Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
No, it has to be the same for everyone, cannot discriminate. No double standards. And hey, if they pick the wrong leaders who franchise terrorism, that's ok, because we do not have to accept them. We can go to war and bring them down.
|
I prefer prevention, you prefer to let things break and then try to repair them. Both has pros and cons.
I cannot subscribe to this unlimited-tolerance policy, and as a German I maybe even shouldn'T, we have had two totalitarian dictatorships in just 80 years, but at least you do not go as far as many politicians her ein the EU: saying that if a rogue and villain gets elected somewhere we should and must always accept hom as a representative we have to make politicla business with. For example, there are not a few people over here wnting to negotiate with hamas and Hezbollah and deleting them from the terror list, with the explanation that they came to power democratically and have had a sufficient majority opf their people supporting them. Also, you can easily find yourself locked in more wars than you can handle.
However, we must not go to war about other people'S concerns. We can, but we have no obligation. Becasue we pay for it, and it is our soldiers who risk their lives. And I often think that it would be so much more reasonable to commit a small evil than to later repair the damage by waging war, which brings so much more evil about so much more people and being payed for by so many more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by K. Popper
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
|