[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I'll say you are missing the point. The point is that:
1) Even nominally free-speech countries often have limitations already imposed.
2) While such limitations may be debated on their merits, the historical evidence suggests that limited restrictions do not necessarily landslide into Gestapo II.

1) True. We don't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater and we don't threaten the lives of public officials. I've never said otherwise.

2) No, not necessarily, but it is possible, and needs to be watched. My comments to Skybird are based less on historical statistics than on his projected attitude, which to me seems to be that he will save us from the bad guys by restricting them for what they say, and he offers no guarantee that I won't be next.

So what point exactly am I missing?

If we grant that a station will perform the scenario, then there would be a significant viewership making it worthwhile. And after a few years, you'll be used to the fact a major TV station is running 4-hours of radical Islam a day, which opens the path for them to be running it six hours a day, then 8, and so on.

And your point is? That's the price we accept when we guarantee free speech. We accepted the possibility when we allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. We accept it every time someone burns an American flag in the streets.

Personally I think that is what makes America different from anyplace else in the world. It's what made us what we are today, and the only thing that keeps us from monarchy and dictatorship.

Having a lot of faith in people, are you? But if you have that much faith, certainly it can be possible to block Islam without necessarily leading to a cascade.

Possibly, but I don't see that it has worked in the past.

I'll say that people are creatures of habit, and while there may be significant numbers that groan at first, if it is kept up eventually they'll adapt, thus freeing the path for another advance.

Possibly, but I also see that as true of Skybird's way.

You do have to remember just a hundred fifty years ago, not particularly immoral humans thought having slaves was a-OK.

True, and we created laws to protect those slaves. And to protect everyone else. And that means everyone.

As a rule, the slippery slope is a fallacy, mostly because its proponent would tend to skip over or understate counterbalancing forces which will stop the "ball" before it reaches an dangerous position.

You're absolutely right. Now tell that to Herr Niemöller.

However, IMO there is an exception case, and that's when one side continuously feels compelled to lift their counterforce away from the balance. In such a case, the slippery slope has the potential to become fact.

And I see Skybird's arguments in exactly that light.

That, IMO the essence of Skybird's position (and if I have indeed determined his position through his Walls of Text approximately correctly, I am sympathetic to it), and that, I'll say is why Skybird's position is ultimately less dangerous than Islam.

That may well be true, but in spite of repeated requests from me he has declined to defend his position or offer any guarantees that that is not exactly where his ideas will end up. Instead he has repeatedly told me that my beliefs are stupid and suicidal, and that if I don't accept his pronouncements without question then I am my own worst enemy.

I don't have any problems with his ideas, though I do disagree somewhat. My problem is with his arrogant proclamations of my ignorance and stupidity.

The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to be extremely careful about freedom restriction (as we can see here), and though the potential may be reduced as Skybird's proposals open a passage, there will still probably be a fair counter-force left to stop further advance. The average Westerner is indoctrinated from birth to not feel the same away about Islam (and in fact most other religions for the matter no matter what ugliness may be in their Holy Scripts), so there is only a low reserve counter-force, which leaves us vulnerable to Islam.

But I'm not the average Westerner. I've been a solid Law-And-Order type, and I've been a borderline Anarchist. I've been a devout Liberal and a devout Conservative. I've been a devout Christian and a devout Atheist.

All of which has left me with the realization that I don't really know anything, and a firm distrust of anyone who claims that they do. It's the absolutist of any stripe who garners my enmity, because the person who believes something absolutely will do anything, and I mean anything, to defend his belief.

That includes Islam, and includes (for me, anyway) people who devoutly hate Islam. Both, to me, are equally dangerous.

So, what to do about it? AFAIK It is the Constitution of Western countries to either "grant" the right to free speech and religion, or "guarantee" it. However, nobody mandates that every speech and every religion must be equally well supported by society. Some views go on TV in front of 200 million citizens while others are on a fringe Internet site or a local pamphlet that only a few would have real access to. And I'm certain it won't do Western countries great harm to make Islam closer to the latter.

America does mandate exactly that. We come from a background of Official State Religions, and that is exactly what the First Amendment to our Constitution means. We do not interfere with religious teachings or practices (as long as they don't violate any other guaranteed rights, such as human sacrifice), and they are not allowed to interfere with the Government. Something as dangerous as Islam indeed needs to be watched, but the same laws apply to everyone, and ultimately this particular discussion is about nothing more than whether they should be allowed to build a mosque in a place they have legally purchased. We don't legislate morality here, and that includes declining building permits because we are offended by the reasons or the locations.

Denying that is indeed a 'slippery slope'. Who do you exempt next?