German Police Arrest man with "Hitlermobil"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Or, conversely, at what point should a society no longer tolerate a government using laws to destroy that very society?

Who wants their countries' doors held open for this crap to continue pouring in?:



People have it, and will turn to anything to correct what their corrupt governments have done, and continue to do, to their countries.

Danmark has taken steps against mass immigration and does not have a large rise in nazism (And, Freedom Of Speech is alive and well). The governments of some of our neighbors continue to encourage multiculturalism and mass immigration, and guess what old ideoligy is making a big comeback?

All the politicians need to do to see the cause of the problem, is look at their own corrupt faces in the mirror. Fix the cause of the problem, and the adverse reaction to that problem will melt away.

Enough eggdancing now. I must take from your manouverings that you think it is okay when free speech gets abused to destroy just that free speech. By that you certainly cannot be against anything anymore, not sharia, not Nazism, no racism, no destroying of the constitutional order, democracy and free thiught - if free speech gets destroyed because in free speech it was campaigned for destroiying free speech, you agree.

Note that form and quality of government that you constantly tried to evade to, had and has nothign to do with this orinciple dilemma. You remind me of Lance there, when he asked baout his paper two weeks ago, and got feedback that he missed the topic becasue he was to fixiated on things that were on his mind - but the question of the prof did not had asked for.

It is a very self-destructive understanding that you have of freedom in general - it lacks the concept that every lifeform on this planet calls a part of it's design: self-preservation. Without that, every structure sooner or later must destroy itself, or must get destroyed from the outside. Since you refuse to set limits for the abuse of free speech, you must accept any speech and the inention behind it. That leads to you necessarily tolerating everything there is - even that which tries to destroy you. Becasue if you would raise criterions that decide where your tolerance finds a limit, that would mean that you also define your own identity, shaped and created by just that: limits, borderlines of yourself.

Unlimited freedom that even accepts the other using his unlimited freedom to destroy oneself, jst for the sake of not needing to limit his freedoms, simply is a total self-denial, a rejection of anything one could claim as one's own identity. and such a structure, may it be a state or a culture/civilisation, or a persnality structure that knows no own borders/limits, must collapse sooner or later. Because it refuses to stabilise itself to the needed sufficient degree. In pychology, this is part of several forms of major psychosis and self-destructive tendencies like self-mutilation, masochism, and suicide. The porblem is always a variation of the same basic issue: if a persoan or a nation or a culture cannot differ between wehre it ends and the othe rbegins, "me" and "them", and cannot or does not want to say what it is and wants to be, and what it is not and does not want to be, then such a personality, such a nation or culture - is dissolving the borders between "me" and "them" - and then dissolves itself in the outside environment.

That is not "unlimited freedom" then, but that is "end of own existence".

"Der Frosch ist nicht Frosch, weil er ein Frosch ist - sondern weil er nichts anderes ist."

Originally Posted by Skybird

Enough eggdancing now. I must take from your manouverings that you think it is okay when free speech gets abused to destroy just that free speech. By that you certainly cannot be against anything anymore, not sharia, not Nazism, no racism, no destroying of the constitutional order, democracy and free thiught - if free speech gets destroyed because in free speech it was campaigned for destroiying free speech, you agree.

Note that form and quality of government that you constantly tried to evade to, had and has nothign to do with this orinciple dilemma. You remind me of Lance there, when he asked baout his paper two weeks ago, and got feedback that he missed the topic becasue he was to fixiated on things that were on his mind - but the question of the prof did not had asked for.

It is a very self-destructive understanding that you have of freedom in general - it lacks the concept that every lifeform on this planet calls a part of it's design: self-preservation. Without that, every structure sooner or later must destroy itself, or must get destroyed from the outside. Since you refuse to set limits for the abuse of free speech, you must accept any speech and the inention behind it. That leads to you necessarily tolerating everything there is - even that which tries to destroy you. Becasue if you would raise criterions that decide where your tolerance finds a limit, that would mean that you also define your own identity, shaped and created by just that: limits, borderlines of yourself.

Unlimited freedom that even accepts the other using his unlimited freedom to destroy oneself, jst for the sake of not needing to limit his freedoms, simply is a total self-denial, a rejection of anything one could claim as one's own identity. and such a structure, may it be a state or a culture/civilisation, or a persnality structure that knows no own borders/limits, must collapse sooner or later. Because it refuses to stabilise itself to the needed sufficient degree. In pychology, this is part of several forms of major psychosis and self-destructive tendencies like self-mutilation, masochism, and suicide. The porblem is always a variation of the same basic issue: if a persoan or a nation or a culture cannot differ between wehre it ends and the othe rbegins, "me" and "them", and cannot or does not want to say what it is and wants to be, and what it is not and does not want to be, then such a personality, such a nation or culture - is dissolving the borders between "me" and "them" - and then dissolves itself in the outside environment.

That is not "unlimited freedom" then, but that is "end of own existence".

"Der Frosch ist nicht Frosch, weil er ein Frosch ist - sondern weil er nichts anderes ist."

This is not just happening in Germany Skybird. This is happening in just about every democracy where people consistently attempt to mock and test the system to see what they can and can not get away. When they can get away with something they get more ambitious and move onto more and more taboo ideas to test against the system. They want the government to tell them "No", because this gives them a challenge and a way to sue for money and power.

Just look at how much things have changed in America in such a short period of time. Do you think homosexuality would have ever been excepted during Washington's time period? I think not. What about abortions? Nope not that either. Blacks challenged the system, then women, then gays, and on and on and on. Eventually it's going to be allowed for people to indulge in bestiality and other taboo ideas because the system just can't say "No". Why can't it say, "No"? Simple, because if you say "No" to my cause then I will compare it to other causes that you have accepted. Germany is saying "No" to any form of Nazism. While that's noble and the right thing to do, there are going to be activists that will consistently challenge the law until they eventually get their way.

You see, it will never stop. The system is designed to allow people to "freely" destroy it because "freedom" knows no bounds. And like I've said before in another post. Absolute "freedom" will lead to the world's destruction. Why? Because somebody will eventually argue that it's their right to destroy the world. If you tell them "No" they will do it anyways because who's going to stop them when nobody exists?

[Platapus]

This reminds me of the argument on whether it is right to be intolerant of intolerance?

[Gerald]

http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/FreeSpeechZone.jpg

@Skybird

Your question was answered, without eggdancing, in post #105.

Direct answer in paragraph #1.

Comments on your absurd line of questioning in paragraph #2.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

This reminds me of the argument on whether it is right to be intolerant of intolerance?

Maybe these two guys can help you to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Karl Popper

The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: 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.

Originally Posted by Thomas Mann

Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

One couldn't put it much shorter or any better.

[Skybird]

and while I was looking up the exact English text of the tolerance paradox, I stumbled over these nice quotes by Popper as well:

Although I consider our political world to be the best of which we have any historical knowledge, we should beware of attributing this fact to democracy or to freedom. Freedom is not a supplier who delivers goods to our door. Democracy does not ensure that anything is accomplished — certainly not an economic miracle. It is wrong and dangerous to extol freedom by telling people that they will certainly be all right once they are free. How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues. The most we can say of democracy or freedom is that they give our personal abilities a little more influence on our well-being.

It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. ... Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by thorn69

This is not just happening in Germany Skybird. This is happening in just about every democracy where people consistently attempt to mock and test the system to see what they can and can not get away. When they can get away with something they get more ambitious and move onto more and more taboo ideas to test against the system. They want the government to tell them "No", because this gives them a challenge and a way to sue for money and power.

Just look at how much things have changed in America in such a short period of time. Do you think homosexuality would have ever been excepted during Washington's time period? I think not. What about abortions? Nope not that either. Blacks challenged the system, then women, then gays, and on and on and on. Eventually it's going to be allowed for people to indulge in bestiality and other taboo ideas because the system just can't say "No". Why can't it say, "No"? Simple, because if you say "No" to my cause then I will compare it to other causes that you have accepted. Germany is saying "No" to any form of Nazism. While that's noble and the right thing to do, there are going to be activists that will consistently challenge the law until they eventually get their way.

You see, it will never stop. The system is designed to allow people to "freely" destroy it because "freedom" knows no bounds. And like I've said before in another post. Absolute "freedom" will lead to the world's destruction. Why? Because somebody will eventually argue that it's their right to destroy the world. If you tell them "No" they will do it anyways because who's going to stop them when nobody exists?

http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-...us-court-rules

Originally Posted by Vendor

http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-...us-court-rules

[Skybird]

Since some people make any limiting of "free speech" such an issue here when it is about pouring out supremacist hate propaganda in Germany having the potential to relativise the crimes of the Nazi era and to raise new such troubles, let'S look at america - where the federal appeal court in NY has just sacked a law that prohibited not hate speech of this kind - but simple cursing on TV, even a single word that by modern standards is considered pretty much as maybe vulgar but still contemporary speech:

http://www.welt.de/fernsehen/article...ht-werden.html

The "puritan" media control FCC had released rules against unwanted words on TV, these rules go back to the 70s, and congress raised the penalties to over 300,000 dollars for using for example the F-word.

This was just the first English source I found to verify the German article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_644837.html

Originally Posted by Skybird

Since some people make any limiting of "free speech" such an issue here when it is about pouring out supremacist hate propaganda in Germany having the potential to relativise the crimes of the Nazi era and to raise new such troubles, let'S look at america - where the federal appeal court in NY has just sacked a law that prohibited not hate speech of this kind - but simple cursing on TV, even a single word that by modern standards is considered pretty much as maybe vulgar but still contemporary speech:

http://www.welt.de/fernsehen/article...ht-werden.html

The "puritan" media control FCC had released rules against unwanted words on TV, these rules go back to the 70s, and congress raised the penalties to over 300,000 dollars for using for example the F-word.

This was just the first English source I found to verify the German article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_644837.html

And the court just threw the FCC's rules into the trash can.
Free Speech: 1
Puritan Controls: 0

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

And the court just threw the FCC's rules into the trash can.
Free Speech: 1
Puritan Controls: 0

Yes, what I said. but for decades you allowed these rules to be there, to be put into place via a campaigning and lobbying religious camp, and violations sanctioned with hilariously high penalties.

What took you so long?

Meanwhile, limitations also of media's abilities to report freely about the government'S actions have been enforced by the Patriot Act.