Rights

[m_m]

So, when some  people don't respect my rights, this is not a legal issue. 

Just now, studiot said:

 

And now you have introduced two examples of a different word - freedom.

What does that have to do with rights ?

 

I mean that rights imply some freedom to act. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:50 PM by m_m

[studiot]

Just now, m_m said:

I mean that rights imply some freedom to act

What on earth does that mean ?

I have the right to buy a £1million house.

Pity I don't have the money freedom to buy one though.

[m_m]

Just now, studiot said:

What on earth does that mean ?

I have the right to buy a £1million house.

Pity I don't have the money freedom to buy one though.

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.

[m_m]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

I have the right to buy a £1million house.

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. 

 

[zapatos]

On 3/9/2025 at 4:02 AM, m_m said:

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.

 

Those are not rights in the US. Those are examples of laws that reflect societal values, and are an acknowledgment of the potential for conflict and a desire to limit that conflict. 

Edited yesterday at 01:56 AM by zapatos

[swansont]

14 hours ago, m_m said:

So, when some  people don't respect my rights, this is not a legal issue. 

I mean that rights imply some freedom to act. 

The freedom to act is simple - no such right exists. Not as a right that broadly exists in democracies (such as freedom to believe in religion, or freedom of speech) Your “freedom to act” is severely limited. You can’t stab someone, or drive at reckless speeds, or just take things that belong to someone else.

You also described a right not to be offended (the kerfuffle with the Olympics) which simply does not exist.

[m_m]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

Those are not rights in the US. Those are examples of laws that reflect societal values, and are an acknowledgment of the potential for conflict and a desire to limit that conflict. 

Law is a limit of freedom.

Right is also the limit. But this limit is subjective. 

 

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, m_m said:

Law is a limit of freedom.

 

Complete opposite. Law is a limit on anarchy.

7 minutes ago, m_m said:

Right is also the limit.

I have no idea what that means. A right defines something you can do, it is not something that limits you. Freedom of religion is not a 'limit'. It doesn't say you can only practice 'certain' religions.

[m_m]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Your “freedom to act” is severely limited. You can’t stab someone, or drive at reckless speeds, or just take things that belong to someone else.

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. 

 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, m_m said:

And Olympic Opening is an example.

An example of what?

[m_m]

Just now, zapatos said:

A right defines something you can do, it is not something that limits you.

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. 

Just now, zapatos said:

An example of what?

That in the modern world freedom to act is not 

Quote

severely limited.

And others can cross these red lines. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, m_m said:

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. 

They were offended, but have no right not to be offended. Those who didn’t like it could simply not watch. (Only those few physically there wouldn’t have that option). I feel offended by certain aspects of organized religion, but it’s not a problem since nobody is forcing me into a church. 

I read something earlier today about how Christians in the US feel persecuted when their beliefs are minimized or dismissed, but that’s just the privilege of freedom to practice religion, and having their beliefs amplified institutionally. It’s not actual persecution. It’s manufactured outrage, and they have to go looking for things to be angry about.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

That in the modern world freedom to act is not 

And I claim that this is not a right. You are assuming it is, but give an example showing it isn’t

1 hour ago, m_m said:

And others can cross these red lines. 

Who?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

An example of what?

Poor reasoning and an absence of critical thinking, obviously. 

[TheVat]

The vast majority of restrictions on religious freedom in USA has been on non Christians who have experienced pressure or even coercion to take part in Christian rituals.  

The manufactured outrages (as @swansont put it) of the RWE et al do seem like people taking to their sickbed over a pimple.  If you feel your faith will be trampled by a gay couple who want a wedding cake then don't open a wedding bakery in a secular nation with a commerce clause in its Constitution.  The idea of limited freedom is illustrated by the reality that, if your personal beliefs discriminate against others, then you aren't free to enshrine your belief via a public business or via some enforced ritual at a public event.  The right to not be discriminated against overrides any right to act from discriminatory beliefs.

  It's really just another iteration of the nose v swinging arm filter.  Constitutional republics err on the side of the nose, recognizing that's where the greater harm occurs.  (though one could have gotten a nasty crack on the knuckle swinging their fist at Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, most of whose nose was a prosthetic composed of silver alloy)

 

[iNow]

+1 for the post but especially that last argentum nasal nugget