[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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.

And another time you evade to indicate why Popper is wrong in his warning. Instead you want me to start running around in circles, to the rythm of your drum.

Secondly, I don't insist the "destroyer of freedom be given the freedom to destroy freedom".

Imn the context discussed here, that is the inevitable consequence of your demand for absooliute freedom.

You're making that up yourself - putting the words you want to hear into my mouth.

No I draw the ob vious logical conclusion from what you say. you say it is either absolkute freedom, or no freedom, and you said that there is no inbbetween, whioch can only be understood as exactly what you said: either total freedom, or it is no freedom at all.

What I insist on is freedom of speech, nothing else.

I insist on freedom of speech not beeing abused to propagate the destruction of freedom of speech. i am in total agreement with the German constitution here -w hcih was desogned under massive influence and pressure by the United staes, France and Britain, btw.

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.

And you totally ignore the cultural implication, the symbolic implication, the claim for power that is symbolised by not just any building but a mosque. you ignore that löand.taking dimension that the erection of towers traditonally has in both the orient and the - dman, I already explained that in my last reply and you did not bother, so why should you now. i take from your reply that it is just any building then you have no püroblem with a nazi culture centre beeing erected near the gate of the auschwitz memorial. It is just a building, after all. with even less cultural meanign for Nazis than a mosque has for Islam.

Do you know that islam claims that every country where ever a muslim'S foot touched the arth shall be seen as property oif Islam, that can never be given up, never become another culture's property again, and must be defended to be Islamic until the end of all time? You do not cionvince me when you tell me that you do not like Islam. You are worried enough by it that you accept to give it the opportunity to strengthen it's options to finally overcome your oh so free society - to mock he victims of 9/11 that got killed due to the motivating power and teachings of islamic ideology, and to spread its seed even further in your free country with every damn mosque that gets build. That relatives your statement of how much you despise islam quite clearly. To me, in this question you are just like any other "Mitläufer".

Can you possibly stick to the actual subject, rather than derail the thread into your pet hobby horse?

I stick to the obnject of olur collison all the time. you just do not like to be reminded of the implications of what you say. Where as the solutiojn to your problem would be so simple: if you wish to imply something different than what you do, maybe chose your argument accordingly.

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?

Oh, I am almost fixiated on what you say and by that imply, thats why refer on both your quotes, and the implications of your quotes. And you just do not like to be exposed to such unwavering ammount of attention.

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.

A mosque is not just any building, nor is the motivation behind wanting to build one just like any other. Intersting that you also must compeltey ignore the background described in that essay I linked (no, last time I think I quoted it in full again, didn't I). Once again i refer to the historical symbolic meaning of such special buildings ( a church also is not just any building, you see, or a palace, or a tower in the heart of an opposing peope'S land). I refuse your claim - it's just your claim - that this is jst about any building being erected. You want to refuse that there is more, because seeing that would put your passive posture on the question of Islamci advance into question.

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.

I have, three times in my last reply alone. and in one of the immediate replies before that reply I also did. (Not to mention many threads in the past, but these do not count here, okay). Must I really do it once again ?

I do not, since you can already read it by yourwself, I just add another one to the list: our constitutions should be changed, so that any ideology, no matter what, that does not strictly obey and accept the strict difference between religion and state, religuous practicing and an public interest and politics, can no longer demand to benefit from the guarantee of free religious practicing in order to make its pltial gioals untouchable. Any ideology being practiced in a relgious group or a poltical party has to fully submit to the secular basic order of wetswrn states like Germany and the United states. Else we leave our constitutional order completely defenseless to islam, because Islam does not separate between relgion and polltics, and claims religious prtection when aggressively pushing anti-constitutional politcal goals.

And I add another point that I forgot earlier, just for you. We shoudl stop crucifying ourselöves over our laws if these laws get constantly and massively abused by islamic interest groups to serve against our communal interest, the identity of our nations and people. we should stop allowing our freedom and our tolerance and our laws being turned against us to destroy these freedoms and laws and to propagate shariah. Propagating shariah law should be banned as a threat to the constitutional order. Integration should become a mandatory duty by law for any immoigrant coming into our nations - without compromise. Migrants have to adapt to their new home nation, not th eother way around. Oh wait - i already had that the last time. That last time you claim I did not adress your question.

And you, personally, should be doing what is possible in america to oppose planned polktics and decisions: civil disobedience, protest marczhes if that is your cup of tea, joining "Bürgerinitiatven" against islam, joining information movements about islam, blocking thre constuction site, sending angry letters to associated compoanies, boycottying them - man oh man, there is so much you can do. Years ago I joined a civil rights mvoement that successfully prevented the extension of a mosque becaysue the addito0nal ground was bought on the basis of fraud. Since some months I am engaged again, in a less civil, more official context linked to monitoring Islamic networks and local organisations, I also help out another local movement in information campaigns again since some weeks.

And you ask what you can do? Precidntion for that is that you even want to do somethign agsimnt Islam, or that mosque. And both obviously is not the case.

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.

Says somebody who at that point just had to refer to an extreme to make his point. You declared the victim to be the same like the perpetrator when the victim claims the right of self-defence. If that is not extreme, or again aguing according to "all or nothign at all for me, please".

You don't give him the space and time? How exactly to accomplish that prevention?

Rethoric question, you lready know the answer. By not allowjng freedom of speech being absued for destroiyjg freedom of speech. By not allowing fereedom being used to plan for the destruction of freedom. By not allwoing any more special status and special rights that Islam alraedy enjoys in wetsern culture, media, legislation, public attention. It already is the religion No 1, if you consider the ammount of media time spend on Islam issues, and how much time we need to spend with dealing with it in our daily perception. And by doing all the things I just have listed two or three paragraphs before, and the reply before: migration and integration, etc etc etc.

And I've never rejected any cause for self-defence. You're making that one up as well.

Wrong, you reject the right of self defence by insisting that freedom must accept the other the freedom to destroy oneself, and one's freedom. that is self-defence, and you reject it.

I've supported free speech, not freedom of attack.

You give the other the freedom of attack by refusing to limit hi9s freedom when he used that freedom to attack you in order to destroy your freedom.

[quote9I fully support self-defence. Do you support free speech?[/quote]
Yes I do - as long as it is not used for propagarting and attemtping the destruction of free speech. The constitution of my country sees it exaclty hte same way, in case you have forgotten by now that I already have mentioned that twice. Your memory seems to work a bit selective today. I think your country does not work much different, i think. you call it not "activities that are a threat to the constitution", like in Germany, you call it "national security". Which by your logic already means that there is no freedom in your country.

When have I once denied the right to self-defence? Please show quotes. You keep making this up as you go along.

I just confront you woith the implication of what you say. and I do so as often as you bring it up.

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.

Yoi insist on freedom needing to be total and absolute., else it is not freedom. while I hindred that guy to kill me as he intended, I was limiting his freedom. which in your argument is not acceptable, because you insist in absolute, total freedom. Which implies that I just even will to get stabbed to death, else the other guy diod not enjoy this total freedom you want to give to everybody - even to those abusing it, as you insist.

Yes, it is. Or rather not about the building itself, but the legal right to build it.

Oh, it is only and exclsuievly and was from the beginning on about the cultural and symbolic meaning of that building, do not be mistaken in your intentional naivety. The plan to put it there and nowhere else, pushed by this orthodox, djihad-driven Muslim group that in other parts of the world (that are not as free as your freedom definition, btw) released publications on how the event of 9/11 and the destruction site can be used for Islamic propaganda and to drive the teeth of Islam even deeper into american legislation and media acceptance, is not just any random coincidence. Like the Gaza convoy incidcent, the controversy is wanted, and was aimed for, followed by victory and raisjng the flag of the perpetrator over the masgrave of the victims.

you maybe have no problem with that. But I have. I would sshove them their damn plan into the one ear, and out of the other.

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?

What - AGAIN...?

I have a befgame for you. Instead og counting sheep this night, try to correctly count how often I have now said that I agree with Popper on these mentioned quotes by him. BTW, on tolerance I have said like that quote by Popper since I estimate three years so. I had at least two full threads just explainign why tolerance needs limits else it leads to its own destruction and or anarchy and the law odf the strongest. Just to make that clear: I do not just parrot Popper. Maybe you mistake me with Letum. i remember that he was a great fan and reader of Popper. I have on book, in the free society, but do not think i know it in and out and can quote from it at will, without preparation. I meanwhile forgot most of it.