m_m

I tried to detach from religion. I brought this example to explain my understanding of rights, that they are not legal. If we talk about legislation, the question about rights goes off. Because in MY understanding rights are already restrictions. Nor I am talking about moral rights, because morality is a conditional construction, and it is subjective. Morals change over time. In my opinion, wisdom is objective. But if you are wise, you don't need rights. Maybe, a legal permission. You said that situations were symmetric. If they had no right to be offended, performers had no right to make that scene.

This is the subject I started the topic on. That my rights end where the rights of others begin. And I ask about this red line. Red line is a limit, or a boundary. That in the modern world freedom to act is not And others can cross these red lines.

But no. And Olympic Opening is an example. One group of people made a performance out of things which another group of people considered to be sacred.

Law is a limit of freedom. Right is also the limit. But this limit is subjective.

You don't need the right to buy a 1milllion house. This could be your wish, or a goal. If you wanted to buy the house in another country, you would need the right. I think that rights are man-made limits to freedom.

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[1] Rights are an important concept in law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights I don't know whether there's the scientific definition of rights.

So, when some people don't respect my rights, this is not a legal issue. I mean that rights imply some freedom to act.

I'll give two absolutely different examples, but they are combined by one idea - freedom to act. "Catholic leaders along with a host of other Christian groups voiced outrage following the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris (July 26) over a scene starring drag performers and French entertainers that many interpreted as a parody of Jesus’ Last Supper." And: "While insisting it was not questioning the freedom of expression of the event's organizers, the Vatican said that freedom "finds its limit in respect for others." https://www.usccb.org/news/2024/vatican-says-it-was-saddened-olympics-opening-ceremony And the events that took place in Ukraine in 2013, the Revolution of Dignity, and protests in Georgia in 2024 after parliamentary election. These events are "against" legislation, but people protect their right to live on their land in a way they wish. And in the first case, the words "freedom "finds its limit in respect for others" explain that freedom is learned limits and not permissiveness.

What light do you mean? The sun radiation? But yes, our own universe expands, until we expand it.

No, I am talking not about legal rights. But i met such words in the internet: "Rights: Rights have been granted by some entity. You value them. You assert them. They are challenged by others who would deny them to you. You yourself or some other entity defends them in your behalf." So, sometimes rights are challenged. And you defend them. Or don't defend.

Let's not talk about zoning laws. What about you personally, for example. To what extent are you willing to consider the rights of other people and not feel that your rights are being violated?

You see, you say that situations are symmetric. But they are not. I already gave an example regarding the opening of the Olympic Games 2024. And INow answered that people were expressing themselves. Though the Catholic Church considered that scene to be offensive. I am not talking about religion but about the way you choose a side.

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I am asking about. My neighbor has a right to do what he wants with his property, but i also have that right. And it's not about political discussions and legislation. It is about My freedom to live in my property and breathe clean air. Situations are symmetric as long as they don't involve your property or something that belongs to you.

There's the quote "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Obviously, it belongs to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. What I mean is that I have rights, and other people also have rights - this is what I stand on. Where is that line, which marks a limit for my freedom, where I am NOT RIGHT. This is my question. I just try looking from the both sides: mine and others. Right to act freely.

Thank you for your respond. As for me, the situation is not binary until it concerns your own skin and your personal life. Or we wouldn't need courts. As for me someone is right and someone is not. This is some kind of the harm principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle Why does it look silly to you? I just want to understand the logic of this principle. In a theory yes, we are civilized people, we should consider freedom of others. But where these limits? Where do these boundaries come from?

Hello to everyone. I have a very important question ( for me) about rights. There's the principle "Your rights end when another’s begin." But my argument is that, i am also others, and someone else's rights end, when mine begin. Because it looks like my rights end even without the beginning. For example, while we may have the right to own property, this doesn’t mean we have the right to use our property in a way that interferes with our neighbor’s right to enjoy their property. But...it also doesn't mean that our neighbors have the right to use their property in a way that interferes with My right to enjoy my property. So, who's is a right?

It is not about sarcasm. Zelenskyi is the president and has responsibility for his country and people. I read a comment in the internet: "both actors are from the russian theater".

Yes, Ukraine depends on the support of the US. And Zelenskyi had to be diplomatic, because he represents Ukraine, the country in war, and not himself. How disrespectful his attitude towards Ukraine and the US is. Trump cuts straight to the point, if he leaves Ukraine without support, putler will be glad.

Decided not leave? This was his duty, and not an achievement. He didn't warn people about invasion. It's very easy to judge from afar. You don't know the situation inside the country. And again, you should talk to Ukrainian militaries. How can you think for me?! On what right??

The bad thing is that the truth about Zelenskyi was told by Trump. That's why it was depreciated. No, I am not russian, because I'm Ukrainian. I hate russia and all russians. You should talk to Ukrainian militaries to understand about Zelenskyi.

No, he is not Churchill, not even close. He is hiding behind the back of the Army. People in Ukraine don't like him. This is what Ukrainians think of Zelenskyi. Make no mistake.

Thank you. I rather ask about the theory from the video above. The theory that quantum fields are conscious. What is the age of Earth according to this theory?

May I ask how old the Earth is according to this quantum theory?

There are thousands of actual statements, but the truth is one.

No, there are only agreements or subjective opinions.