of negativity. Who cares?

Just because one believes something does not meant everyone else must share this belief. What makes sense to one does not make sense to all.

Ideologies cannot be quelled. As long as humans have functioning brains they will be free to think whatever they want to think. Thinking differently is not a crime.

Whether one believes the actions taken by others are right or not, it does not give one the right to force others into believe the same.

Respecting the idea that others think differently from oneself is nice in theory but sometimes difficult in practice. For some, it will take time and effort. For others it will never happen. It's one's right to choose whether or not one wishes to respect this. However, if one wishes to be respected, one will find it easier if one respects others.

Everyone is bound to have a different definition of what it means to be human. AS such, everyone is bound to value human life in different ways. These are both individual decisions (although much of the time can be pre-determined culturally) and should not/can not be dictated. Murderers still murder despite it being illegal.

When one believes oneself to be right, one generally tends to believe oneself to be the "good guy." Those with views one believes to be wrong tend to be considered the "bad guy." However, the "bad guy" most likely believes himself to be right, thusly believing himself to be the "good guy." This is unavoidable. There is no difference between good and evil, only differing perspectives on the actions one should take.

The idea that by supporting a person, one must support every action/cause/etc. this person undertakes is simply ludicrous. Suppose one has a best friend who commits murder, which is against one's beliefs. One generally wouldn't turn to this friend and say, "I support you in that decision." One can support this friend through the murder trial, support the idea of keeping the friend safe and away from the death penalty, without supporting the murder.

Change is hard and doesn't always result in anything good. However, a concerned effort to change for the better, whether successful or not, is better than waiting for things to get worse. However, hoping to "change things for the better" fully knowing this change will actually make things much worse is poor decision-making.

If one has the ability to help another, one should - regardless of whether or not repayment is ensured. It is a human right to receive help if one desires it. If one declines to help another, perhaps one does not know or remember what it is like to need help.

We were lucky enough to receive this planet as residence at no charge. One shouldn't have to pay to continue living on it. If one wishes to pay, so be it. That is the luxury of choice.

If one reads this and disagrees with everything or finds analogies to be inaccurate, that is one's right. However, the author would love to hear opposing views, at which time the author reserves the right to shift his beliefs if he so chooses.