[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

But now you accuse me of lecturing - while you time and again have fallen back to that dogma of yours "if you take away the smallest ammount of freedom away from freedom for those who seek to destroy it, then you are not free yourself anymore". Not before yesterday you managed to get yourself moving at least a little bit, very slightly away from that dead end of thinking.

You're right; anyone who holds a different opinion is wrong; my thinking has no merit at all - it is "dead-end".

How is that not a lecture?

You sound to me just like a guy I talk with every now-and-then. He's a devout Communist, but the idealogy is unimportant. What is important is that every time I see him the first thing he says is "Have we reached a consensus yet?" I have to remind him that I'm not blind to the fact that he's not really interested a consensus. What he's really asking is "Have you come around to my way of thinking yet?"

You're the same. There is no question but that you are right, and anybody who disagrees is wrong, and needs to be taught the truth. So yes, you do lecture.

you overlook one thing. Popper...

And another interminable tribute to the greatest man who ever lived.

and again you demosntrate that you only know total, absolute freedom, or no freedom at all: you say I take away freedom in general.

And of course all this came about because I support the legal right of someone to erect a building.

The implication of that would be that i mean to make them as well as us total slaves, totally unfree As a matter of fact I lined out just this all the time, and will you finally, finally after this long time please please please understand this:

Lecturing again. I don't think you mean to make us total slaves. What I do think is that your mindset will lead to exactly that, and you don't see it. That is what makes you dangerous to my mindset.

Your absolute, total freedom that you intend to give even to those who try to use that freedom in order to indeed destroy all freedom means that you necessarily accept in your conception of freedom that oyu must be overwhöemened by them, and freedom taken away from you.

Your idea of what I said, not what I actually ever said. I allow that they must be allowed to speak, and to build. I allow that the law must not be changed specifically for them, but that they must be watched closely, as should all who would take away freedom. What you don't see is that to my mind that applies to you as well.

You have consistently railed against my thinking and lectured me on how wrong I am. What you have not done once is defend yourself against my accusation that you are as bad as them. I don't see you as any different. Show me that I'm wrong on that.

And i did not suggest more than to maybe withhold these others those fredoms that they need to crush our all very freedom and replace it with their ideology that knbows no freedom at all. nowehere I said that I want to take away all freedom. Nowehere i said that I want to keep freedom away from you or us. I talk about withholding some freedom for some people - those freedoms that aloow them to become successful, and those people who run the project of destroying freedom.

And you apparently fail to see that every dictator, every tyrant who has betrayed, destroyed and crushed people has at some point said exactly the same thing: "It's only a little freedom." "It's only for someone else, not you." "I'm doing it for your own good."

Do you start to see it now? Can you show me that I'm wrong on this one? Can you show me that you are not a danger to everything I believe in?