Rights

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, m_m said:

You haven't answered, though. What right do you need to buy a house in your country? 

 

In the US you don't need any 'right' to buy a house.

[studiot]

Just now, m_m said:

You haven't answered, though. What right do you need to buy a house in your country? 

P.S. Constitution is not legislation.

Of course I answered.

In point of fact I have been trying very hard to hold a discussion with you.

But sadly you don't appear to want to discuss.

 

If you read properly the basis of UK law you would have noted that you have the right to do anything that is not specifically forbiddden by law.

 

Buying a house.

 

Specifically if you are a minor, in prison, a bankrupt, not living in the council house you wish to buy, mentally incapacitated, and probably a few more reasons I can't think of because I am not a lawyer, you are forbidden from buying that house. As I said a significant proportion of the population.

On the other hand if you live in a council house Mrs Thatcher introduced a law specifically granting the right to buy that council house.

 

I will let the americans tell you about constitution and its legal significance.

Edited March 13 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

P.S. Constitution is not legislation.

It’s generally easier to change legislation than to amend a constitution. That’s why I argue that protections enacted by legislation are not rights.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

You haven't answered, though. What right do you need to buy a house in your country? 

In the US the ninth and tenth amendments state:

IX  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Basically, if a power is not reserved to the government, they can’t stop you from doing something. The government can regulate certain things about purchasing a house. That would most likely happen at the state level; any federal limits would likely be limited to things involving interstate commerce (perhaps with mortgages)

[LuckyR]

Sounds like the OP is using "rights" to mean: legal rights, whereby whatever cr4p the legislature passes is the basis for one's "rights". 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Sounds like the OP is using "rights" to mean: legal rights, whereby whatever cr4p the legislature passes is the basis for one's "rights". 

Sounds like you 'almost' get it, if you weren't already right... 🤣

[swansont]

On 3/13/2025 at 10:01 AM, swansont said:

That’s not symmetry.

The performers also have no right not to be offended. Perhaps part of the motivation for the performance was they were offended by the far-religious-right’s attitudes.

The church/religious folk have the right to say things that comment on LGBTQ people. And they do so, continually. If they can be offensive but protected from being offended, that’s not symmetric.

In case there’s any question about the US version of this right, a quote from recent ruling on banning drag shows 

https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/03/Opinion - Texas A%26M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes%2C et al..pdf

 

"To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits." (p.28)

[m_m]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In case there’s any question about the US version of this right, a quote from recent ruling on banning drag shows 

https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2025/03/Opinion - Texas A%26M Queer Empowerment Council v. Mahomes%2C et al..pdf

 

"To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits." (p.28)

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. 

[KJW]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

"To ban the performance from taking place on campus because it offends some members of the campus community is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits."

Or as Rowan Atkinson has said: The freedom to be inoffensive is no freedom at all.

 

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, m_m said:

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?

Religious people ridicule mainstream science quite a bit. Theory isn't sacred to me, since it's only protected by evidence rather than ignorance. Still, I find it frustrating that many take an easier path based on faith rather than studying what is much more trustworthy.

You, of course, have the ability to NOT attend performances that offend you, so you don't have a right to be offended just because they exist.

[m_m]

On 3/13/2025 at 4:01 PM, swansont said:

That’s not symmetry.

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.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, m_m said:

I can't believe that I read this. 

Didn't want to participate in this topic, because there's your opinion and wrong.

It’s not my opinion. It’s a judge’s ruling, and one in a long line.

 

15 minutes ago, m_m said:

 

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?  

I’d probably be upset. That’s the price of having the right of freedom of speech. I defy you to find freedom from being offended in any constitution of a democratic country.

In dictatorships, they enforce rules about not offending the dear leader and those in power. Have fun living there if you aren’t one of the oligarchs 

 

15 minutes ago, m_m said:

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. 

You seem to want to have freedoms that you would deny others. 

[KJW]

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

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.

No, the religious people do have the right to express that they were offended by the performance, but do not have the right to have the performance banned.

 

[swansont]

1 minute ago, KJW said:

No, the religious people do have the right to express that they were offended by the performance, but do not have the right to have the performance banned.

Given that they had to make up the part about it being about Christianity, it seems that they are offended by the mere existence of certain people. I have a hard time reconciling that with the basic teachings of their religion.

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

You seem to want to have freedoms that you would deny others. 

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. 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, m_m said:

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.

The performers don’t have the right to not be offended by the views of the religious, and I suspect they are very offended by some of those views. 

The symmetry is not having the right to not be offended. 

Just now, m_m said:

And I don't need to be told where my 'rights' end. 

Apparently you do

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

The symmetry is not having the right to not be offended. 

 

Quote

That’s not symmetry.

 

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, m_m said:

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?  

 

You are making a fundamental mistake in your thinking. Rights have to do with the law. That's it. When a judge makes a ruling, they don't ask 'is this fair', 'is the person being a jerk', or any other such question. They simply ask "what does the law have to say about it?" That is how they make their decisions.

If you sign a contract with someone and in the negotiations and you agreed to pay $100 per part, if the person who wrote the contract accidentally changed the $100 per part to $10 per part, then the price will be $10 per part. Even though everyone knows the agreement was supposed to say $100 per part, the law says you have to abide by the lawful contract.

You need to quit thinking about people's feelings and what you feel is right and wrong. Those thoughts are irrelevant. All that matters is what the law says.

Edited 19 hours ago by zapatos

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

Apparently you do

I am not talking about legal rights. Because there are no legal rights at all, there is law. And responsibility for crossing a line.

Just now, zapatos said:

You are making a fundamental mistake in your thinking. Rights have to do with the law. That's it. When a judge makes a ruling, they don't ask 'is this fair', 'is the person being a jerk', or any other such question. They simply ask "what does the law have to say about it?" That is how they make their decisions.

If you sign a contract with someone and in the negotiations and you agreed to pay $100 per part, if the person who wrote the contract accidentally changed the $100 per part to $10 per part, then the price will be $10 per part. Even though everyone knows the agreement was supposed to say $100 per part, the law says you have to abide by the lawful contract.

You need to quit thinking about people's feelings and what you feel is right and wrong. Those thoughts are irrelevant. All that matters is what the law says.

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.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, m_m said:

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 asked before for you to explain what you are talking about rather than what you aren’t. But what’s left? At this point it seems you are just having a tantrum when anyone disagrees with you, i.e. trolling. You’ve presented no evidence of any democracy guaranteeing the rights/freedoms you want. 

[KJW]

8 minutes ago, m_m said:

I am not talking about legal rights.

How can it not be about legal rights? In any society, it is inevitable that there will be disagreement, and therefore the need for some form of arbitration with the power of enforcement.

 

[studiot]

How does that old saying go?

There's none so blind as those that won't see, or so deaf as those that won't listen.

[zapatos]

50 minutes ago, m_m said:

Because there are no legal rights at all, there is law.

I suggest a basic law class at your local community college.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, m_m said:

you insist that performers had the 'right' to ridicule religion

They do have that right and also that’s not what they did, so here in this tiny shirt set of words you exercises your right to be wrong twice! Well done!

Give that man two medals. One for making a ridiculous post yet again, and another for when he loses the first one 

[TheVat]

Whenever someone ridicules or pokes fun at a religion, be it an artist showing Christ in a jar of piss, a Salman Rushdie novel, a Danish cartoonist mocking Mohammed, or a Monty Python bit about Catholics and sacred sperm, it is always people who were completely free to ignore it who go on a rampage to deprive the artist of their free speech rights.  And forget that the symmetry of freedom of expression is that if you don't like a work of art that exercises that freedom you also have the same freedom to criticize it, call it garbage, etc.   

[m_m]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

forget that the symmetry of freedom of expression

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.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

asked before for you to explain what you are talking about rather than what you aren’t. But what’s left?

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.

Edited 7 hours ago by m_m