Originally Posted by Skybird
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."
|