[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all.

Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.

Instead one waited, until it was too late. You follow that pattern on a similiar inhumane, totalitarian and supremacist, deeply racist ideology.

Islamic representatives time and again tell the world that they want to take over the West. Highest politicians, presidents, clerics let you know. Famous Islamic institgutions of highest rank, and univesity scholars tell their followers what to do regarding the West. It is also a message form the Quran. Can'T you just take people and ideologies by their words for which they are fully responsible, even more so when history has shown them right, right, right? And when the basic ideology on which they found, call for it? What makes you know Islam better than Islam knows itself?

Instead you now defend the freedom of speech of that Nazism that has costed your country tens of thousands of dead and that has caused one of the biggest crimes in man's history and the biggest mass killing known. For the same cinfused reason you defend other ultraextremist organisation'S freedom of speech as well, the KKK, and more. If that Nazism still is not enough to let you limit its freedoms, then it is clear that not only you will not resist to Islam either, even more so since it is not striking openly, but by silent infiltration, demograophic chnage ovcer deacdes and brain washing.

Those not learning from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper. Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it". Sorry, that is neither to be taken serious, nor is it to be described as anything different than "naive" and "suicidal". And that's why Popper had a go at it in "The Open Society": it does damage to society.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it. Instead you keep on telling me, even here, that you always take into account that you could be wrong - but that does not lead you to any consequences. To me it sounds like an alibi to actually not defend freedom where you say you are for freedom. And the circle closes and we are back to that freedom dilemma that you still have not solved, although it is a fundamental problem, and in your argument: illustrates a hopeless inner contradiction.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong. Many people think like you think. That'S why Popper'S freedom paradoxon has found entrance into literature, under the title of freedom paradoxon or freedom dilemma. Because it proves that you are wrong - by falsification. And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest - which also destroys freedom: that freedom that holds justice not for just the rich and the strong and the loudest yelling, but for all (that do not seek to destroy freedom).

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.