m_m

But this order is still his view. Anyway, it's my mistake, yes. In the Constitution of Ukraine, for example, it is said that people are the only source of power. And people transfer this power to the president. And when something is wrong with authorities, people can complain only about their choice. I don't know about the Constitution of the US. My point was that citizens of America expressed their view on the president on their country, and Trump expresses his view on the politics. You can call it dictatorship, but it is still his view on how everything should be. He expresses himself in this way. But you don't like it. But you (not you personally) like how that performers expressed themselves. Though, they didn't have the right to "express" themselves in that way. But there's NO LAW to blame them.

And I said before, people gave him this right, voting for him. * What law does he break in this case?

Freedom of expression? Ok. Why do you complain about the politics of Trump? One of the topics of this forum sounds like "Trump administration is crippling science". Crippling.. very dramatic. No, he is not crippling science, he expresses his views on science. Also, he expresses his views on the politics of the US. He is free to express himself, BECAUSE people voted for him. It was their free choice, they gave him this right-to express his views. You don't have the right to complain. I brought this example on the Olympic Opening Ceremony. Was the right of performers 'to express' themselves legal? I don't know why you say all the time that I'm trolling, when I am not. You have a very fat troll here, on this forum, he depreciates every comment he responses. But you are ok with him. I know, I am free to withdraw myself from participating on this forum. So, let it be.

I am talking about feelings, which you don't control by the mind:love, happiness, disappointment, but not because of your unjustified thoughts, but because of someone's behavior, for example. You can't control other people. To feel I mean not to assume, but really feel. And these feelings are real. Only they.

I am not talking about legal rights. Because there are no legal rights at all, there is law. And responsibility for crossing a line. I think my words are the same: I am not talking about legal rights. Because there are no legal rights at all, there is law. And responsibility for crossing a line.

I mentioned that freedom is a limit. And that principle I started the topic with doesn't matter. Because I know MYSELF these limits. And I don't need to be told where my 'rights' end.

If it's not symmetry and you insist that performers had the 'right' to ridicule religion, then what would be the symmetry? According to you religious people didn't have the right to be offended. What right didn't have performers, according to you. So that we get symmetry.

I can't believe that I read this. Didn't want to participate in this topic, because there's your opinion and wrong. You see only one side - the side of performers. Try walking in the shoes of others sometimes. What if some group of people ridiculed things that are sacred or important to you personally? Moreover, now I think that 'rights' is an artificial concept which distances people from true freedom. If a person is free, he, or she doesn't need rights, because freedom (for me) is learned limits. He, or she only needs legal permission/ contract/document or whatever. etc I think that 'rights' is the substitution of freedom. Cicero said "We are in bondage to the law in order that we may be free." Would he need 'rights' with his understanding of what it means to be free? I suppose, no. And please don't mention women's rights, or 'rights' of other categories, because they are fictional. It's like, I take something away from you, and then graciously bring it back, BY PIECE.

Yes, smell. Hunger, thirst. Because these are needs of my body and they bring back to reality. Sometimes when you are very busy with your own thoughts, you forget about these needs, and it's not good. But i'm talking about true values. Such as honesty, faithfulness, faithfulness to one's word..I think they would resonate with 100 people. And if you asked me what is true and real, I would say feelings are real. Because our mind can play tricks on us, and you can be made to think something, but not feel it.

I was thinking about this question. I must say it is quite cynical one. Because it supposed to mean that you know how our world, i.e. our mind is created. But you don't. And nobody knows how our world is created. The fact of our reality astonishes me every day. And how magnificent our mind is. Yes, everything is in our mind, and it may seem that life is a dream. But at the same time it is so brightly real, love is real, and pain is real. And if you think that everything is a dream, or a simulation, etc, etc..don't eat, don't drink water, don't go to the shower, because sweat is illusive, and don't forget that your feelings are simulated, and what is more- feelings (love, for example) of others towards you are simulated. Keep that in mind.

This is what is happening in the world now, senses are being changed. And to not lose a sense of reality I decided for myself that one needs to stick true values. 1984 tells about values and senses.

Concepts like terms, definitions, words, language. They create the world and our reality. And changing terms, definitions, you change a sense. Like in the novel "1984" by G. Orwell For example, the word "human". It has displaced another word - man. But you can't say 'he is a kind or good human, or a human being', you say 'he is a good man, or a decent man.' Decent human being... nonsense. I think that the modern sense of the word "human" distances people from who they are.

I don't think that life is an illusion. It is absolutely real. And my response was sarcastic, because of the title of this topic. Though our perception is made up by our mind.

I don't know how to answer to your question. I just don't understand it. * Think about the concept of hunger when you are hungry. Yes, George Berkeley. Yet his philosophy was called "idealism", another concept. I think that if nowadays scientists confirmed his philosophy, people wouldn't be interested. They would laugh at this information. They just don't care. I once asked a friend of mine about the origin of man, and she said "I don't care". And some people want to be bytes. It is believed that people are apes, and suddenly can become bytes. But who cares. And this is the saddest part of this story.

If you think that life is an illusion, don't eat, don't go to the shower. Because your hunger and smell are illusive. And they are made up by your mind. We don't live in the Matrix, we live in concepts. You can substitute them, playing with words.

You haven't answered, though. What right do you need to buy a house in your country? P.S. Constitution is not legislation.

What right? Maybe a legal permission? No, I'm not agree.

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.