[Skybird]

Unbelievable that even this story cannot be agreed on by all, and laughed about. I surely did not expect this with this post this time, serious.

Protecting somebody else's right to have his different opinion (no matter if he can found it with solid facts or not - but it surely makes a qualitative difference) is one thing.

Protecting someone to overcome and destroy myself and turning my own tolerance against me is something totally different, and potentially suicidal.

German constitution, article 20, paragraph 4 (or 3) gives every German the right to resist - even by the use of force - to everybody who wants to overthrow the constitutional order of Germany. Beside that, we have guarantees for free opinion, free speech and so on. Only the rules that guarantee these freedoms are non-negotiable, and it necessarily must be so, else these freedoms are no longer possible. I am sure that American laws have something comparable.

Mike, tolerance is a nice thing, but if you tolerate your own destroying or your own overthrowing by the other, in the name of tolerance for the other's intention, then you are not tolerant, but - ooops, now I almost would have said something...

Unlimited, indiscriminative tolerance leads to anarchy and the law of the strongest. It is not only illogical and acchieves the direct opposite of what it claims it wants to acchieve - it is simply stupid.

In other words - one's own tolerance better should be somewhat influenced by the ammount of tolerance the other has for me. Tolerance without demanding reciprocity in that sooner or later leads to one's subjugation by someone who does not share my tolerance.