I don't normally agree with Skybird but he brings up a valid point. At what point, if any, should a society no longer tolerate an enemy using it's own laws and freedoms to destroy it?

While here in the US, C-SPAN airs hate speech on public television - but only one sided hate speech. It's not like C-SPAN would ever give the KKK any air time to spread their version of hate! Can't we have EQUALITY when it comes to hate! :haha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOkDOXAovQ

And this jerk off in the next video thinks that just because the jerk off in the first video was a former college professor that his hate speech should hold some form of merit! Yeah, like no college professor, former or otherwise, has ever done anything wrong! :rotfl2:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com...op-150x150.jpg
Amy Bishop

College Professor AND Murderer!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISN1R...eature=related


Hmmm? :hmmm: Could C-SPAN be attempting to start a race war in America?

Holy crap! So that's what caused the solar ellipse on 11 July 2010.

I was wondering.....:hmmm:

Hey, guys, next time warn us OK? :o

:D

At least some folks are still sane and see the double-standards!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8P...eature=related

Or, conversely, at what point should a society no longer tolerate a government using laws to destroy that very society?

Who wants their countries' doors held open for this crap to continue pouring in?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM

People have it, and will turn to anything to correct what their corrupt governments have done, and continue to do, to their countries.

Danmark has taken steps against mass immigration and does not have a large rise in nazism (And, Freedom Of Speech is alive and well). The governments of some of our neighbors continue to encourage multiculturalism and mass immigration, and guess what old ideoligy is making a big comeback?

All the politicians need to do to see the cause of the problem, is look at their own corrupt faces in the mirror. Fix the cause of the problem, and the adverse reaction to that problem will melt away.

They do belive me...
 

I think :hmmm:

Waow. "Jihad Against European Crusaders" (0:35 into the video).... I thought the Crusades had ended centuries ago. :hmmm:


Note to self: If I ever have kids, make sure they understand history... :|\\


EDIT - Forgive my ignorance. It's hard to imagine that kind of public display as we don't have it here. The more I see of it on the webs though the more I begin to wonder if we should be ready for it to rear its ugly head here.

Enough eggdancing now. I must take from your manouverings that you think it is okay when free speech gets abused to destroy just that free speech. By that you certainly cannot be against anything anymore, not sharia, not Nazism, no racism, no destroying of the constitutional order, democracy and free thiught - if free speech gets destroyed because in free speech it was campaigned for destroiying free speech, you agree.

Note that form and quality of government that you constantly tried to evade to, had and has nothign to do with this orinciple dilemma. You remind me of Lance there, when he asked baout his paper two weeks ago, and got feedback that he missed the topic becasue he was to fixiated on things that were on his mind - but the question of the prof did not had asked for.

It is a very self-destructive understanding that you have of freedom in general - it lacks the concept that every lifeform on this planet calls a part of it's design: self-preservation. Without that, every structure sooner or later must destroy itself, or must get destroyed from the outside. Since you refuse to set limits for the abuse of free speech, you must accept any speech and the inention behind it. That leads to you necessarily tolerating everything there is - even that which tries to destroy you. Becasue if you would raise criterions that decide where your tolerance finds a limit, that would mean that you also define your own identity, shaped and created by just that: limits, borderlines of yourself.

Unlimited freedom that even accepts the other using his unlimited freedom to destroy oneself, jst for the sake of not needing to limit his freedoms, simply is a total self-denial, a rejection of anything one could claim as one's own identity. and such a structure, may it be a state or a culture/civilisation, or a persnality structure that knows no own borders/limits, must collapse sooner or later. Because it refuses to stabilise itself to the needed sufficient degree. In pychology, this is part of several forms of major psychosis and self-destructive tendencies like self-mutilation, masochism, and suicide. The porblem is always a variation of the same basic issue: if a persoan or a nation or a culture cannot differ between wehre it ends and the othe rbegins, "me" and "them", and cannot or does not want to say what it is and wants to be, and what it is not and does not want to be, then such a personality, such a nation or culture - is dissolving the borders between "me" and "them" - and then dissolves itself in the outside environment.

That is not "unlimited freedom" then, but that is "end of own existence".

"Der Frosch ist nicht Frosch, weil er ein Frosch ist - sondern weil er nichts anderes ist."

This is not just happening in Germany Skybird. This is happening in just about every democracy where people consistently attempt to mock and test the system to see what they can and can not get away. When they can get away with something they get more ambitious and move onto more and more taboo ideas to test against the system. They want the government to tell them "No", because this gives them a challenge and a way to sue for money and power.

Just look at how much things have changed in America in such a short period of time. Do you think homosexuality would have ever been excepted during Washington's time period? I think not. What about abortions? Nope not that either. Blacks challenged the system, then women, then gays, and on and on and on. Eventually it's going to be allowed for people to indulge in bestiality and other taboo ideas because the system just can't say "No". Why can't it say, "No"? Simple, because if you say "No" to my cause then I will compare it to other causes that you have accepted. Germany is saying "No" to any form of Nazism. While that's noble and the right thing to do, there are going to be activists that will consistently challenge the law until they eventually get their way.

You see, it will never stop. The system is designed to allow people to "freely" destroy it because "freedom" knows no bounds. And like I've said before in another post. Absolute "freedom" will lead to the world's destruction. Why? Because somebody will eventually argue that it's their right to destroy the world. If you tell them "No" they will do it anyways because who's going to stop them when nobody exists?

This reminds me of the argument on whether it is right to be intolerant of intolerance? :know:

Look!
 

@Skybird

Your question was answered, without eggdancing, in post #105.

Direct answer in paragraph #1.

Comments on your absurd line of questioning in paragraph #2.

Maybe these two guys can help you to come to a conclusion.

One couldn't put it much shorter or any better.

and while I was looking up the exact English text of the tolerance paradox, I stumbled over these nice quotes by Popper as well:

here is another side..