I believe some clarification is needed. To whom is this "Wants and Needs" addressed?

Does it refer to you being alive or does it refer to you being human?

He meant it like this:
"Is the mind capable of creating ideas or concepts that are exclusive to one's mind?"
If so, then the mind is infinite, for it is possible for the mind to create an infinite amount of new ideas.
The debate centers around the idea of whether such a mind can create new ones.

It isn't necessarily an invalid question since we were talking of the abstract and not the physical.

Thank you very much for clarifying my point.

Despite that, I would need to argue that there is no real need to be so abrasive and call for revolution. The use of the gun must only be tolerated when the use of the pen is useless.

Revolution is extremely costly and I would argue that utilizing the bureaucratic process will be more efficient though slow-paced.

You may ask: What are costs of revolution?

Well, there is bloodshed. There is chaos. There is the risk from the government declaring you as 'rebels' and 'trying to secede from the state' and that's detrimental to your purpose. A revolution would also polarize the spectrum further. Revolution is used by radicals and while the milder ones keep themselves safe under the jurisdiction of the law.

However, I would like to remind you all that the main contention in the first place was how we ought to act and choose.

Look at it this way:

- An unpopular notion is founded by a group of individuals whose voice is not necessarily heard well.
- This unpopular notion is continually opposed by the government to protect order.
- This notion becomes popular through many different means (some candidate gets enough backing, the notion getting enough backing, revolution, etc.)
- Since the notion has now grown into a popular one, the government ought to listen to this idea; Except when they don't, and that's where the main contention arises.
- The notion is upheld and changes the system little by little.

To clarify, not all choices are equally costly and equally efficient.
In my opinion, a revolution is WAY costly than creating a 'democratic front' and pushing forward change through rallies and speeches.

An armed revolution is way detrimental than a step-by-step push for change i.e, rallies, voting and such.

Freedom only exists in varying degrees. There is no one instance of governance which completely guarantees absolute freedom of speech. Even democracies cannot boast unrestricted freedom. And this concept is not entirely morally wrong. Unadulterated freedom is extremely toxic and destructive. Freedom of speech can cause rebellions, revolutions, and chaos. Yes, these actions may be necessary for morally just changes in society, but a morally evil means never fully justifies a morally good end.

Now, let me deal with the first problem: what degree of freedom, in this case - speech, is beneficial to society as a whole?

Pragmatically speaking, freedom of speech must be based on fact and evidence. It must go through due process of law. This freedom of speech must be used for the betterment of the aggregate sectors of the society and not for a certain group of people. This is the ideal.

However, it is part of the self-interest of the government or ruling authority to control this freedom of speech to purely grow their sector. They would only allow government-supporting propaganda and they would shut down opposing outlets in media. Given this, a strong vocal opposition is a sign of a healthy free society.

Although another issue arises: what if this opposition is contradicting a categorical imperative, or an ideal in itself. For example, the neo-Nazis advocating for the silencing of the LGBTQ+ community. Is this still provisioned by free speech? In my definition of the ideal degree of the freedom of free speech, I would need to say 'no'. Any speech openly soliciting violence must be stopped. The government must see that EVERY right of EVERY sector of the populace is upheld. If another party uses their freedom of speech to violate someone's rights then the said party is at fault.

Simply put, the limits of ideal freedom is summed up in this statement: my freedoms ends at your freedoms; when my rights violates yours, then I am at fault.

Onto the main discussion, why are do governments fail to uphold this ideal freedom?

Simple. They find it disadvantageous. They find it chaotic. They find it radical. And the government is an extremely conservative body. Especially in Ukraine or in the Middle East.

If I walked down the streets of Kiev, demanding the betterment of the conditions of the common people, then clearly, the government will not see me in a good light. Take it like this: the government is extremely stubborn and unwilling to change drastically. And in Ukraine, it is especially rampant. Their indifference is a plague that kills the common people.

Alas, the title of this discussion resonates the question: "Do we have the right to choose?"

As a common person? No.
As a radical? No.
As a man with no support? No.

The only way to create change is to bet on someone liberal in the government to make small steps to the right.

The paradigm is simple.

1. The people want something to better themselves and society.
2. This concept is countering the plans of the government.
3. The government rejects this proposition with words and/or action.
4. The people would elect someone to change it.
5. The person elected would make small changes to create betterment of society.
6. The person is no longer interested and is now into the government.
7. Rinse and repeat.

Wishing the Best,
NuncAmissa

I believe that our minds cannot create new concepts out of pure nothing. However, given even a small amount of input (data), a larger concept or idea can be made. Hypothetically speaking, one cannot create anything from nothing. This denotes that, in a completely blank mind, ideas can only be created from outside stimuli.

Going to the color example given, I would argue that the mind is capable to modify any color. For example, Purple: a combination of red and blue. From that idea, we can create the idea of a lighter shade or a darker hue. The mind is extremely flexible and changing. It is able to twist reality with something we call 'imagination.'

This concept is seen in hallucinations or in dreams. Clearly, I have never seen an ominous man on my ceiling in real life, but my mind is capable of imagining it. However, I have SEEN ominous men and stalkers by the streets. The mind is only able to modify experiences or build from old ideas. Not create new ones from scratch.

One can imagine new concepts because old concepts were present. There has always been a need for input.

Best Wishes,
NuncAmissa

The problem lies in the perception of the individual. This discussion assumes that the definition of 'play' is downplayed by knowing the practical purposes beyond enjoyment or recreation. However, I believe that it boils down to the main or primary purpose for the action.

For example, dancing. If I were to dance around in the hallways of my school for the sole reason that I want to swing my arms around, then that is play. If I were to practice box waltz for my upcoming formal meet, then that would be something other than play.

Put simply, the definition of 'play' is subjective and is purely reliant on the purpose or reasoning for doing the act.

Punishment is not exclusive to revenge. Punishment may also take the form of penalties exacted upon an individual or group of individuals by the state or government. Revenge, in the other hand, is exclusively made by the victimized against the offender.

I believe such a definition would fit this discussion better.

From that basic assumption, we can further expound on the idea of criminal justice. The concept of criminal justice is based upon the idea that the state remains neutral upon the case given and is simply the enforcer of the law. If the offender breaks the law, the state must enact the punishment. If no law is broken, then the state must remain neutral and stoic.

In comparison to this, the victimized ( like in your example, the guy whose wife got raped ) would surely be biased against the offender. The problem lies in the idea that punishment must be enacted in a neutral perspective and not in some biased outlook.

Now, this may sound legalistic, but the principle remains unmoved. Morally righteous punishments must be enacted by a neutral party, and not from a bias, to ensure the protection of the offender from excessive action.

Why is it necessary to protect the offender?

The offender is human and has rights. These rights are unalienable and thus must be upheld regardless of situation. Simply put, you wouldn't want someone to murder your entire bloodline just because you murdered some guy from this one clan. One must not exaggerate the punishment. But that's not the focus of this discussion, so let me move forward to my main problem.

Onto moral pain, I would like to ask how you would define that. Moral pain is quite a vague term. Please supplement us with an example or maybe a definition so that we may discuss this further.

In conclusion, to be morally correct in this situation is to act from the perspective of a neutral person. Like, imagine the judge to a trial. You wouldn't want to overstep the boundaries of the punishment because the other is also human. But you also want the most for you to satiate your pain and all. Always take the middle ground.

Best Wishes,
NuncAmissa