So I live in a society. I have rights, especially since the rights have been extended and I have grown up in these rights. These rights were given to me upon birth. To live under these 'rights' of Safety - to live freely yet not endanger. These are the 'given rights'. In a non regulated society, dangers would not be 'lawed' against. So I live in this society of rights under the Freedom of Safety, while not causing another's safety to be infringed upon. To infringe upon another's safety is/would be to violate their 'rights'. But a problem is not in this granted freedom to live and be free; of course while not infringing upon the safety of another. 'Safety' can become a philosophical discussion just as morals have been. What is a good moral? What is a good ethic? Is it good for you or is it good for me; even while I'm given that liberty to live freely - while not endangering another life. So, safety... .what is a good safety? What constitutes safety? Is it safe for you? Is it safe for me? And so the basic understanding of human etiquette. The courtesies, the common respect, the common courtesies. The common 'law' of the land usually defines what is polite, what is respectful, what is courteous and to try to not infringe upon the common law of the land, the unspoken 'law' of respect, courtesy, of etiquette, it should become to a point where the 'peace' of the balanced 'law' is not displaced, one way or another. But all the while this should occur, the continued weighing to one side; the placing of weights after weights on one side causes the other side to need to try again. To try to be peaceful, to try to not offend, to try to not 'infringe'. And the heavier one side becomes, the less defining the boundaries becomes to questions towards such as 'morals and safety'. Now it may become, 'how am I being immoral to you'? 'how am I being a danger/non safe to you'. Rather than that unspoken 'common law' of the land, now it becomes a verbal discussion, commonly on the land, by and to the passerbys that can turn into an ugly argument... And such possibilities of verbal unwanted arguments, towards personal 'safety'; not freedom, can be a discussion not wanting to be partaken of. Other discussions, not on safety issues but 'freedom' issues, should not be so angst against, even towards or from the passerbys. These discussions are discussions which 'unite' persons.. not divide. To have a 'civil' discussion on 'freedom' while in safety should not be seen as an infringement of 'rights' Thanksgiving Day is about giving thanks. Not so much for 'freedom'.. I could have had just, if not more, free, in any other land I choose to place my residence in, to become a citizen of. Being of age and having the means to do so would allow me to 'freely choose' to remain; in any land, under any citizenship; under and to any Safety Rights' granted. So Thanksgiving Day is not about these 'freedoms'.. freedom to eat a slaughtered Turkey. Freedom to drink in excess. Freedom to lounge around with belt loosed or even naked. Thanksgiving Day is not about giving of thanks towards these 'opportunities'. Thanksgiving is given because all is 'safe and well'; especially in the neighborhood or society residing in. Dangers and hell fire could be breaking out in the next zip code or in the next county. But as long as 'this' neighborhood, this family, this society, is 'safe', Thanksgiving can usually be thanked for on thanksgiving day.