Obama supports "Ground Zero Mosque" (of course he does)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What happens is this: Someone says something. Rather than discuss it you immediately jump on that and launch into a huge lecture about how that person doesn't know what they're talking about, and an even bigger lecture about how you're right and they're wrong and that's the fact. If anyone tries to argue with you, you attempt to shout them down with even more lecturing. Your problem is that there is no room in your world for debate - you're right and everyone else had better listen.

Quatsch. You exposed yourself with a defintion of total freedom that ignored a vital inner contradiction, whzich I pointed out in my onw words as well as the descritpion of that same porblem in Popper's work entitled "The Free Society". That contradiction that you are unable to solve, is vital, and most important. But now you accuse me of lecturing - while you time and again have fallen back to that dogma of yours "if you take away the smallest ammount of freedom away from freedom for those who seek to destroy it, then you are not free yourself anymore". Not before yesterday you managed to get yourself moving at least a little bit, very slightly away from that dead end of thinking.

In the one case you run the risk of, as you say, allowing the bad guys to misuse and abuse it against you. But in the other you run the risk of, as I've said, becoming the very thing you hate. It's a fine line - so fine sometimes that it is invisible, and too far on either side of it is a danger to everyone.

you overlook one thing. Popper in his formulation refers to the the mnaifestation of the inention to destroy freedom, the intention to destroy it is real in his formulation. I also do not refer to just a potentially dangerous thing, or to just a suspicion that there might be a potential chance of the other (Islamic ideology and radcial Islamic organisations)
possibly trying to destroy freedom - I made it clear time and againt uhat it already is proving this intention by acting according to it. I am neither the total destroyer of a free society that you try to label me as, nor am I easymindedly want to act in preemptive action. both Popper and me base in our advise that the attekpt of the other to abuse freedom in order to destroy it, is a proven fact. maybe that is what you have not understood so far. If it only would be an irrational fear of eventually, maybe, possibly, damage might be done if freedom for the opposiunf side is not limited, then I would agree with you in so far that I would say: a suspicion alone is not enough, it needs to be proven before we act against them in order to defend ourselves. But in Popper's formulation of the tolerance-dilemma and freedom-dilemma as well as in my argument agaisnt islam and especially the initiators of the Cordoba initiave you should see that the agenda of destryiung freedom is a give, proven fact, that must no longer just be assumed to be like that.

You say I'm absolute in my thinking. I say the same about you. For me the "absolute" is a starting point - the defining idea to be worked from. I don't know about your "absolute" because you never discuss it - you just jump on people and try to lecture them into submission.

As I see it, you think your motives and goals are better than theirs, but yet again the bottom line is the same: you both are enemies of freedom.

and again you demosntrate that you only know total, absolute freedom, or no freedom at all: you say I take away freedom in general. The implication of that would be that i mean to make them as well as us total slaves, totally unfree. As a matter of fact I lined out just this all the time, and will you finally, finally after this long time please please please understand this: Your absolute, total freedom that you intend to give even to those who try to use that freedom in order to indeed destroy all freedom means that you necessarily accept in your conception of freedom that oyu must be overwhöemened by them, and freedom taken away from you. And i did not suggest more than to maybe withhold these others those freedoms that they need to crush our all very freedom and replace it with their ideology that knbows no freedom at all. nowehere I said that I want to take away all freedom. Nowehere i said that I want to keep freedom away from you or us. I talk about withholding some freedom for some people - those freedoms that aloow them to become successful, and those people who run the project of destroying freedom. If you only argue in absolutes, in all-or-nothing-at-all, and cannot differ between "us" and "them", then I understand that it might be impossible for you to understand me. But I would insist on that this would be a problem deriving from your thinking, not mine. As I pointed out: I am in conformity with principles of our own constitution, principles of law enforcement and police's moral basis of work, and I strongly, l very strongly must assume that if I would examine american laws and constitutional texts carefully, then I would find similiar pendants there as well. Becasue your nation uses to protect itself and defend itself agaimnst extremnists trying to destroy it or to limit the rule of law or federal government as well, and you cannot tell me that all this is running on a basis of illegality since two hundred years!