Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
And again you evade from the obvious logic in the statement, because you insist even the destroyer of freedom being given the freedom to destroy freedom. That is too kind of you. And very suicidal. But kind.
|
Wrong on both counts. It seems logical to you because you already believe it. Please show exactly how what you said follows the correct rules of logic.
Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom". You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth. What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else. Actually not even that. What I have insisted on in this thread is the legal right to build a building. Kindness has nothing to do with it.
Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?
And quote what I actually said, not what you want me to have said so your can make your point, however off-topic it may be?
Quote:
|
Second, do not evade by trying to open a sidetrack in the discussion and distract attention to it.
|
The subject is whether a group of people have the legal right to erect a building. Nothing more. You are the one who sidetracked it into your favorite tirade.
As for preemptive elimination of anybody? Okay, you win. So tell me: Exactly what are you talking about all the time, and what do you propose we do about it? You haven't actually given us a hint about that one.
Quote:
|
Absurd, and another extreme quote because you have no reasonable arugment that would be realistic.
|
Always easy to dismiss an argument by calling it "unreasonable" or "unrealistic". You are only reading my argument in the light of what you think I've said, not what I've actually said.
Quote:
|
I'm not becoming like my enemy because I do not will him the space and opportunity and time to destroy me. With the above quote you just have rejected every cause for self-defence.
|
You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?
And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well. I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack. I fully support self-defence. Do you support free speech?
Quote:
|
If I take you by your word, nobody has the right to defend himself or his freedom because by that he limits the freedom of the other.
|
When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.
Quote:
|
If I would follow your logic, I have hindred this fellas freedom (to kill me), and I had no right to do so. If I woul follow your logic I should have accepted to get killed.
|
Show everyone here where I have once said anything of that kind. That's not my logic at all, and you know it. You are either resorting to putting words in my mouth or you truly have no clue what I'm talking about.
Quote:
|
This is not about just a building, if it were, they would evade and build a Muslim bookshop in some place that does not raise any concerns and does not offend the victim'S families.
|
Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.
Once again you build a huge wall-of-text argument, challenging me to dispute the logic of your newest prophet. I'm not even going to bother, because you have steadfastly refused to answer the simplest of questions, and one that you need to answer now:
You say you don't advocate preemptive elimination. You say I feel a need to let them take away my freedom before I'll listen. You say I have no logic.
Okay, so quit dodging the question and tell me:
WHAT? EXACTLY? DO? YOU (not Popper, but YOU)? WANT? ME? TO? DO?