[Skybird]

I do not see it as morally favourable to grant sombedody else rights and freedoms that he uses to make a society where people allowing him these freedoms would be denied these rights and even would be slaughtered. That is no sign of how morally superior such a philantropist is is, and how outstanding high developed his civilisational level is - it is pure idiotism, a sign of intellectual confusion. Reciprocity, gentleman. You want the right of free speech? Than you have to withstand from propagating ideologies that reject the right of free speech. that very simple.

Tolerance needs limits if you want to define an identity of your own. These limits decide what you do not tolerate, and what is not you. If you tolerate all and everything undiscriminatory, you do not draw a line between what is "me/us" and what is not "me!us" - andwhat "we/us" also do not wish to become or being turned into. Unlimited tolerance is a an intellectual exitus imo. Identity not only is defined by saying what one is, but also by making clear what one is NOT and what one does not wish to be. To set limits, to draw lines, to say "no!" is necessary, if you are true with wanting to show tolerance - you can only decide wqether you tolerate something foreign or not if you are sure of your own identity, your own standards, and who you yourself really are. that is neither modern, nor wanted nowadays, today every standards must be relativised until they do not mean anything anymore, every argument you give must immediately counterbalanced by you by giving the counterargument else you get labelled as "biased", and all identity must be denied and minimised so that all and everything foreign gets embraced uncritically, unchecked, and unexamined. Thus my position is under fire - but I hold this ground. the alternative is self-denial, and that I refuse to tolerate or accept as an option for myself.

Unlimited freedom is an utopia that in a world that you share with others is impossible to realise - as long as you do not accept a totalitarian collectivism where everybody is made to be equal and of the same kind so that his wishes and desires are the same like that of any other. That way, his interest cannot collide with that of others, and his usage of his freedoms cannot limit the freedoms of others. Because I strongly believe your freedom and your rights end where you start to limit the freedom of others. As long as you do not live as the only being on this planet earth, you can never have unlimited freedom. and even then you cannot have it - or are you free to breath under water or fly by the power of mind just becasue you wish you could?

A free democratic society has the right of self-defense, and for example the constitution of Germany even gives every German the right to resist even with force, if needed, to everybody who tries to overturn the constitutional order. This order is to be defended, and that is why probably not only in germany but in all countries in the West police and intelligence services, state attorneys and investigators work for protecting the constitution against people trying to violate it, ignoring it and to overturn it.

Nazism does not want to be part of the political life in this republic like any other party there is. It wants this republic not to be, and replace it with faschist tyranny, were thugs in uniform beat up or slaughter everybody not being in complinace with themselves. It uses freedom of speech to push for an order where freedom of speech is taken away from people and different opinions get crushed with violence.

Islam does not wish the constitutional order to be, it wants the ruling of sharia instead, and it demands that all other different cultures need to be killed and Judaism and christinaity needs at least to be subjugated and must accept to live as subordinates and being treated in a wanted, discriminatory fashion to let them never forget that they are subordinates to superior Islam indeed. Muslim males are not free to choose to participate in this discrimination or not - by Quran, it is mandatory for them. where they do not accept that, that speaks for them and to their advanatge as human beings, but still they are in violation of muhammad's ruling. -

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should treat these two ideologies respectful and welcoming then? why should I give them all benefits of our legal system and constitutional guarantees - if they wish to destroy this constitution and to bring people like me to silence, even to death?

For me, the case is as clear as it ever gets. It is simple, straight self-defense - not so much on a personal level (but who knows, I have already gotten threats to kill me), but on a civilisational and cultural level. This culture of ours should better not tolerate all and everything. else it raises the demons that later destroy it from within. the criterion could be wether or not some cult, group, ideology, religion, party accepts the constitutional order as is and accepts to live by the general rules it outlines, unconditionally, or not. If somebody does not fully accepts that, he has to go, better he even does not come in the first, and he has no right to demand the protection of this constitution that in the end he wishes to destroy and replace with his own ideology.

This is common sense, I would say. no legal or philosophical hairsplitting it is, but simply that: common sense. Simple, healthy reason. Don't make it more complicated than it is. I really cannot understand some complicated guys here.

Regarding Hitler, killing him early on would have prevented the NSDAP to take over Germany, for his personal charisma was a deciding factor to keep mit all together, and there was nobody able to replace him, especially early on. no taking over of Germany. no attack on Poland. No second world war. no holocaust. No dozens of million dead in Europe alone. Simple math it is. I must not think a second wether I can morally justify the assassination of people like hitler or Stalin, or not. I can, ethically, morally, religiously, and I have a clean conscience about that, absolutely. I even can agree to do it myself, with my own hands. A case of "let live or let die" cannot become any more simple than with the most of extreme examples of history like this.

I agree with SS109.xyz in that I oppose death penalty, but here the similiarity already ends again. - As I repeatedly argued, the term already is a contradiction in itself, for a penalty is sanction you impose onto somebody in order to change his future behavior and/or let him pay compensation and repair damage he did, if possible. For that, his ongoing existence is necessary precondition. Even if you want to make him object of revenge and want to see him suffer - he needs to live for that. death penalty is a no-brainer for me.

Nevertheless I can accept, in certain extreme cases, the preventive killing of extremely dangerous criminals who to put into prison would not stop them to have crimes commited in their names and by their command, crimes of a certain level of seriousness so that I rate the need to stop their ongoing as higher than the interest of the individual to live on: illegal traders with military weapons, senior drug barons, Godfathers, extremist ideological leaders, heads of groups smuggling and exploiting girls and kids and directing sexual slavery, etc. the ordinary street crimes like robbery, slaughter by passion, rape etc I do exclude, because there is no reason to assume that putting these offenders behind bars does not prevent them to continue with posing a threat to many people during or after their prison term, and sometimes people even do change and remain clean after prison. killing somebody for me never is a penalty, but eventually makes sense as a preemptive measure to prevent major ongoing harm, threat and damage to larger parts of the community or groups of people. However, it should not be a regular tool of routine, but remain reserved for the most serious cases.